In the age of web2 - the internet age defined by large centralized products/services such as Amazon, eBay, Facebook and Twitter, where the vast majority of value is attributed to the platform itself rather than the user - the response of most organizations to sales and marketing The team invests heavily as part of a traditional go-to-market (GTM) strategic approach, with a focus on lead generation, acquisition and customer retention. But in recent years, a whole new model of organizational construction has emerged. Rather than being controlled by the enterprise—centralized leadership makes all decisions about a product or service, even when using consumer data and free, user-generated content—this new model leverages decentralization technology that brings users into the role of owners through digital elements called tokens.

This new model, called web3, changes the whole GTM philosophy of these new companies. While some traditional customer acquisition frameworks still make sense, the introduction of tokens and novel organizational structures such as decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) requires multiple approaches to market entry. Since web3 is still new to many, but there is a huge opportunity to build in this space, in this post I share some new frameworks for thinking about GTM in this context, and the different types of organizations that may exist in the ecosystem. I'll also provide some tips and strategies for builders looking to create their own web3 GTM strategy as the field continues to evolve.

Catalyst for new market entry motives: Tokens

The concept of the customer acquisition funnel is at the heart of go-to-market and is very familiar to most businesses: from awareness and lead generation at the top of the funnel to customer conversion and retention at the bottom of the funnel. So traditional web2 "go-to-market" attacks cold-start problems through this very linear customer acquisition perspective, including areas such as pricing, marketing, partnerships, sales channel mapping, and sales force optimization. Success metrics include time to close a lead, website click-through rate, and revenue per customer, among others.

Web3 changes the entire approach to bootstrapping new networks, as tokens provide an alternative to the traditional approach to the cold start problem. Rather than spending money on traditional marketing to attract and acquire potential customers, the core developer team can use the token to bring in early users, who can then be rewarded for their early contributions when the network effect is not yet evident or started. get rewarded. These early adopters are not only evangelists who bring more people into the web (and they want to be rewarded for their contributions as well), but this basically makes early adopters in web3 more powerful than traditional business development or salespeople in web2 .

For example, the lending protocol Compound [full disclosure: we are an investor in this organization and some of the other organizations discussed in this post] uses tokens to incentivize early lenders and borrowers, in the form of COMP tokens for participation, or "steering liquidity" "Sex" liquidity mining program provides additional rewards. Any user of the protocol, whether borrower or lender, will receive COMP tokens. After the program launched in 2020, Compound’s total value locked (TVL) jumped from about $100 million to about $600 million. It’s worth noting that while token incentives attract users, that alone is not enough to make them “sticky”; more on that later. While traditional companies do incentivize employees through equity, they rarely financially incentivize customers in a long-term way (other than through acquisition discounts or referral bonuses).

in conclusion. In web2, the main GTM stakeholder is the customer, usually acquired through sales and marketing efforts. In web3, an organization's GTM stakeholders include not only their customers/users, but also their developers, investors, and partners. As a result, many web3 companies find that the community role is more important than the sales and marketing role.

web3 market entry matrix

For web3 organizations, the GTM strategy depends on an organization's position in the following matrix, according to its organizational structure (centralized vs. decentralized) and economic incentives (tokenless vs. tokenized).

Each quadrant's "go-to-market" is different and can range from traditional web2-style strategies to emerging and experimental strategies. Here I will focus on the upper right quadrant (decentralized teams with tokens) and contrast it with the lower left quadrant (centralized teams without tokens) to illustrate the differences between the web3 and web2 GTM approaches.

Decentralized team with tokens

First, let's look at the upper right quadrant. This includes organizations, networks and protocols with unique web3 operating models, which in turn require novel go-to-market strategies.

Organizations in this quadrant follow a decentralized model (although they usually start with a core development team or operations staff) and use the token economy to attract new members, reward contributors, and align incentives among participants. (For an in-depth discussion of the web3 business model and the seemingly contradictory question of capturing value, see this talk from the a16z Crypto Startup School.)

The fundamental difference between web3 organizations in this quadrant and those using the more traditional GTM model involves a key question. What is the product? Companies in the second and lower left quadrants must largely start with products that attract customers ("come for the tool, stay for the network"), while companies in the third quadrant go through a dual lens of purpose and community for marketing.

Having a product and a solid technical foundation is still important, but it doesn't have to come first.

What these organizations need is a clear purpose that defines why they exist. What is the unique problem they are trying to solve? It also means raising money not just on the basis of the whitepaper and founding team. It means having a strong community -- not just "community-led" or "community-first," but community-owned -- blurring the distinction between owners, shareholders, and users. What makes web3 successful in the long term is a clear purpose, having an engaged and high-quality community, and matching the right organizational management to that purpose and community.

Let’s now dive into the motivations for going public in the two broad categories of web3 organizations in the upper right quadrant. (1) Decentralized applications; and (2) Layer 1 blockchains, Layer 2 scaling solutions, and other protocols.

GTM Movement for Decentralized Applications

"Decentralized applications" cover use cases such as decentralized finance (DeFi), non-forgerable tokens (NFTs), social networking, and gaming.

Decentralized Finance (DeFi) DAOs

A major category of decentralized applications are decentralized finance (DeFi) applications such as decentralized exchanges (like Uniswap or dYdX ) or stablecoins (like MakerDAO’s Dai). While they may have listing incentives similar to standard, non-decentralized applications, the accumulation of value is different due to organizational structure and token economics.

The path many DeFi projects follow is that the protocol is first developed by a centralized development team. Following the launch of its protocol, the team often seeks to decentralize the protocol to improve its security and distribute the management of its operations to a decentralized group of token holders. This decentralization is usually accomplished by simultaneously issuing governance tokens; launching a decentralized governance protocol (usually a decentralized autonomous organization, or DAO); and granting control over the protocol to the DAO .

This decentralization process can involve many different structures and physical forms. For example, many DAOs do not have any affiliated legal entities and operate only in the digital world, while others use multi-signature ("multisig") wallets, acting under the direction of the DAO. In some cases, non-profit foundations have been established to oversee the future development of the protocol under the direction of the DAO. In almost all cases, the original developer team continues to function as one of the many contributors to the ecosystem created by the protocol and develop complementary or ancillary products and services. (This white paper https://a16z.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/DAO-Legal-Framework-Jennings-Kerr10.19.21-Final.pdf contains more details about the DAO legal framework, from tax and entity form to operational issues and considerations).

Here are two popular DeFi examples:

• MakerDAO started as a DAO in March 2015, established the foundation in June 2018, and exited the foundation in July 2021. MakerDAO has a stablecoin, Dai, which is designed to enable its users to transact in a fast, low-cost, borderless and transparent manner, with a stable unit of value. This could be through purchases of goods and services or engagement with other DeFi applications. It also has a governance token, MKR. The DAO approves various governance changes as well as certain parameters of the protocol’s operation, including the staking rate used by the protocol to mint DAI.

• The Uniswap protocol was launched by a centralized company, but is now owned and governed by the Uniswap DAO, which is controlled by UNI token holders. Uniswap Labs, the protocol's creator, operates an interface to the Uniswap protocol, and is one of many developers contributing to the protocol's ecosystem.

So, what does "going to market" look like here? Take Dai, an algorithmic stablecoin issued and managed by MakerDAO as an example. One of the goals of most algorithmic stablecoin issuers (like MakerDAO) is to generate more stablecoin usage in the financial ecosystem. Therefore, the activity to enter the market is to have it: 1) be listed on cryptocurrency exchanges for retail and institutional trading; 2) be integrated into wallets and applications; 3) be accepted as payment for goods or services. Today, there are over 400 Dai marketplaces, which are integrated into hundreds of projects and accepted as a payment method through major commerce solutions such as Coinbase Commerce.

How do they do it? MakerDAO was initially done through a more traditional business development team that drove many of the early collaborations and integrations. However, as it became more decentralized, the business development function became the responsibility of the core unit of growth, a sub-community of Maker token holders commonly known as SubDAO. Additionally, because MakerDAO is decentralized, its protocol operates trustless and permissionless, and anyone can use the protocol to generate or buy Dai. And because Dai's code is open source, developers can integrate it into their applications in a self-service fashion. Over time, the protocol has become more self-serving -- with better developer documentation and more integration playbooks -- and other projects have been able to build on it to scale.

Listing Metrics for DeFi DAOs: As web3's new listing strategies emerge, so do new ways to measure success. For DeFi applications, a typical success metric is the aforementioned Total Value Locked (TVL). It represents all assets that use a protocol or network for transactions, staking, lending, etc.

However, TVL is not an ideal measure of long-term organizational health and success. While new DeFi protocols can replicate open source code, offer high yields, and attract massive inflows that pool into TVL, it doesn’t have to be sticky — traders tend to leave when the next project comes along.

Therefore, the more critical metrics to track are areas such as the number of unique token holders; community engagement frequency and sentiment; and developer activity. Furthermore, since protocols are composable - capable of being programmed to interact and build upon each other - another key metric here is integration. The number and type of integrations track how and where the protocol is used in other applications, such as wallets, exchanges, and products.

Social, Cultural and Artistic DAO

For social, cultural, and artistic DAOs, entering the market means building a community with a specific purpose—sometimes even starting with text chats between friends—and growing organically by finding others who believe in the same purpose. But isn't this "just a group chat", or just like a traditional Kickstarter crowdfunding, for example?

No, because while the organizers of traditional web2 crowdfunding projects may also have a clear purpose, they must be more aware of the means to that end from the top down. Project sponsors typically detail the use of raised funds, a clear product roadmap, and a comprehensive timeline. In the web3 model, the purpose is paramount, but the method is often figured out later, including how the funding will be spent, product roadmaps and timelines.

For example, for the ConstitutionDAO, the purpose is to purchase a copy of the U.S. Constitution; for the Krause House, the purpose is to purchase an NBA team and pioneer a fan-managed team; for the LinksDAO, the purpose is to create a Virtual country club; for PleasrDAO, the purpose is to collect, display and creatively add/share back to the community NFTs to represent culturally significant ideas and movements.

In the case of ConstitutionDAO, which raised $47 million from a community of strangers around this purpose, the entire process was completed in a few weeks, started with a clear purpose, and only raised funds for that specific purpose. ConstitutionDAO didn't have much else - no clear roadmap, execution plan, and even no tokens at that time (it was created after a failed bid). The individuals who provided the funds were aligned with the purpose and motivated by the community, who just wanted to contribute and spread the word, and Twitter was flooded with memes.

Friends with Benefits is a tokenized social DAO that started out as a tokenized Discord server for web3 ideas. In addition to the minimum purchase of FWB tokens (representing membership in the DAO), potential members must apply in writing to join the FWB. The community grew, connecting in various Discord channels, hosting IRL events, and eventually realizing that one of the products they could build was an event app that the token-issuing community could use. FWB gives creatives a real stake in the community, and the DAO framework enables this decentralized social group to coordinate at scale, such as allocating budgets and completing projects from publishing content to producing events.

Listing Metrics for Social DAOs: One of the key measures of a DAO’s health is the high-quality engagement of the community, as measured by the primary communication and governance platforms it uses. For example, a DAO can track channel activity on Discord; member activation and retention; community conference call attendance, governance participation (who is voting on what, how often); and actual work in progress (paid contributions). number of users).

Other metrics might be new relationships established, or a measure of trust developing among members of the DAO community. While some tools and frameworks do exist here, social DAO metrics are still an emerging space, so we'll see more tools emerge and evolve as the space evolves.

Game DAO

Today, most web3 games, whether play-to-earn, play-to-mint, move-to-earn, or other genres, are very similar to popular web2 games -- with two key differences:

1. Use game assets on an open global blockchain platform instead of the closed, controlled economies of traditional pay-to-play and free-to-play games; and

2. Gamers are able to become real stakeholders and have a say in the management of the game itself.

In web3 games, marketing strategies are established through player referrals and cooperation with guilds. Guilds like Yield Guild Games (YGG) lend new players game assets to get them started playing a game they might not otherwise be able to afford. Guilds choose which games to support based on three factors: the quality of the game; the strength of the community; and the robustness and fairness of the game's economy. Gaming, community and economic health must all be kept in sync.

While developers of blockchain-based games may have lower ownership percentages and/or take rates, by incentivizing players as owners, developers are helping to develop the overall economy for all.

But unlike web2, purpose and community dominate. For example, Loot, a game that starts with content and then moves to gameplay, is an example of a purpose and community, not product, driving GTM. Loot is a collection of NFTs, each known as a Loot Pack, that has a unique combination of adventure gear items (examples include Dragon Leather Belt, Furious Silk Gloves, and Amulet of Enlightenment). Loot essentially provides a hint -- or building block-esque base -- upon which games, projects, and other worlds can be built. The Loot community has created everything from analytics tools to derivative art, music sets, domains, quests and more games, all inspired by their Loot packs.

The key idea here is that Loot grows not because of existing products that users flock to, but because of the philosophy and vision it represents - an open, composable network that welcomes ideas and incentivizes users through tokens . The community creates the product - not the network creates the product in the hope that it will attract the community. So a key metric here would be the volume of derivatives, which, for example, could be considered more valuable here than traditional metrics.

GTM Initiatives for Layer 1 Blockchains and Other Protocols

In web3, layer 1 refers to the underlying blockchain. Avalanche, Celo, Ethereum, and Solana are all examples of layer 1 blockchains. These blockchains are all open source, so anyone can build on them, copy or change them, and integrate with them. The growth of these blockchains comes from having more applications built on them.

Layer 2 refers to any technology that operates on top of existing Layer 1 to help solve the scalability challenges of Layer 1 networks. One type of layer 2 solution is convolution. Layer 2 convolutions do just that - they "roll up" the transaction off-chain and put the data back on the layer 1 network via the bridge. There are two main categories of second layer scrolling. The first, optimistic rolling, "optimistically" assumes that the transaction is honest and that there is no fraud through fraud proofs. The second category, zk rolling, is determined using "zero-knowledge" proofs. Most of these second layer solutions are currently being developed for Ethereum and do not yet have their own tokens, but we will discuss them here as their metrics of success entering the market are similar to other networks in this category.

Also, the protocol can be built on top of other L1 or L2, take Uniswap protocol as an example, it supports Ethereum (L1), Optimism (L2) and Polygon (L2).

Growth of layer 1 blockchains, layer 2 scaling solutions, and these other protocols can come from forks, where a network is copied and then altered. For example, the first layer blockchain Ethereum was forked by Celo. Optimism, a second layer scaling solution, was forked by Nahmii and Metis. And Uniswap was forked to create SushiSwap. While this may seem negative at first, the number of forks a network has is actually a measure of success - it shows that others want to replicate it.

These examples and mindsets all focus on the upper right quadrant, the decentralized web with tokens — broadly speaking, the state-of-the-art examples of web3. However, depending on the type of organization, there is still quite a mix of web2 GTM strategies and emerging web3 models. Builders should understand the scope of the various approaches as they begin to develop their go-to-market strategies, so now let's look at a hybrid model that fuses web2 GTM and web3 GTM strategies.

Centralized and tokenless: web2-web3 hybrid

Many companies in this lower left quadrant (tokenless centralized teams) provide on-ramps and interfaces for users to access web3 infrastructure and protocols.

In this quadrant, there is significant overlap in go-to-market strategies for web2 and web3 -- especially in the SaaS and marketplace areas.

Software as a Service

Some companies in this quadrant follow a traditional software-as-a-service (SaaS) business model, such as Alchemy, which offers node-as-a-service. These companies offer on-demand infrastructure through various tiers of subscription fees that are determined by factors such as the amount of storage needed, whether nodes are dedicated or shared, and monthly requests.

SaaS business models often require traditional web2 go-to-market campaigns and incentives. Customer acquisition is achieved through a combination of product-led and channel-led strategies:

Product-led user acquisition is primarily about getting users to try the product itself. For example, one of Alchemy's products is Supernode, an Ethereum API aimed at any organization that builds on Ethereum but doesn't want to manage their own infrastructure. In this case, customers try Supernode through the free tier or free model, and these customers recommend the product to other potential customers.

In contrast, channel-led user acquisition focuses on segmenting different customer types (for example, public versus private sector customers) and aligning sales teams with those customers. In this case, a company might have a sales team focused only on public sector customers, such as government and education, and would have a deep understanding of the needs of this type of customer.

I've provided an overview in this post to help explain the difference between web2 and web3 go-to-market strategies, but it's important to note that developer-centric outreach and developer relationships -- including developer documentation, Activities and education -- also very important here.

Market Platforms and Exchanges

Other companies in this quadrant rely on the model of markets and exchanges that consumers are relatively familiar with, such as peer-to-peer horizontal NFT marketplace OpenSea and cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase. These businesses generate revenue based on a transaction fee (usually a percentage of the transaction) -- "take", which is similar to the business model of classic online marketplaces like eBay and Amazon.

For these types of companies, revenue growth comes from an increase in the number of listings, the average dollar value per listing, and the number of users on the platform -- all of which lead to increased trading volumes while benefiting users in terms of variety, market liquidity, and more .

A key market move here is to increase channel distribution by partnering with other platforms to showcase curated merchandise. This is similar to Amazon's affiliate program, where bloggers can link to items they like, and any purchases made through those links will give the blogger a commission. But a key difference from web2 is that web3 is structured to allow royalties to be distributed back to creators in addition to affiliate fees. For example, OpenSea offers traditional affiliate sales channels through their white label program, purchases made through referral links bring in a percentage of sales to the affiliate, but it also allows royalties and creators can continue to earn a percentage of any secondary sales . (This web3 feature is uniquely enabled by cryptocurrencies, as smart contracts can pre-encode percentage arrangements, blockchain track provenance, etc.).

Since creators now have the opportunity to continue monetizing their work through the secondary market -- value they previously couldn't see in the web2 system, let alone capture -- they are incentivized to continue promoting the market. Creators also become evangelists.

GTM tactics

Now that I've shared an overview of key mindsets and use cases, let's take a look at specific go-to-market strategies that are often seen in web3 organizations. These are core ingredients, not a complete playbook, but still help builders entering and exploring the field understand tactics and options.

airdrop

An airdrop is when a project distributes tokens to users in return for some behavior the project wants to incentivize, including testing the network or protocol. These can be distributed to all existing addresses on a particular blockchain network, or targeted (e.g. to a specific key influencer); often, they are used to solve cold-start problems - lead to early adoption, reward Or incentivize early users, among others.

In 2020, Uniswap airdropped 400 UNI to anyone who used the platform. In September 2021, dYdX airdropped DYDX to users. Recently, ENS airdropped to anyone with an ENS domain (a decentralized .eth domain); the airdrop took place in November 2021, but anyone with an ENS domain before October 31, 2021 has Eligibility (until May 2022) to claim $ENS tokens, which provides holders with governance rights associated with the ENS protocol.

In the field of unforgeable tokens, airdrops of NFT projects are also gaining popularity to help make them accessible to more people. A recent notable airdrop was from the Boring Ape Yacht Club, a collection of 10,000 unique NFTs; on August 28, 2021, BAYC created the corresponding Mutant Ape Yacht Club. Each BAYC token holder received the mutant serum, which allowed them to mint 10,000 "mutated" apes, and a new 10,000 mutant apes were also started for new entrants. Because there are different types of serums, serums can only be used once, and since a bored ape cannot use multiple serums of the same level, serums add a new scarcity mode.

The rationale for creating MAYC was to "reward our simian holders with a brand new NFT" -- a "variant" version of their simian -- while also allowing newcomers to enter the BAYC ecosystem at a lower membership level. This maintains out-of-the-box access to the wider community without diluting the exclusivity of the original set or making those original owners feel their contributions have been relegated. (Another solution to accessibility is NFT fragmentation, where an NFT has multiple owners). The MAYC floor price, or the lowest listing price for MAYC, has always been lower than the BAYC floor price, but owners have essentially the same interest.

These airdrops are done retroactively to reward NFT holders or users of the network and protocol (just like the ENS airdrops), but airdrops can also be used as an active GTM movement to generate awareness for a particular project and encourage people to check it out . Since the information is public on the blockchain, a new project can be airdropped to, for example, all wallets that use a particular market, or all wallets that hold a particular token.

In any event, projects should clearly articulate their overall token distribution, classification, and plans prior to conducting an airdrop. There are many examples of airdrops being used for nefarious purposes and airdrops going wrong. Additionally, in the United States, airdropped tokens can be considered securities offerings, so projects should consult a lawyer before engaging in any such activity.

Developer Grants

Developer grants are grants from the protocol's treasury pool to individuals or teams that contribute in some way to improving the protocol. This can serve as an effective GTM mechanism for DAOs, as developer activity is an integral part of the protocol's success. Examples of projects and protocols with developer funding include Celo, Chainlink, Compound, Ethereum, and Uniswap.

But grants can be used for anything from protocol development to bug bounties, code audits, and other activities outside of programming. Compound even has a grant related to business development and integration, funding any integration that increases the use of Compound. An example of this is when they fund a fund that integrates Compound with Polkadot.

memes

Viral images with text overlays are another GTM strategy of the web3 organization. Given the complexity and breadth of the cryptocurrency ecosystem, and the short attention spans of social media users, memes can convey information quickly. Memes can also signal belonging, community, goodwill, and more in a highly information-intensive way.

The NFT project Pudgy Penguins, a series of 8888 penguins, started due to its meme properties. Major launches for the collection sold out within 20 minutes, and the collection was featured in major media outlets, which in turn helped bring such projects into the mainstream. The social presence and community element of the PFP" (profile picture) series - in web3, this will be shown as the NFT's profile picture on social media as the owner - also allows for this virality. Twitter recently launched a A feature that allows users to prove their ownership of NFTs through a hexagonal profile picture linked to OpenSea's API.

Collectors with large social media followings draw attention to an item when they change their personal photo to a photo of the item, and item collectors often follow all other collectors of the same item. These moves, in turn, generate other memes, such as in Crypto Covens and the "web2 me vs. web3 me" meme where users put their witches alongside their real faces to indicate identity and belonging, among other .

So what does all this mean for the founders of web3? The biggest mindset shift is moving from planning to something more like a gardener.

In a web2 company, founders are not only responsible for setting a top-down vision, they are also responsible for developing a team and planning and executing against that vision. In web3, the founder is more of a gardener, helping to nurture and nurture a potentially successful product, while also providing the space for this to happen. While the founders of web3 still set the purpose of the organization, as well as the original governance structure, the governance structure itself may soon lead to their new roles. Rather than optimizing headcount growth or revenue and profitability, founders may optimize protocol usage and the quality of the community. Furthermore, after any decentralization, founders must adapt to an environment where no hierarchical power structure exists, and they are one of the many players who advocate for the success of a particular project. Therefore, before decentralization, founders should ensure that their projects can succeed in such an environment.

I saw some of this firsthand when I was chief of staff to Tony Hsieh, the former CEO of Zappos.com, an e-commerce company now owned by Amazon. The company began experimenting with a more decentralized (by contrast, only top-down) governance structure in 2014, including a self-organizing management system known as "holacracy." Holacracy deals with the hierarchy of jobs, not the hierarchy of people, with mixed results. But Hsieh offers a useful analogy, comparing his role to being a grower of plants in a greenhouse (in a holistic management model) rather than being the best plant. He said he needed to be the "architect of the greenhouse" - setting the right conditions for all other plants to flourish and thrive.

Today, Friends with Benefits (FWB) "Mayor" Alex Zhang feels the same way, saying his job "is not to develop a top-down vision" but to facilitate the creation of "framework, licensing and regulations for community members" Approved and built upon. While the web2 leader is focused on updating product roadmaps and driving new product releases, Zhang considers himself more of a gardener than a top-down builder. His role includes watching FWB's "neighbors" (discord channels in this case) and curating it by weeding out unattractive channels and helping support and grow motivating ones. By creating a framework for these channels -- and a playbook for channel success (such as a mix of activities, clear leadership and governance structures) -- Zhang becomes more of an educator and communicator.

As far as the founders of NFT projects are concerned, their roles are mainly the initiators and interim managers of intellectual property (IP). Yuga Labs, creators of the Bored Ape Yacht Club, wrote: "We see ourselves as interim custodians of intellectual property that is in the process of becoming more and more fragmented. Our ambition is to make it a community Owned brands whose tentacles reach into world-class gaming, events and streetwear." Owning an NFT - whether it's an image, video or sound clip, or whatever - transfers all rights related to the NFT to the owner. As NFTs are bought and sold, this ownership is transferred - and as the ecosystem around NFTs grows, these benefits go to the NFT owners, not just the NFT project's founding team.

NFT ownership can also be community-driven licensing and community-driven content (unlike traditional IP franchises). An example here is Jenkins The Valet, an NFT avatar from the BAYC series (specifically the gorilla No. 1798), contracted with the Creative Artists Agency (CAA) to be represented in various forms of media. Jenkins was created by Tally Labs with Ape 1798. Tally Labs decided to infuse Ape with its own branding and backstory, and reversed the notion that the statistical rarity of NFTs was a major determinant of their price and success. They then created a way for others to participate in the creation of content around Jenkins through the "Writer's Room" NFT, for example, community members being able to vote on the type of the first book.

There is still a lot of possibilities here; we have yet to see what is possible as more people embrace cryptocurrencies and decentralized technologies and the web3 model. The traditional web2 GTM frameworks are a useful reference and provide some useful play around - but they are just a few of the many frameworks organized by web3. The key difference to remember is that web2 and web3 tend to have different goals, growth and success metrics. Builders should start with a clear purpose, develop a community around that purpose, and match their development strategy and community incentives accordingly -- and their corresponding incentives to go public. We'll see patterns emerge and look forward to watching and sharing more here.