The Emergence of the Digital “Card”

The great Candy Digital debate — Icons or Gems? Obviously, the correct answer is both, but more recently I’ve been seeing indicators that may lead me down the path of Icons. My personal preference in digital collecting has always been a video based collectible, while still appreciating the static digital version of cards like the current Icon format.

The line of thinking is that the video collectible is a superior product to a static image type digital card. We’ve screamed it from the rooftops for years since NBA Top Shot launched, then eventually the launches from Candy MLP and NFL All Day, that the video is far superior than your static image cardboard cards. I still believe in that battle cry, but lately I’ve found myself asking, are “static” digital cards actually the form of digital collectibles that could onboard more traditional physical collectors than video? I’m a firm believer that physical cardboard collectors are going to be a tough group to onboard quickly and in mass, not because it is not a natural segway, but because I think they want to protect their existing physical bags. Where we need to target onboarding from the physical collector world is probably the non-dealers, early adopter mindset, crypto/digital curious and/or spending lots of time online on the hobby. Since we’re talking “static” and video for the purpose of this blog, we are going to focus on Candy MLB, which is largely what inspired the thought content here as well.

If you’re on the Twitter machine and follow any sort of digital collectible accounts, odds are you have seen some of Derek Snook’s outstanding Candy videos. He’s usually putting out a few a day around some of the best finds, long term values and economics of the Candy market that can’t help but drum up excitement on the platform. What is interesting to note though is the vast majority of his targets are recent Icons (minus the 50/50 Ohtani Milestone Mark Gem). Largely benefiting from the perk of rookie badges, it is interesting to see the bull take on the newer Icon releases over newer Gems, especially given the recent change for Icons to be non-video based minus a few seconds when the card flips. The current iteration of Icons are very much “static” images with heavy art design inspirations, as opposed to their video driven counterparts, the Gems. Don’t get me wrong, I love the design of the Icons, but when I am on the marketplace my mindset has always been gravitating towards the video clips for the more immersive collectible experience. It’s always felt more unique and different to me. If I wanted the static version, why not just buy a physical card?

Maybe that is one of the big reasons though that there is attraction to the static products, familiarity. Maybe it feels less risky to jump into something that you have more familiarity with or that looks closer to like something you know. On Candy, only the Icons have badges currently. There are no badges for Gems, thus creating a bit of muddy water if they would and also leaving Gems a bit out in the cold. Some players, such as James Wood, actually had a 1st Candy mint that is a Gem, not an Icon; as well as rookie year minted Gems with no badges. However, the James Wood 2025 All-Star Icon is actually the one bearing the badge with a 1st Candy Icon badge, instantly providing visible collectability in a crowded marketplace due to the badge. Similar can be said for the recent Shohei Ohtani and Aaron Judge rookie year badge Icon boom. Those players current rookie year Icons along with their 1st Icon S1 Candy cards are surging in value, largely boosted by the badges (although the S1 is an old video Icon). There are instances where we see Icons passing Gems, maybe because of the badges like a cardboard RC logo or maybe because it feels more like a true card. Also, don’t discount the comfort of using the word card vs “moment” and trying to explain that to new people to be onboarded.

There are some other positives on the static Icons though that the video Gems don’t have. First, you have a “card back” more similar as well to a true physical baseball card with the player’s stats. The front of the card is what sells you, the back of the card is what keeps you immersed as a true stats fan. You also have the ability for extremely differentiated products with the art design taking equal importance as the player image. Take a look at some of the recent work Candy has done in the art department; it is absolutely second to none. While yes, we do have some eye popping Gems, the focus is on the video, whereas the Icons really put focus on the art and also parallel-esq feel of the different tiers. I think this gives an easy entry point to a familiar, but “new” feeling of a digital card. It feels like a baseball card, but looks like the next generation evolution of them in the digital world. This to me is probably the number one thing that has me pulling back into Icons again for collecting equally or over Gems. It feels like a physical card I would collect, but also feels like the evolution of where I think collecting is going.

The Panini surge is another example of the digital version of a physical card. The Panini digital product was literally a digital duplication of the physical Panini cards they put out like Prizm and Select. The newer years have the shiny rainbow holo effect, which has been a really cool addition to make them pop more. I think a lot of the appeal of the Panini product actually ties back to physical cardboard. It was an opportunity to get in (back then) at a cheaper price point of a high demand physical card, at even better scarcity. Physical card case hits like Kaboom and Downtown saw floors erode quickly, while a physical cardboard favorite — the Prizm Silver; saw an increase boost in popularity in the digital space due to the lower mint count and same core demand as its physical counterparts as THE non-numbered parallel to own of a given player. The interesting dynamic here as well was we saw a big boost in a player’s first digital Prizm cards, whereas with physical we don’t see the same market significance. Buyers have a trusted brand name in Panini, with a proven physical track record and while even though they had licenses going away; collectors pumped into the marketplace hoping to get a piece of digital scarcity not yet found in physical. There is trust here that Panini’s cards have demand and the Panini brand will have long term value, even if they would happen to disappear.

It reminds me a lot of Upper Deck to be honest. Upper Deck was a premium brand through the 90s and early 2000s, which has since stopped producing baseball, basketball and football cards; yet they have some of the most coveted cards of all time, still carrying demand today, despite the brand itself largely being cooked. The 1989 Upper Deck Ken Griffey Jr and 1993 Upper Deck SP Derek Jeter cards are iconic cards (pun not intended) that collectors still seek out today, well over their Topps or Donruss counterparts. Upper Deck cards still sell strong on secondary, despite there being no current brand/marketing behind the products. There is a strong belief in the digital community these Panini cards, and potentially with the Candy Icons, the digital cards themselves may be becoming more significant due to their historical significance in digital collectibles than the brands they are on, regardless of their future with hope and belief of self custody.

At the end of the day, having multiple strong options for new collectors and existing collectors in the digital space is a plus. I think Candy as a product is executing the dual product type path to perfection from the standpoint of the products themselves. Icons and Gems are equally as strong at this point, with no other digital collectible company in the space doing both. As a brand, I think it helps set them apart assuming they get the next wave of where they’re headed figured out soon. If so, I think we could see a strong surge coming here given that they offer both types of digital collectibles under one roof to people. Yes they have had it for years, but I think we are getting to a point in the market where digital is starting to become more accepted as a viable collectible and not just an NFT fad. This blog isn’t to say NBA Top Shot isn’t as strong or I’m fading it, as Top Shot is continuing to build amidst its own rejuvenation that’s ongoing. Merely, we’re seeing a strong interest in that “static” style, more true to a digital “card” than we have seen in the past, where it becomes a viable part of someone’s collection and offers a great gateway to collectors looking to onboard to digital, while finding something that feels closer to what they’ve seen over the years. It is the path to the evolution of collecting, that we have all known is inevitable.

Until next time, go through your collection, tell more stories and we ride at dawn…

The Emergence of the Digital “Card” was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.