Drew Beechler on Farcaster

Content pfp

https://warpcast.com/~/channel/growth

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

dawufi pfp

number of successful web2 companies that needed an airdrop to boostrap their network: 0

7 replies

0 recast

10 reactions

Drew Beechler pfp

But there are a few parallels in my mind to web2 “airdrops” or airdrop-like mechanics: - PayPal, Coinbase, Robinhood, etc. free $$$ on signup or referral - Dropbox free storage/$$ on referrals - Grubhub subsidies: selling $10 burgers for $8 - Zynga’s gamified rewards, daily bonuses, & referrals

1 reply

0 recast

4 reactions

dawufi pfp

none of these are speculative, all airdrops are (even if they're not they are because narrative) completely obfuscates pmf and ooda loops dying on this hill

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

Drew Beechler pfp

Yeah, that’s my point. At the core, it’s subsidized engagement. It’s a different order of magnitude if it hits and has been gamified to extreme proportions, but from a base level, it’s paying someone to use your product, right? Granted, many of those examples may have had pmf already to a slight degree and weren’t seeding the initial network with it. But the underlying mechanic is not necessarily new. Lots of cold start problems of the past solved in similar underlying dynamics.

2 replies

0 recast

2 reactions

Drew Beechler pfp

To be clear - I think it’s a terrible ROI and completely screws up pmf. Totally agree. It’s subsidized engagement on steroids.

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

dawufi pfp

im arguing it's a different paradigm you're not subsidizing usage when you add speculation, you're simply attracting people who want to make money by dumping on each other this is wildly different than shifting user acquisition costs from marketing spend to going directly to the user i feel like you me and @ahn.eth should debate this somewhere now...

2 replies

0 recast

2 reactions

justin.ahn.eth pfp

consolidating the thread in here in case @drewbeechler wants to jump back in (in case 🤣). again, i agree emotionally with what you're saying. however, that's not conceptually what was intended - tokens, ICOs, and airdrops are a shift away from the VC backed models that lead to centralized financial outcomes to a more distributed form of ownership, ideally by users but can include speculators. so regardless of speculation, a natural progression of time could withstand pumping & dumping in addition to network growth (see BTC, ETH, etc.) but VC/institutional capital entering the fray has created this "playbook" for token generation, which is driving hyper accelerated p&ds hence mostly farmers. not trying to defend all tokens as many for sure are cash grabs. but i still think tokens provide a more democratic way for projects to create sustainable economics for themselves and users, which includes airdrops. https://warpcast.com/dawufi/0xf7a44187

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

dawufi pfp

And I'm saying to make something Lindy you should have something people want to pay for, not that you need to pay speculators to come use - this is idealism vs. pragmatism imo. I don't disagree with the utopia, I'm just saying it doesn't exist. It's sort of like how when you say a place is open for everyone, the people who get most excited about that are people who aren't allowed anywhere else. There's what you're trying to accomplish and then there's what always happens in practice. Early airdrops worked because no one knew you could make money off them, now that the cats out of the bag we need better mechanisms to distribute by contribution and customer profile

2 replies

0 recast

2 reactions

justin.ahn.eth pfp

my only real contention is on your initial statement is that web 2.0 companies are better (maybe this is editorialization on my part) because they're not using airdrops/financial speculation to acquire users. i'm contending this because of the hundreds of thousands of software & software companies started only a handful survive and remain relevant in the long term (all the dot com boom companies, tech companies acquired just for talent, etc.). and in fact a good chunk of the surviving apps are because they're open source and are maintained by donations. so is it better to be a vc backed company that relies on freemium to grow fast as shit but then fade away? because that to me is still not pragmatic and you ultimately reach the same destination while sharing less value with stakeholders along the way. >we need better mechanisms to distribute by contribution and customer profile agreed, but this is still airdrop driven. and long story short, i think we can make this model work sooner rather than later.

2 replies

0 recast

2 reactions

Drew Beechler pfp

“Better mechanisms to distribute by contribution and customer profile” 💯💯💯 This is what I wanted @holder to be able to do so, so badly. Part of the challenge, though, was that people didn’t actually care deep down to do that.

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

dawufi pfp

i think you needed zkTLS tbh lol

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction