a16z talks about project entry strategy: Driven by attention and tokens to build a decentralized community

Original author: Maggie Hsu

Original translation: TechFlow

Every company faces some form of the “cold start problem”: How do you get started from scratch? How do you acquire customers? How do you create a network effect where your product or service becomes more valuable as more people use it, thereby incentivizing more customers to sign up?

In short, how do you “get to market” and convince potential customers to spend their money, time, and attention on your product or service?

In the Web2 era, most companies—an era defined by large, centralized products/services like Amazon, eBay, Facebook, and Twitter, where the vast majority of value flows to the platform itself rather than to users—have responded by investing heavily in sales and marketing teams as part of a traditional go-to-market (GTM) strategy focused on lead generation and customer acquisition and retention. But in recent years, a completely new model for building organizations has emerged. Rather than corporate control—where centralized leadership makes all decisions about a product or service, even when using consumers’ data and free, user-generated content—this new model leverages decentralized technology and introduces users to the role of owners through digital primitives called tokens.

This new paradigm, known as Web3, changes the entire concept of GTM for these new types of companies. While some traditional customer acquisition frameworks still apply, the introduction of tokens and new organizational structures like decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) require a variety of go-to-market approaches. Since Web3 is still new to many, but there is a huge amount of building in this space, in this article, I will share some new frameworks for thinking about GTM in this context, and where different types of organizations may fit in the ecosystem. I will also provide some tips and strategies for builders looking to create their own Web3 GTM strategy as the space continues to evolve.

The catalyst for new marketing moves: Tokens

The concept of the customer acquisition funnel is core to marketing and very familiar to most businesses: from awareness and lead generation at the top of the funnel to customer conversion and retention at the bottom of the funnel. As a result, traditional Web2 marketing approaches the cold start problem through this very linear customer acquisition perspective, covering areas such as pricing, marketing, partnerships, sales pipeline mapping, and sales force optimization. Success metrics include things like time to close a lead, website click-through rate, and revenue per customer.

Web3 changes the entire approach to launching a new network because tokens provide an alternative to the traditional cold start problem. Instead of spending money on traditional marketing to attract potential customers, the core development team can use tokens to attract early users, and these early users can be rewarded for their early contributions when the network effect is not yet obvious or starting. These early users are not only evangelists who bring more people to the network (who also hope to receive similar rewards for their contributions), but this actually makes early users in Web3 more powerful than traditional business development or sales people in Web2.

For example, lending protocol Compound [full disclosure: we are investors in some of the organizations discussed in this article] uses tokens to incentivize early borrowers to participate or “bootstrap liquidity” by offering additional rewards in the form of COMP tokens, through a liquidity mining program. Any user of the protocol, whether a borrower or lender, can earn COMP tokens. After the program launched in 2020, Compound ’s total value locked (TVL) jumped from ~$100 million to ~$600 million. It’s worth noting that while token incentives attract users, that alone is not enough to make them “sticky”; more on that later. While traditional companies do incentivize employees with equity, they rarely financially incentivize customers in a long-term way (other than by earning discounts or referral bonuses).

Summary: In Web2, the primary GTM stakeholders are customers, typically acquired through sales and marketing efforts. In Web3, an organization’s GTM stakeholders include not only their customers/users, but also their developers, investors, and partners. As a result, many Web3 companies find that the community role is more critical than the sales and marketing roles.

Web3 Marketing Matrix

For Web3 organizations, the go-to-market (GTM) strategy depends on where they fall in the following matrix, based on their organizational structure (centralized vs. decentralized) and economic incentives (no token vs. token):

Go-to-market varies in each quadrant and can range from traditional Web2-style strategies to emerging and experimental strategies. Here, I will focus on the top right quadrant (decentralized teams with tokens) and contrast it with the bottom left quadrant (centralized teams without tokens) to illustrate the difference between Web3 and Web2 GTM approaches.

Decentralized and with Token

First, let’s look at the upper right quadrant. This includes organizations, networks, and protocols with unique Web3 operating models that require novel go-to-market strategies.

Organizations in this quadrant follow a decentralized model (although they often start with a core development team or operations staff) and use token economics to attract new members, reward contributors, and align incentives among participants. (For a deeper discussion of Web3 business models and the seeming contradictions of capturing value, check out this talk from the a16z Crypto Startup School.)

The fundamental difference between Web3 organizations in this quadrant and those using a more traditional GTM model lies in one key question: What is the product? Whereas Web2 companies and those in the lower left quadrant must primarily start with a product that attracts customers (“come for the tools, stay for the network”), Web3 companies approach market promotion through the dual lens of purpose and community.

Having a product and a solid technical foundation is still important, but it doesn’t have to come first.

What these organizations need is a clear purpose that defines why they exist. What is the unique problem they are trying to solve? It’s not just a matter of raising money based on a whitepaper and a founding team. It means having a strong community — not just “community-led” or “community-first,” but community-owned — blurring the lines between owners, shareholders, and users. The key to long-term success in Web3 is a clear purpose, a high-quality, engaged community, and the right organizational governance that matches that purpose and community.

Now let’s dive deeper into the two main categories of marketing activity by Web3 organizations in the upper right quadrant: (1) decentralized applications; and (2) Layer 1 blockchains, Layer 2 scaling solutions, and other protocols.

Marketing actions for decentralized applications

“Decentralized applications” encompass use cases such as decentralized finance (DeFi), non-fungible tokens (NFTs), social networks, and games.

Decentralized Finance (DeFi) DAOs

A major category of decentralized applications is decentralized finance (DeFi) applications, such as decentralized exchanges (e.g. Uniswap or dYdX) or stablecoins (e.g. MakerDAO’s Dai). While their marketing actions may be similar to those of standard, non-decentralized applications, the way they accumulate value is different due to different organizational structures and token economics.

Many DeFi projects follow a path where the protocol is first developed by a centralized development team. After the protocol is launched, the team typically seeks to decentralize the protocol to improve its security and distribute its operational management to a decentralized group of token holders. This decentralization is typically achieved by simultaneously issuing governance tokens, launching a decentralized governance protocol (usually a decentralized autonomous organization, or DAO), and granting control of the protocol to the DAO.

This decentralization process can take many different structures and forms. For example, many DAOs have no legal entity and operate solely in the digital world, while others use multi-signature (multisig) wallets that act at the direction of the DAO. In some cases, a non-profit foundation is established to oversee the future development of the protocol, acting at the direction of the DAO. In almost all cases, the original development team continues to operate as one of many contributors to the ecosystem and develops complementary or ancillary products and services. (This white paper contains more details on the legal framework of DAOs, from taxation and entity formation to operational issues and considerations.)

Here are two popular DeFi examples:

• MakerDAO was launched as a DAO in March 2015, established a foundation in June 2018, and dissolved the foundation in July 2021. MakerDAO has a stablecoin, Dai, whose purpose is to enable users to transact using stable units of value in a fast, low-cost, borderless, and transparent manner. This can be done by purchasing goods and services or interacting with other DeFi applications. It also has a governance token, MKR. The DAO approves various governance changes and certain parameters of the protocols operations, including the collateral ratio used by the protocol to mint DAI.

• The Uniswap protocol was launched by a centralized company but is now owned and governed by the Uniswap DAO, controlled by UNI Token holders. Uniswap Labs is the creator of the protocol, operates an interface to the Uniswap protocol, and is one of many developers contributing to the protocol ecosystem.

So what does marketing look like here? Take Dai, the algorithmic stablecoin issued and governed by MakerDAO. One goal of most algorithmic stablecoin issuers (like MakerDAO) is to increase the use of their stablecoin in the financial ecosystem. Therefore, the marketing move is to have it: 1) listed on cryptocurrency exchanges for retail and institutional trading; 2) integrated into wallets and applications ; 3) accepted as a form of payment for goods or services. Today, there are over 400 Dai marketplaces , it is integrated into hundreds of projects , and accepted as a form of payment through major merchant solutions such as Coinbase commerce .

How did they do it? MakerDAO initially achieved this through a more traditional business development team, which drove many of its early partnerships and integrations. However, as its decentralization increased, the business development function became the responsibility of the Growth Core Unit, a subcommunity of Maker Token holders, commonly referred to as a SubDAO. Additionally, because MakerDAO is decentralized, the operation of its protocol is trustless and permissionless, and anyone can use the protocol to generate or purchase Dai. And because Dai’s code is open source, developers can integrate it into their applications in a self-service manner. Over time, as the protocol became more self-service—with better developer documentation and more integration playbooks—other projects were able to build on it at scale.

DeFi DAO marketing metrics: With the emergence of new Web3 marketing strategies, new ways to measure success have also emerged. For DeFi applications, the classic success metric is the total locked value (TVL) mentioned above. It represents all assets that are traded, pledged, and borrowed using the protocol or network.

However, TVL is not an ideal metric for measuring long-term organizational health and success. While new DeFi protocols can copy open source code, offer high yields, and attract large inflows and TVL, this is not necessarily sticky — traders tend to leave when the next project comes along.

Therefore, the more critical metrics are the number of unique token holders; community engagement frequency and sentiment; and developer activity. In addition, since protocols are composable —able to be programmed to interact and build upon each other—another key metric is integrations. The number and type of integrations track the use of the protocol in other applications such as wallets, exchanges, and products.

Social, Cultural and Arts DAOs

For social, cultural and artistic DAOs, the key to go-to-market (GTM) is to build a community with a specific goal — sometimes even starting with a text chat between friends — and grow organically by finding others who share the same beliefs. But isn’t this just “a group chat” or a traditional crowdfunding campaign like on Kickstarter?

No, because although organizers of traditional Web2 crowdfunding projects also have clear goals, they must plan in detail from top to bottom how to achieve this goal. Project initiators usually specify how the raised funds will be used, product roadmaps, and timelines. In the Web3 model, the goal comes first, but the means of achieving it are usually determined later – including how the funds will be used, product roadmaps, and timelines.

For example, ConstitutionDAO ’s goal is to purchase a copy of the U.S. Constitution; Krause House ’s goal is to purchase an NBA team and set a precedent for fan governance; LinksDAO ’s goal is to create a virtual country club comprised of golf enthusiasts; and PleasrDAO ’s goal is to collect, display, and creatively add/share NFTs back to the community to represent culturally significant ideas and movements.

Take ConstitutionDAO, for example, which raised $47 million from a community of strangers that gathered around this goal, all in a matter of weeks, and started with a clear goal and fundraising for that goal. ConstitutionDAO had nothing else at the time — no clear roadmap, execution plan, or even a token (it was created after a failed bid). Those who contributed financially were highly aligned with the goal and incentivized by the community to just want to contribute and spread the word, forming a meme of emojis rolling on Twitter .

Friends with Benefits is a token-gated social DAO that started out as a token-gated Discord server for Web3 creatives. In addition to a minimum purchase of $FWB tokens (representing membership in the DAO), potential members must apply to FWB via a written application. The community grew, connected, hosted offline events in various Discord channels, and eventually realized that one of the products they could build was a token-gated event app . FWB gives creatives a real share of the community, and the DAO framework enables this decentralized social group to coordinate at scale to do things like allocate budgets and complete projects from publishing content to producing events.

Marketing Metrics for Social DAOs: One of the key metrics for measuring the health of a DAO is the quality of engagement from its community, which can be measured by the primary communication and governance platform it uses. For example, a DAO could track channel activity on Discord; member activation and retention; attendance at community calls, governance participation (who is voting on what, and how often); and actual work done (number of paid contributors).

Other metrics might be the number of new relationships established, or measuring the trust built between members of the DAO community. While some tools and frameworks do exist here, social DAO metrics are still emerging , so we will see more tools emerge and evolve as this space develops.

Gaming DAOs

Most Web3 games today, whether play-to-earn , play-to-mint, move-to-earn, or other types, are very similar to popular Web2 games – but with two key differences:

• Use in-game assets native to an open, global blockchain platform rather than the closed, controlled economies of traditional pay-to-own and free-to-play games;

• Gamers are able to become true stakeholders and have a say in game governance.

In Web3 games, go-to-market (GTM) strategies are built through platform distribution, player referrals, and partnerships with guilds . Guilds like Yield Guild Games (YGG) allow new players to start playing games by borrowing game assets they might not otherwise be able to afford. Guilds choose which games to support by looking at three factors: game quality, community strength, and the robustness and fairness of the game economy. Game, community, and economic health must be maintained simultaneously.

While blockchain-based game developers may have lower ownership percentages and/or commission rates, by incentivizing players as owners, developers are helping to grow the overall economy for everyone.

But unlike Web2, purpose and community are the driving force. For example, Loot , a game where content comes first and gameplay comes second, is an example of a GTM driven by purpose and community rather than product. Loot is a series of NFTs, each called a Loot Pack, containing a unique combination of adventuring gear (such as a Dragonhide Belt, Silk Gloves of Rage, and Amulet of Initiation). Loot essentially provides a prompt – or building block primitive – upon which games, projects, and other worlds can be built. The Loot community has created everything from analysis tools to derivative art, music collections, realms, quests, and more games inspired by their Loot Packs.

The key idea here is that Loot grew not because an existing product attracted users, but because of the idea and legend it represents – an open, composable network that welcomes creativity and incentivizes users through tokens. The community creates the product – not the network creating the product hoping to attract the community. Therefore, a key metric is the number of derivatives, for example, which may be more valuable here than traditional metrics.

Marketing actions of Layer 1 blockchains and other protocols

In Web3, Layer 1 refers to the foundational blockchain. Avalanche, Celo, Ethereum, and Solana are all examples of Layer 1 blockchains. These blockchains are open source, so anyone can build on them, copy or modify them, and integrate with them. The growth of these blockchains comes from more applications built on them.

Layer 2 refers to any technology that runs on top of an existing Layer 1 to help solve the scalability challenges of the Layer 1 network. One Layer 2 solution is a Rollup. Layer 2 Rollups do just that — they “roll up” transactions off-chain and then publish the data back to the Layer 1 network via a bridge. There are two main types of Layer 2 Rollups. The first, optimistic Rollups, “optimistically” assume that transactions are honest and not fraudulent via fraud proofs. The second, zk Rollups, use “zero-knowledge” proofs to determine the same thing. Most of these Layer 2 solutions are currently being developed for Ethereum and do not yet have their own tokens, but we’ll discuss them here because their go-to-market success metrics are similar to other networks in this category.

Additionally, protocols can be built on top of other L1 or L2, for example the Uniswap protocol supports Ethereum (L1), Optimism (L2), and Polygon (L2).

Growth for Layer 1 blockchains, Layer 2 scaling solutions, and these other protocols can come from forks, when a network is copied and then modified. For example, Layer 1 blockchain Ethereum was forked by Celo. Layer 2 scaling solution Optimism was forked by Nahmii and Metis. And Uniswap was forked to create SushiSwap. While this may initially seem negative, the number of forks of a network can actually be a measure of success — it indicates that others want to copy it.

These examples and mental models are all concentrated in the upper right quadrant, decentralized networks with tokens – this is the most advanced Web3 example currently. However, depending on the type of organization, there are still many hybrids of Web2 GTM (go-to-market) strategies and emerging Web3 models. Builders should be aware of various approaches when developing a go-to-market strategy. So now lets take a look at a hybrid model that combines Web2 GTM and Web3 GTM strategies.

Centralized and Token-less: Web2-Web3 Hybrid Model

Many companies in the lower left quadrant (centralized teams and no tokens) provide users with access to Web3 infrastructure and protocols.

In this quadrant, there is a lot of overlap in go-to-market (GTM) strategies between Web2 and Web3, especially in the SaaS and marketplace space.

Software as a Service (SaaS)

Some companies in this quadrant follow the traditional SaaS business model, such as Alchemy, which offers nodes as a service. These companies provide on-demand infrastructure through different tiers of subscription fees, which are determined based on factors such as storage requirements, whether the nodes are dedicated or shared, and monthly request volume.

SaaS business models usually require traditional Web2 GTM actions and incentives. Customer acquisition is done through a combination of product-led and channel-led strategies:

Product-led user acquisition focuses on getting users to try the product itself. For example, one of Alchemy ’s products is Supernode, an Ethereum API for any organization building on Ethereum but not wanting to manage their own infrastructure. In this case, customers can try Supernode through a free tier or freemium model, and then these customers will recommend the product to other potential customers.

In contrast, channel-led user acquisition focuses on segmenting different customer types (such as public sector vs. private sector customers) and directing sales teams to those customers. In this case, the company might have a sales team focused on public sector customers (such as government and education) and deeply understand the needs of that type of customer.

This article provides an overview to help explain the difference between Web2 and Web3 GTM strategies, but it’s important to note that developer-centric advocacy and developer relations — including developer documentation, events, and education — are also very important here.

Markets and Exchanges

Other companies in this quadrant rely on relatively familiar consumer models, such as marketplaces and exchanges, such as peer-to-peer horizontal NFT marketplace OpenSea and cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase . These businesses generate revenue based on transaction fees (usually a percentage of the transaction amount) – this is similar to the business model of classic Web2 marketplaces such as eBay and Amazon.

For these types of companies, revenue growth comes from increasing the number of listings, the average dollar value of each listing, and the number of platform users — all of which lead to increased trading volume while providing benefits to users in terms of diversity, market liquidity, etc.

A key GTM move is to increase channel distribution by partnering with other platforms to display select items. This is similar to Amazon’s affiliate program, where bloggers can link to items they like, and any purchases made through those links will result in a commission to the blogger. But unlike Web2, the web3 structure allows for royalties to be distributed to creators in addition to affiliate fees. For example, OpenSea offers a traditional affiliate sales channel through its white label program, where purchases made through referral links give affiliates a percentage of sales, but it also allows for royalties, where creators can continue to earn a percentage of any secondary sales. (This Web3 feature is uniquely enabled by cryptocurrency, as smart contracts can pre-encode percentage arrangements, blockchains can track provenance, etc.)

Since creators now have the opportunity to continue to profit from their work through secondary markets — value they could not previously see, let alone capture, in Web2 systems — they are incentivized to continue promoting the market. Creators also become evangelists.

GTM Strategy

Now that I’ve outlined the key mindset and example use cases, let’s look at some specific go-to-market (GTM) strategies commonly seen in Web3 organizations. These strategies are core elements, not a complete playbook, but can still help new builders understand the various strategies and options.

airdrop

Airdrops refer to projects distributing tokens to reward users for certain actions, such as testing a network or protocol. These tokens can be distributed to all existing addresses on a blockchain network, or they can be distributed in a targeted manner to specific key influencers. Typically, airdrops are used to solve cold start problems, promote early adoption, reward or incentivize early users, etc.

In 2020, Uniswap airdropped 400 UNI to all users who used the platform. In September 2021, dYdX airdropped DYDX to users. More recently, ENS airdropped to anyone who owned an ENS domain (a decentralized .eth domain) ; the airdrop took place in November 2021, but anyone who owned an ENS domain before October 31, 2021 was eligible (until May 2022) to receive $ENS tokens, which provide holders with governance rights to the ENS protocol.

In the non-fungible token (NFT) space, airdrops from NFT projects are also becoming increasingly popular to help more people gain access. A notable recent airdrop came from the Bored Ape Yacht Club (BAYC), a collection of 10,000 unique NFTs; on August 28, 2021, BAYC created the corresponding Mutant Ape Yacht Club (MAYC). Each BAYC Token holder received a mutant serum that enabled them to mint 10,000 mutant apes, and an additional 10,000 new mutant apes were available for new entrants. Since there are different types of serum, a serum can only be used once, and since a Bored Ape cannot use multiple serums of the same grade, the serum adds a new scarcity model.

The purpose of creating MAYC is to “reward our ape holders with a brand new NFT” — a “mutated” version of their ape — while also allowing new entrants into the BAYC ecosystem at a lower membership level. This maintains accessibility to the broader community without diluting the uniqueness of the original collection or making those original owners feel like their contributions have been downgraded. (Another way to address accessibility is NFT sharding , where a single NFT has multiple owners.) MAYC’s reserve price, or minimum listing price, is always lower than BAYC’s, but owners essentially enjoy the same benefits.

These airdrops are done to reward NFT holders or network and protocol users (like the ENS airdrop), but airdrops can also be used as a proactive GTM action to generate awareness for a specific project and encourage people to check it out. Since information on the blockchain is public, new projects can airdrop to all wallets using a specific market or all wallets holding a specific token.

Regardless, projects should clearly articulate their overall token allocation, breakdown, and plans before conducting an airdrop. There are many examples of airdrops being used for malicious purposes and airdrops failing . Additionally, in the United States, token airdrops may be considered securities offerings, so projects should consult legal counsel before conducting any such activities.

Developer Grants

Developer funding refers to financial support provided from the protocols treasury to individuals or teams that improve the protocol in some way. This can serve as an effective go-to-market (GTM) mechanism for decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs), as developer activity is a critical part of the success of the protocol. Projects and protocols with developer funding include Celo , Chainlink , Compound , Ethereum , and Uniswap .

Grants are not limited to protocol development, but can also be used for bug bounties, code audits, and other non-coding activities. Compound even has a grant related to business development and integrations, funding any integration that increases the use of Compound. For example, they funded a project to integrate Compound with Polkadot.

Memes

Viral images with text overlays are another GTM strategy for Web3 organizations. Due to the complexity and breadth of the cryptocurrency ecosystem and the short attention span of social media users, memes can quickly convey information. Memes can also convey a sense of belonging, community, and goodwill in a highly information-dense way.

The NFT project Pudgy Penguins, a collection of 8,888 penguins, got its start due to its memeability. The project’s main launch sold out in 20 minutes and was featured in major media, which helped push such projects into the mainstream. In Web3, the social display and community elements of “PFP” (avatar) collections — where users display NFTs as avatars on social media — have also contributed to this virality. Twitter recently launched a feature that allows users to prove their ownership of NFTs through a hexagonal avatar linked to OpenSea’s API.

Users with a large number of social media followers, when they change their profile picture to that of a project, it draws attention to the project, and project owners often follow other owners of the same project. These actions can also spawn other memes , such as Crypto Covens and Web2 me vs. Web3 me memes, in which users display their witch image juxtaposed with their actual face to convey identity, belonging, etc.

So what does this mean for Web3 founders? The biggest mindset shift is from planning to more like gardening.

In Web2 companies, founders not only set a top-down vision, but were also responsible for building a team and planning and executing against that vision. In Web3, founders are more like gardeners, helping to cultivate and nurture potentially successful products while also creating the space for it all to happen. While Web3 founders still set the goals of the organization and its initial governance structure, the governance structure itself may soon bring new roles to them. Instead of optimizing for headcount, revenue, and profitability, founders may no longer focus on optimizing for protocol usage and community quality. Additionally, as decentralization advances, founders must adapt to an environment without a hierarchical power structure, where they are just one of many players driving the success of a particular project. Therefore, before decentralization, founders should make sure they are setting up their project for success in such an environment.

I saw some of this firsthand when I served as chief of staff to former Zappos.com CEO Tony Hsieh. The company began experimenting with more decentralized governance structures in 2014, including a self-organizing management system called “holacracy.” Holacracy emphasized hierarchies of work rather than hierarchies of people, with mixed results. But Hsieh offered a useful metaphor, comparing his role to that of a greenhouse plant breeder, rather than the best plants. He said he needed to be the “ architect of the greenhouse ”—setting the right conditions so that all the other plants can thrive.

Today, Alex Zhang, mayor of Friends with Benefits (FWB), a social DAO with fungible tokens, echoed that sentiment , describing his job as “not setting a top-down vision” but rather facilitating the creation of “frameworks, permissions, and bylaws” for community members to approve and build on. While Web2 leaders might focus on updating product roadmaps and driving new product releases, Zhang sees himself as more of a gardener than a top-down builder. His role involves watching FWB’s “community” (in this case, Discord channels), curating it by shutting down unengaging channels and supporting and growing the ones that have momentum. By creating a framework for these channels — and an operating manual for channel success (like a mix of activity, clear leadership, and governance structures) — Zhang acts more like an educator and communicator.

For the founders of NFT projects, their role is primarily that of the initiator and interim manager of intellectual property (IP). Yuga Labs, the creator of Bored Ape Yacht Club, wrote : We see ourselves as interim managers of an IP that is becoming increasingly decentralized. Our goal is to make this a community-owned brand involving world-class games, events, and streetwear. Owning an NFT – whether it is an image, video or sound clip, or other form – gives the owner all the rights associated with the NFT. As NFTs are bought and sold, this ownership is transferred – and as the ecosystem around NFTs grows, these benefits accrue to the NFT owners, not just the founding team of the NFT project.

NFT ownership can also involve community-driven licensing and community-driven content (as distinct from traditional IP franchises ). An example is Jenkins The Valet, an NFT avatar from the BAYC collection (specifically Ape #1798), which is signed with Creative Artists Agency (CAA) to represent it in various media forms. Jenkins was created by Tally Labs, who own Ape #1798. Tally Labs decided to give the ape his own brand and backstory, and reversed the idea that the statistical rarity of an NFT is the primary determinant of its price and success. They then created a way for others to participate in the creation of content around Jenkins through “Writers Room” NFTs , where community members were able to vote on the genre of the first book, for example.

There’s a lot more possible here; and we haven’t seen much yet as more people embrace cryptocurrencies and decentralized technologies and Web3 models. Traditional Web2 GTM frameworks are a useful reference and provide some helpful playbooks — but they are just some of the many frameworks available to Web3 organizations. The key difference to remember is that goals, growth, and success metrics tend to be different for Web2 and Web3. Builders should start with a clear goal, build a community around that goal, and match their growth strategy and community incentives — and go-to-market actions accordingly — to those goals. We’ll see a variety of models emerge and look forward to observing and sharing more here.

This article is sourced from the internet: a16z talks about project entry strategy: Driven by attention and tokens to build a decentralized community

Related: The founder was finally liquidated, is Curves flywheel completely bankrupt?

In the general decline of cryptocurrency, CRV was unexpectedly the worst hit. This morning, Arkham published a post stating that Curve founder Michael Egorov currently has lent out $95.7 million in stablecoins (mainly crvUSD) on 5 accounts in 5 protocols with $140 million in CRV as collateral. Among them, Michael has $50 million in crvUSD borrowed on Llamalend, and Egorovs 3 accounts have accounted for more than 90% of the crvUSD borrowed on the protocol. Arkham pointed out that if the price of CRV drops by about 10%, these positions may begin to be liquidated. Subsequently, the decline of CRV continued to expand, once falling below $0.26, reaching a new historical low, and the CRV lending positions on Michaels multiple addresses gradually fell below the liquidation threshold. In the past,…