I think the problem I am finding right now it’s not clear who our target user is and if flock teams should focus on different target users.
The target user defines:
- The design of the entry point to the product (right now, I can’t figure out on mainnet.aragon.org how to open the “product walk through” screen that I saw on the 0.8 launch, actually. The content here is important. Are we catering toward the 80 active organizations, or new users that learn about Aragon.)
- The target user defines the videos that we make when we launch products
- The target user defines the words that we use in our communication
So the questions that come to mind are:
- is our target user crypto projects? how large is the market of crypto projects that need governance tools (existing ones) and what is our predicted growth rate of new projects that will be created? do we have any existing market indicators in crypto project growth? ICOs have plummeted due to regulations. how is this regulatory challenge going to stand in the way of adoption? are we going to assist users with legal wrappers or are we going to suggest users to circumvent the law in their local jurisdiction? if the following, are we going to suggest they don’t use any personal identifying information and using mixnets so the government can’t crackdown on DAOs? lolol sorry, just using extreme examples here, but the users define the recommendations and advice we give them! the ones that are raising greater amounts of capital have more to risk if they aren’t being compliant, and if they are being compliant they are gonna want different tools to help with their corporate and accounting requirements.
- Drilling down further - is our target crypto users that have already raised money, or ones that haven’t? or both?
Based on this number, how many new projects should we aim to onboard by Jan 2020?
Different targets have product and onboarding directions that are very different. They define different demos that we should be recording, they define different case studies we should be writing, they define the offering of templates or the offering of apps.
I think we really can’t talk about any other aspect of the plan until we lock this down. And until we lock down on if different teams should have different targets, and then if we do have different targets, how do we make generic the initial product discovery flows?
After we establish our target, we can look at the website aragon.org and see if the messaging is aligned with this target.
Let’s look at the example of the first thing we see now:
Aragon empowers you to freely organize and collaborate without borders or intermediaries.
–> “without borders and intermediaries” implies organizations that are global and not satisfied with the status quo and where “intermediaries” stand in the way of their mission.
What is the size of this of this market, 100 organizations?
So if it’s 100 organizations, what is “product-market-fit” for us?
This number then impacts what the real TAM for 2020 would be (based on our prediction of how many orgs exist in the market today) (Aragon Total Addressable Market)
This is just one point we can start to use as an example.
I think talking about anything else is secondary – we can’t form a strategy until this is cohesive.
If we want different Flock teams to be able to focus on different users, that means the flock teams need their own unique landing pages/entry points to the product. For example, should Autark’s be “openenterprise.com” or the like, so we can really hone in on the use case we are trying to solve with what we have built?
Or should Autark be developing applications that we think dispute-prone organizations we want (since Aragon One, has what, ~30% of dev power dedicated to court)? How do we define a dispute-prone organization? How many organizations exist where there are crypto org-to-crypto org financial relationships and organization governance in hands of token holders?
I KNOW the court is super important for our vision and dream of digital jurisdictions but we need to be grounded in reality for what the market size really is or the market even exists yet – are we creating a new market by convincing people that DAOs will reduce legal/accounting costs? this path is totally valid, as 10 Aragon DAOs can have super high impact on the world and shift paradigms, but this where we may have to give into that being product-market fit, and talk to our market so their DAOs can grow to 1 million people, and talk to them a lot and build features they need so they can grow to 1 million people. [disclaimer: this is where some of my Space Decentral bias is thrown in] 10 mega DAOs is a completely different strategy than 1000 DAOs with 100 members each.
Are we gonna be trying to convince people they really should be creating crypto orgs instead of a traditional one, because we have a court – is that what people are missing the most?
Alternatively, if we want aragon.org to address more projects than crypto organizations and we want it to be the product landing page for all flock teams, we have to consider messaging that is more like slack.com or carta.com. But right now aragon.org is assuming that people already know what the ethereum blockchain is, that people are familiar with blockchain ecosystem jargon, that people know what the product used to look like such that we are showcasing release numbers and talking about “updates” vs. focusing on core features and apps that can solve what may be their top problems.
So maybe non-crypto projects aren’t the goal for 2020? Based on calls, it doesn’t seem to be, based on aragon.org it doesn’t seem to be, and based on mainnet.aragon.org it doesn’t seem to be. Non-crypto projects need a lot more education and videos.
While I start bringing up these various points above I want to enforce that:
- I am not suggesting Autark should go our separate way and build and market different landing pages or fork the client.
- I think talking about the Court is important as it defines market size and how closely we want the product roadmaps of non-A1 Flock teams to be aligned with that vector.
If we talk about these expectations more, we may be close to reaching product-market-fit once we onboard like 10 more projects onto Aragon, or get like $100m in Aragon DAOs?
But we do need to define the success metric(s)
- Money locked in DAOs?
- Active organizations
- Active users
And then how we define activity, and how we want to grow from Oct 2019 to Oct 2020.
By comparison, based on carta.com they say they have 12,000 organizations, 800,000 shareholders and “hundreds of billions of dollars in equity”.
So maybe crypto organization market size is 1% of traditional equity market that has carta has aquired onto their platform? So that is maybe 120 crypto orgs if we want to be really optimistic?
Sorry I am finding myself rambling and having many grammar issues that i’m too lazy to resolve at the moment. I want Autark to understand what is highest leverage, how we should prioritize our roadmap, how we should prioritize the type of users we talk to, and how that will align with the aragon.org website. I will probably try to edit this further than the 15 times I already have for clarity when it’s less late (my sleep schedule been wack).