This week’s note varies our typical structure. Here, we present Q&A sourced from thoughtful replies our stakeholders offered in response to our first week’s metrics.
The Leaderboard Features is not the core hypothesis that we are testing.
Your funnel segmentation is very helpful, and as you pointed out, shows healthy conversion from engagement in Discord to download. One note: that still doesn’t answer that the core value prop is resonating as users may be downloading the extension because they want to support their project with an upvote rather than because the value prop of the extension resonated with them. In which case, engaged users > new wallet conversion may be distorted from testing the true value prop.Azhar / Commonwealth Crypto
We agree that upvoting doesn’t test the core hypothesis. In this growth hack, we were testing just that; is this a reliable channel for initial user acquisition? The true test of PMF is whether we can retain the newly acquired users via this (or any) tactic. We’re tracking that in Mixpanel via weekly cohorts, comparing against a baseline from July 20 to Sept 20.
Are NFT / crypto communities the right place to start?
Could the disappointing conversion rates just be a function of the decline in interest in NFTs?Carlton Charles
The product today runs via a wallet connection, but is there potentially a web2 community that this product would resonate more with than the initial web3 NFT crowd we targeted?Azhar / Commonwealth Crypto
We’re discussing a web2 path, too. Effectively, is there a community of web2 users for whom we can repeat this growth hack? Some possibilities include: YouTubers, gamers, bloggers, sports, and politics. Each of these have communities they can activate in exchange for more awareness / promotion.
The key assumption of the growth hack is that NFT community members have sufficient self-interest to upvote their project because it’s something they can do to improve the value of their bag / holdings. We’re questioning that assumption given the bear market’s impact on overall crypto activity. Likely the community numbers we’re seeing are heavily lagging to the true number of remaining, active, and supportive members per community.
Either way, the assumption that members’ self-interest drives the install doesn’t seem to be the case for communities built around YouTubers, gamers, bloggers, and sports because users don’t personally gain from those projects’ successes. Politics may be the exception 😅
Beyond the growth hack, how do we best reach and convert web2 users? If we don’t focus on web2 communities (like those referenced above), then our ideal user is the Rakuten / Honey persona. We’re studying how to reach them most effectively, such as SEO, video content, partnerships, etc. I welcome thoughts here as we prepare to execute this.
It may just be that Alpha Back’s value proposition is not resonating with this certain customer population. We conducted interviews with our entire office staff/external friendlies, and many were interested in the product. Most, however, are web2 users with no crypto interest/accounts. I think there may be a case to be made for coming to web2, and finding a different wedge user population may be higher yield, especially during NFT winter. At its core, we just need to find a niche group of customers and advertisers to kickstart the flywheel.Azhar / Commonwealth Crypto
Downloading a browser extension asks too much of users?
I don’t think the friction with downloading the extension, connecting wallet, and signing transaction were considerable drag factors. Of those factors, I’d imagine the actual extension install was the biggest friction point. You could take a look at how many installs of the extension there were via the chrome store as an intermediate funnel step. If the drop off from engaged to installs is big, then we know the extension presents friction. If not, but drop off from install to wallet connected is big, then we know that the matic transaction signing steps is creating friction.Azhar / Commonwealth Crypto
We agree with the first statement. The number of installs almost matches the number of new wallet connections (with minor variance, likely due to sampling in GA / Chrome Web Store). Conclusion: after installation, connecting a wallet doesn’t seem to be a major drag factor.
In contrast, the drop from wallet-to-upvote was ~44%. There is presumably ~2x room for improvement on this part of the funnel. But that isn’t the key hypothesis (whether we can drive more upvotes). Our key metric is whether we can get more people to install the extension. So, for now, we leave that potential improvement for future iterations.
I agree with you that, of the mid- to bottom-funnel factors considered, signaling “extension install required” is the primary friction for crypto communities. That would seemingly explain the largest drop in the funnel (from messaged-to-engaged, or messaged-to-install). And it would align with earlier observations that 5 out of 33 projects declined to participate because they didn’t want to ask their community to install an extension due to perceived security concerns.
That said, in our present incarnation as a browser extension, this factor must be true if we are to find PMF among the crypto ICP… Which brings us back to the earlier thread: should we move on from crypto/NFT users? We’re researching that.
Meanwhile, we’re launching another dApp / NFT upvote competition that attempts to go upmarket (eg, Top 100 NFT collections according to 30-day trading volume). We hypothesize that more established projects have stronger sway on their communities’ activation. If so, that could significantly improve the weakest part of the funnel (messaged-to-engaged members, 0.08%). And if we cannot 10x that conversion rate, then this path is toast. Simply put, there aren’t enough crypto communities and members to reach critical mass at 0.08% conversion rate.
As usual, we value your steadfast support 🙏