Aragon user research studies / churn rate

According to Scout.Cool, there have been 695 organisations created on Aragon to date. 82 of these have been active over the last 30 days.

This suggests a potential churn rate of 88% which is pretty high.

Has anyone done any user research studies to find out what the underlying causes for this might be? Did they not understand the product? Is the learning curve for adoption to steep? Was it missing critical features they needed? Did it have bugs? Did they choose to use competitors?

On a related note, does anyone know how are defining “Active”?


The churn rate is a bit higher if you count all organisations, even those created outside of the known kits on mainnet, such as the org DappNode created (which was the first org on mainnet). There is 717 organisations on mainnet total by this metric.

I don’t think there is any concrete answer to your question, but going by some of the organisation names, quite a few of them are just “test” orgs, i.e. people testing the onboarding experience and to check on the progress of Aragon as a product. Some of them are also test organisations in the sense that A1 and others create organisations on mainnet just before a release to check that everything works as intended.

As to the other organisations, I don’t know why they’re inactive, but I would imagine it is a lack of “real world” use cases, which will hopefully be remedied by the Agent app in Camino, since you can now use organisations as smart accounts.

Scout measures activity by transactions sent to apps that orgs have installed. So, an active organisation is an organisation where someone sent a transaction to e.g. the voting app of that org.


“Scout measures activity by transactions sent to apps that orgs have installed. So, an active organisation is an organisation where someone sent a transaction to e.g. the voting app of that org” - do you know in what time frame? Last 30 days?

They have multiple time frames: monthly, weekly and daily. Each is in their own box on the page you linked :blush:

@joeycharlesworth In general, I agree that the engagement is not high. But only looking at past 30 days, daily, monthly or weekly active is not an accurate way to judge the churn since the active user of that period could be a new user or a returning user.

To have a correct churn data, it typically starts with the cohort analysis. Breaking down the DAOs by the days they were created into each cohort and track the churn overtime separately. Then you can average the churn rate of each cohort to get the average churn of the entire Aragon protocol. Hoping to build that feature soon.

@huangkuan is my handle. Feel free to @ me should you have any questions.

1 Like

Another thing to keep in mind is some organizations, such as Aragon Trusts, are explicitly designed to be used very rarely throughout someone’s lifetime. I don’t think there are many such organizations yet, but it’s just something to keep in mind. As such, IMO any organization that holds a meaningful amount of money (say, >$100 worth of assets) is an “active” organization, whether there are any transactions happening during a given time period or not.


For sure. Tx volume is not representative of “active” imo. As long as a DAO is securing funds then it is active. This is not cut and dry though, some DAOs may have no funds but might be used for voting on some other ofchain stuff


I’ve probably deployed 10-20 junk DAOs for testing purposes

1 Like

Would be good to work together to define what an “active” dao is in Aragon.


Can we have multiple criteria? Ex, consider a DAO active if:

a) balance is greater than $100 or/and
b) a member signed a transaction within the DAO in the past 30 days.

I think the point @light mentions regarding DAO trusts is a good one. But we need something broader to also capture DAOs that don’t have a treasury function.


just following up on this :slight_smile:

1 Like

I will leave the decision to the product team at Aragon. Once they decide how “active” should be defined, we can update it on Scout.

Personally, I don’t like the idea of having an arbitrary number $100 to decide who is active:

  1. The token prices can change every second.
  2. For some developing countries, $100 is a significant amount money while in some developed countries, $100 is insignificant.
  3. Unless you are talking about vanity metrics, all the product “sanity” metrics are eventually correlated to the potential business model. Having $100 in the vault doesn’t indicate anything about how this organization is doing. It might make some sense if you are getting interests by parking the money in the vault.
1 Like