When you discover Web3 technology and become genuinely excited about its potential, the obvious first step is engaging with the existing Web3 community. You've found something meaningful—decentralization, transparent governance, programmable ownership—and you want to build for the people who already understand and value these principles.

This is how I approached From Many, as One initially. I was fascinated by DAO governance mechanisms, believed deeply in decentralization as a systemic principle, and wanted to create something that demonstrated blockchain's potential beyond financial speculation. Starting with the Web3 community made intuitive sense. These were people who already cared about the concepts I was exploring.

My initial focus was even narrower—I wanted to build for DAO participants specifically. I created HowToDAO, a comprehensive educational guide to decentralized governance. I framed From Many, as One as a governance experiment where readers would directly participate in story decisions through on-chain voting. The narrative would serve as an accessible introduction to DAO mechanics, making abstract governance concepts tangible through character-driven drama.

The problem became apparent quickly: the audience was too small and too specific. Even within Web3, DAO participants represent a minority. Most crypto users engage with DeFi, NFTs, or simple token holding—not active governance. I was building for a subset of a subset.

So I pivoted broader. Instead of "a governance novel for DAO members," From Many, as One became "a crypto novel exploring Web3 themes." I removed the DAO-specific educational focus and emphasized the blockchain infrastructure—token distributions, on-chain voting, verifiable provenance. The target expanded from DAO participants to Web3 enthusiasts generally.

This felt like progress. Web3 as a whole is significantly larger than just the DAO community. Surely there was an audience for serialized fiction that incorporated blockchain mechanics.

But as I engaged with Web3 communities—attending meetups, sharing the project, discussing it with builders—a pattern emerged. People were supportive and interested, but primarily from a technical or innovative perspective. They wanted to know about the smart contract architecture, the governance implementation, the tokenomics design. Very few expressed interest in actually reading the story.

Web3 communities have established categories: DeFi protocols, NFT projects, gaming, infrastructure, DAOs. There's a clear vocabulary for what each category provides and what value it creates. "Serialized political intrigue that uses blockchain for narrative provenance" doesn't fit cleanly into any of these boxes.

More fundamentally, most Web3 participants care about governance, speculation, or technical innovation. A story that uses governance infrastructure without giving readers direct control doesn't scratch those itches. I had built something technically interesting to Web3 folks but narratively irrelevant to most of them.

The honest assessment: I was trying to serve an audience that didn't exist. Web3 users who want governance participation can join actual DAOs. Web3 users who want entertainment mostly engage with games or short-form content. The overlap of "Web3-literate readers who want longform serialized political fiction" was vanishingly small.

This led to a difficult question: Who actually wants what I'm building?

The answer wasn't in Web3. It was in political fantasy communities—readers who love stories about power struggles, governance dilemmas, philosophical conflicts, and character-driven intrigue. These readers already engage with serialized fiction through mediums and platforms like web novels, Royal Road, and Substack. They care deeply about worldbuilding, character development, and thematic exploration.

Most of them don't care about blockchain technology. At all.

This required complete reframing. Instead of "a crypto novel exploring governance through narrative," From Many, as One became "a serialized political fantasy that happens to use blockchain infrastructure for record-keeping." The blockchain components moved from primary selling point to optional technical detail.

The target audience shifted from Web3 enthusiasts to political fantasy readers. The value proposition changed from "participate in governance" to "read a character-driven political drama." The marketing language dropped crypto terminology entirely.

Does this mean the blockchain infrastructure was wasted effort? Not exactly, but it serves a different purpose than originally intended.

The smart contracts, token distributions, and on-chain voting now function as:

• Provenance layer: Making story elements verifiably canonical and permanent

• Author infrastructure: Tools that serve my creative process rather than reader participation

• Optional depth: Technical implementation that interested readers can explore but casual readers can ignore

• Institutional bridge: Connecting to Web3 protocols, organizations and individuals that support onchain content creation

The blockchain exists for the project rather than for the audience. It's architectural rather than experiential. Readers don't interact with it directly — they read the story, and if they're curious, they can explore how the infrastructure works.

This is honest about what blockchain provides here: permanent records and decentralized infrastructure that serve the author's philosophical interests and technical implementation, not required reader governance or participation.

Here's what I learned about maintaining enthusiasm for Web3 technology while being realistic about its current place in society:

Web3 infrastructure is genuinely interesting from a technical and philosophical perspective. The ability to create permanent, auditable records without centralized control solves real problems. Decentralization as a systemic principle matters.

Web3 audiences are not general audiences. The people excited about blockchain technology represent a tiny fraction of potential readers, viewers, or users. Building only for Web3-native audiences means accepting an extremely limited market.

Most people don't care about the infrastructure. They care about the experience. Whether your story uses a traditional database or blockchain record-keeping is irrelevant to most readers who just want compelling characters and engaging plots.

Web3 can serve creative work without being the main attraction. Using blockchain as infrastructure doesn't mean marketing blockchain as the value proposition. The technology can be present without being prominent.

Real-world Web3 communities provide value beyond audiences. Even if Web3 folks don't become your readers, local meetups, institutional support, and builder communities offer social infrastructure, technical assistance, and sometimes funding that compensates for not having them as primary audience.

If you're building creative projects that incorporate Web3 technology, consider these questions:

Who actually wants what you're creating? Not who you think should want it, or who understands the technology, but who will genuinely engage with the experience you're offering.

Can your project succeed without Web3 adoption? If your core value proposition requires blockchain literacy or active participation, you're limiting yourself to a niche audience. If the project works for general audiences and blockchain serves supporting functions, you have more flexibility.

Are you building for Web3 or building with Web3? The former means your audience is crypto-native and you're solving problems they actually have. The latter means you're using blockchain tools to serve non-crypto audiences who care about different things.

What does the blockchain actually provide that alternatives don't? Be honest about whether decentralized infrastructure serves genuine needs or just sounds conceptually interesting. Sometimes a traditional database is the right tool.

Can you sustain the project if Web3 funding doesn't materialize? Protocol grants, DAO treasuries, and NFT sales are potential revenue sources, but most creative projects don't successfully tap them. Can your work survive on traditional support (Patreon, literary grants, direct sales)?

For From Many, as One, the path forward looks like this:

Primary audience: Political fantasy readers who engage with serialized fiction and care about governance themes, power dynamics, and character-driven intrigue.

Marketing approach: Lead with genre, themes, and narrative quality. The blockchain infrastructure exists as optional technical detail for curious readers.

Web3 presence: Maintain connections with global and local Web3 communities for social support and institutional relationships, but don't expect them to be primary readers.

Revenue diversification: Pursue both traditional literary support (grants, Patreon, potential publishing deals) and Web3 opportunities (institutional grants, eventual NFT collections) without depending on either exclusively.

Honest framing: Present the project accurately to different audiences—political fantasy for readers, blockchain implementation case study for Web3 builders, philosophical exploration for academic contexts.

Enthusiasm for Web3 technology is legitimate. The principles of decentralization, transparent governance, and programmable ownership represent genuine innovations. Building with these tools can serve real creative purposes.

But enthusiasm doesn't create audiences. Most people don't care about blockchain infrastructure—they care about whether your story, game, or application provides value to them specifically. If that value requires Web3 literacy or active participation, you're building for a tiny market. If the value exists independently and blockchain serves supporting functions, you have room to find broader audiences.

Web3 can be part of your creative infrastructure without being your primary value proposition. The technology can serve your work without defining it. And maintaining connections with Web3 communities can provide real value—social support, technical assistance, institutional relationships—even when those communities aren't your main audience.

The balance isn't about choosing between Web3 enthusiasm and market reality. It's about letting each serve appropriate functions. Be excited about the technology. Build with tools that genuinely serve your creative vision. But find your audience where they actually are, not where you wish they were.

Thank you for reading — see you in Lanka Prime.