The other day I was asked - Why does the project need a token? After all, it causes a lot of problems and the success of the project is much more difficult to predict, despite some advantages in funding. When creating tokenomics, there are many factors that affect even a sustainable business model.
Join our Telegram channel and chat to keep abreast of the main crypto gaming trends.
I guess the answer lies in your go-to-market strategy and development approach. If you do not plan to involve the community in decision making, project development, promotion assistance, etc., then the answer is more likely no than yes. If you are able to implement the project yourself, then the token looks superfluous.
One of the web3 approaches can be described as Go-to-Community (GTC). A community of like-minded people is gathering with some specific pain, mission and clear goal. The community is growing and contributors are appearing.
Contributors are starting to contribute, pain-solving tools are being built, evangelist ambassadors aka advocates of this community are helping to promote the tools and the community itself. Everyone feels a sense of belonging. Responsibility and proactivity are growing. On this basis, a DAO is created to store funds in multisig and for voting.
This is somewhat reminiscent of holacracy 0%D5%B0%D0%0F) or stakeholder concept. Holacracy is used in Zappos and Medium. Here's how it worked for them in 0.
1. Positions are being replaced by roles that define work, not people. One employee can have multiple roles.
2. Instead of delegation - separation of duties.
3. The structure of the company is flexible and constantly changing. Employees can belong to several circles (departments) and move from one to another.
4. Starting from the CEO and ending with the cleaner, everyone adheres to the same rules prescribed in the constitution.
The salary is tied not to the position, but to the role, which is fixed by a badge with career ladder gamification.
Reminds me of some of the web3 communities that grew into big crypto startups.
This approach has its pros and cons, and therefore you must clearly understand the goals and objectives that you are going to solve with the help of a token. The token is great for horizontal structures where early adopters can be rewarded and motivated to develop the project in order to extract more value from it and use it for its intended purpose, and not for speculation.
And before issuing a token, think about what you need from the token and what strategy will be more effective. And also evaluate if you can not only create value for the tokens, but also if you can create a culture and motivation for the community to add value to the product.
Now we are seeing 3 approaches to making money in crypto:
• Web2
• Web2.5
• Web3
In Web3, the Community-Led Growth (CLG) model is widespread, therefore, the funnel is another flywheel (Awareness -> Engagement -> Acquisition -> Advocacy) and your product metrics are measured in community metrics: Participation in voting, community calls, Engagement Rate, Content, Retention in the community and the number of tasks solved by contributors.
But be careful. The community can have a destructive influence, and horizontal org. structures are slow and not always efficient.
Unlike Product-Led Growth (PLG), the community is in charge, not the product, but this does not mean that technically the team should be weak. At the same time, it seems to me that PLG can be combined with CLG. For example, when creating crypto games in which web2 is combined with web3. The main thing is to approach this consciously before stamping tokens.
In my opinion, to make a real Web3 product, you need new or alternative frameworks and a team management system. And it is the wrong selection of frameworks that ruins startups in web3.
The community creates a product, not a product, in the hope of attracting the community.
Subscribe to our telegram channel and go to our main chat to discuss the latest news.