Ideas For 2023 Onward

Assuming that the overall goal is around increasing the market share of Tezos, here are some thoughts and ideas I had:

  • I am not going into the particulars of execution/funding at this time as that is a whole other matter, are the ideas even good to begin with.

  • In general, each following idea in some way builds on some of the benefits from the previous ideas.

  • I will continue to edit and update this post in an effort to make it more legible.

  • If a particular idea, stands out from the rest and people want to focus on it, then I will create a post specifically for it.

#1 - With genuine curiosity and intellectual humility, approach and ask the broader more general crypto community what their impression of Tezos is and what they think Tezos should do to increase it’s market share.

  • We can speculate all day long about what is, would, could, should, whatever… or we can just ask people.

  • This is something that is open to anyone at any scale in the community is able to participate in.

  • This will actually act as a form of marketing by getting people talking and thinking about Tezos.

    • I experimented with this yesterday and asked the other hosts of the weekly r/cc podcast to give me feedback on Tezos

      • I will share their anonymized feedback in an Agora post.

#2 - Community Moderation and Organization via DAO’s:

  • Not everyone is a good actor, even generally good actors are not always so and it is healthy for them to get correction and feedback when they are not.

  • One approach is total access where only illegal content and obvious spam are removed.

    • This creates an asymmetry where bad actors can waste the time and attention of others. Often they can be blocked but the channels still easily get filled with lower and lower quality engagement.
    • When those bad actors are finally removed, general engagement drops when people disagree with those decisions.
  • So, who should handle moderation?

    • In short, with the principles of crypto and Tezos, the stake holders.

      • Groups ( of varying size and buy in ) should set up DAO’s where their method and execution is decided by the stake holders.

        • Where groups agree they can coordinate, where they disagree they can peacefully compete, in the end the ecosystem as a whole benefits.
        • If a subgroup feels hard done by or that they can do better, they can sell their stake and start their own DAO.
    • Recommended General DAO organization:

      • Let it be noted that DAOs will have the incentive to find the mean between too much and too little moderation and ultimately, the ecosystem ( voluntary market ) as a whole, will decide.

      • First of all, perfection is an impossible standard and reaching it means failure somewhere else that will undermine whatever it is you are trying to perfectly optimize for.

        • Don’t aim for no bad actors ever, aim for better than now and a reliable means of improvement over time so your day to day efforts are not wasted or lost to the past.
      • Let moderation action and baning be handled by a vote.

        • For faster response time, you can even have moderators that post a bond which is forfiet ( based on a vote ) if they act outside of their mandate.

          • This would be handy for deleting/banning obvious scam/spam/troll content.
      • Let participation in a hosted chat channel or forum come with a small cost that goes to the DAO treasury and is kept even if they are banned.

        • Each DAO can experiment with the parameters they want to see what works out best for them.

          • Maybe you want to have as few bad actors as possible, ever. Set a high sign up cost, maybe you want to judo move trolls into paying your operating costs, set a lower sign up cost.
        • Let each message come with a small bond that is forfiet at the discretion of the DAO.

          • Again, you can let trolls pay your operating costs or prevent them from showing up in the first place.

#3 - A Reputation Network ( or networks ):

  • Reputation networks are a form of expression where people give each other and the market/ecosystem feedback on their interactions.

    • Reputation networks become force multipliers for the efforts done in the community.
    • Every interaction and exchange becomes a greater opportunity, for good actors to get recognized and for bad actors to get the feedback they need to improve. Or, if they choose not to reform… eventually the market will stop wasting resources and attention interacting with them.
  • This is easily implemented in many ways with tech we already have. Again, imo competition is best here and let the standard be chosen by market dominance.

  • NOTE In the implementation, the method of interpreting the data from the reputation network should be competing market services and not something baked into the implementation. The whole point is for individual to be thingking, acting and judging for themselves.

    • A Reputation Network ( or networks ) will, overtime, reduce the ecosystem overhead for moderation:

      • Some DAOs will set requirements for minimum reputation in order to participate in varying degrees and ways.

      • “What does that matter? How expensive is that really?”

      • Governance is, I would argue, the single greatest expense in all of society. This is our greatest place to save on costs and generate greater profits imo.

        • Some will say that people will abuse a system like this.

          • See Ludwig Von Mises:

            • “If one rejects laissez faire on account of mans fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.”
            • My take on that: If you think you are hopelessly surrounded by people who are more vicious, malicious, incompetent and or neglegent than not, then we will never know because any of your interaction here at all is a performative contradiction.
          • It is not abusable so long as action on and interpretation of the data is left to the individual so gain or lose from.

            • If one spreads lies in order to harm the reputation of someone, they themselves are open to have their reputation destroyed when it gets brought to light.
        • What about privacy and anonymity?

          • This complements them, it does not hinder them.
          • Anonymous alternative identities can gain or lose reputation like anyone else.
          • This actually makes it easier to assess the trustworthiness or not of anonymous identities.
        • What about forgiveness and the opportunity for reform?

          • Absolutely! Anyone can work to reform their reputation.
          • If all else fails, they can start over from scratch with an anonymous identity and still participate in the market from there.

#4 Anonymous chats / forums:

  • This idea leverages the previous ideas so they would need to be implemented first.

  • Anonymous platforms would be places where anonymity were enforced.

    • Basic DAO moderation as described above.
    • Making bannable the sharing of one’s own identity, whether it is mistakenly leaked or not subject to the judgement of the DAO.
  • People would more have to focus on the merits of ones arguments, their reason and evidence as opposed to personal history/biases.

  • Note, this does not mean whatever is shared there has any kind of value, it would all have to be judged on an individual basis according to it’s own merit:

    • Could be complete lies or especially with anonymous accounts, one or a few people pretending to be a larger group.

      • For this reason I would recommend a DAO regulaitng these platforms make it cost something for each message. Goes stright to the treasury. If one is going to appear to be many, make them pay for it.
  • This would have to be carefully executed to minimize abuse. IMO it’s pointless and the overhead is too great without reputation networks.

#5 - Defi reform:

  • Defi reform would mean reflecting on the scams and calamities in crypto over the years and reflecting on how we can avoided them in the future.

  • First off, lets note that whatever criticism one can throw at crypto, fiatland is far, far worse. Fiat is a greater scam than any other and all manner of bad actions are used to propagate it. It is orders of magnitude more destructive to both the economy and ecology, regardless of which one you personally prioritize.

    • That said, the marketplace of voluntary people newly freed from the chains of fiat finance understandably are in a collective state of learning and making mistakes.
    • The viscous, malicious, incompetent and negligent are lined up to take advantage of this.
  • Lets create a culture of due diligence and demanding defi projects be (voluntarily [ not relying on state courts ] ) regrettable by their participants.

    • Step 1 of Due Diligence is looking to the reputation and history of the people in a project.

      • Search online their names, former business etc…

      • Have they ever been responsible for X amount of resources?

        • Regardless of which ever you think is more psychologically influential and potentially corrupting, addicting and dangerous like a drug, wealth ( owning things ) or state power ( effectively owning other people ), we can all agree that wealth has a great psychological impact.

          • Most people that win the lottery are worse of and more miserable in the long run.
          • Does the founder ( or executive group ) of a defi project, have a history of being responsible for that much wealth and successfully delivering on obligations of that scale?
      • Did they themselves fall victim to past manias and scam/incompetent projects? ( Luna, FTX, Celsius etc… )

        • One may be tempted to let them off the hook becuase they themselves fall victim, but people asking to lead projects are implying they can do better with your money, for you, than you can. Hold them more accountable.
  • Create Defi DAO templates where the participants get to vote on when, how and how much funds are released on what basis.

    • This is just a basic commons sense improvement to me. Do i really need to explain why? Let me know though, I will.

#6 - Voting Markets:

  • This idea is less dependent on the previous idea but the most speculative imo, so i put it at the end.

  • During each governance cycle, after a particular proposal is selected, vote tokens are generated in ones address equivalent to the quantity of Tezos ( or token in the case of a DAO ) one holds. These votes can then be sold on the open market.

  • This would drastically reduce voter apathy and encourage far more interest and engagement in governance.

3 Likes

This is the feedback I got from the other ‘We are CC’ podcast hosts.

This is not meant to be any kind of endorsement, agreement or disagreement with them. This is just a demonstration of personally taking initiative and getting feedback in the market.
I offered them some Tezos for their time because they all have for more experience than most in the crypto space and therefore their feedback is more valuable.

Me:

I have a personal proposition for you guys.

I will give each of you individually 30 Tezos to share your current thoughts and opinions on Tezos with me and what you think the chain should do to gain a greater market share.

All I ask is for your total honesty. Be as soft or as brutal as you like, be as terse or as long-winded as you like.

I am personally paying for this and will share my findings with the Tezos community ( without sharing who said what unless otherwise requested ).

You can anonymously email me your response to jarrod@tezoscommons.org then let me know you did and I will trust you and send you the funds.
If you have a lot to say about this and don’t think the 30 Tezos is worth your time to articulate all of it let me know and I’m happy to negotiate a better rate. :slightly_smiling_face:
If you would rather speak to the Tezos community directly, let me know and I’m also happy to help with that. :slightly_smiling_face:

Host A:

I think the problem that tezos faces is the same kind of existential problem any alt-ETH layer one project faces: what reasons would anyone use it instead of ETH?

In the case of tezos the reasons seem to be:

  • upgrageability
  • managed/launched by super smart math responsible people

I don’t view upgradeability as especially noteable when even ETH has proved the ability to repeatedly upgrade their network culminating in the merge a few months ago. Yes, tezos has baked in upgradeability to their network, but ETH has managed just fine for now, and other networks are small and centralized enough that breaking upgrades can be enacted probably more quickly than tezos even. So at this point in time that baked-in adaptability doesn’t seem to be a major selling point.

Managed by nerds is ok, not too different than ETH but on smaller scale I guess, but it kind of alludes to the centralization that still exists due to the way all of these smart contract layer ones were launched including ETH.

I’m not an expert but tezos consensus doesn’t seem to be ground breaking. The presence of small and never ending inflation not really a selling point either.

So, why would anyone use XTZ instead of BTC, ETH, or XMR? I know there was a push to try and attract NFT people and build a base there with art and music, but it seems like all the real blue chip stuff is still on ETH. There just doesn’t seem to be a real killer app/reason/hype to drive users onto the tezos network.

See the graph for evidence of tezos never really getting organic hype over the last five years despite marketing by (I think) the foundation at Mets stadium et al.

I think to overcome the network effect of ETH you have to have a very unique application or selling point that is actually in demand by existing crypto people I guess. Especially with the push towards Arbitrum and other layer-2s for a more scaleable defi and nft ecosystem while still remaining basically “ETH”.

What could that application or selling point be? :woman_shrugging: But I don’t see other ecosystems like DOT, BNB, ADA, NEAR, AVAX, etc really finding any more real adoption than XTZ, despite their fairly widely varying mcaps.

Host B:

I agree … basically mirror what (supersecretname) said @JarrodWoodard

Tezos problem is it’s a crowded market and technical merits alone can’t push Ethereum out at this point, especially with L2s outpacing competing L1s.

I’ve looked into Tezos DeFi and it’s lacking, so I never bothered to use it.

Tezos art community, as I’ve said many times, is super authentic and down to Earth, unless the shitshow on other chains, but it still suffers from a confusing ecosystem. At some point I was browsing Tezos references and found dead links, some dAPPs that weren’t active anymore.

I think to distinguish itself, build on it’s strengths. The artist community is big … how can you grow that? Cross-chain marketplaces need to emerge. OpenSea needs to add Tezos support. I saw that rumored and then rumor faded away. Build on NFTs… I seem to recall some gaming integration was rumored at one point, thats a big opportunity where in-game assets probably don’t care so much about chains, as long as its fast and cheap.

But the real gem is DeFi and tbh I just haven’t seen much come out that made me excited to try Tezos DeFi. Maybe a risky proposition is do what Justin Sun did and drop a high yield degen stablecoin farm onto your chain and draw people in, then try to nurture another ecosystem around that.

I think you said EVM compatibility is improving for Tezos? Thats also probably important, if there is a way for Tezos to cut into the ETH L2 market somehow by offering comparable services.

Host C:

Happy 2023 soon!
You dont need to send me anything.

My honest thought on Tezos, it just falls into a vague “proof of stake coin” category for me. I dont know all that much about it (though above par for any given crypto.) I have seen more people than id expect over the years ask/talk/request to see it vs. average.

Im no expert on pos chains so i cant really comment on whats under the hood. I would considering rebranding maybe - though i know thats a huge task and can backfire.

NFTs were the 2021 rager, though that ship is kinda sailed. Probably keep up with whatever the hype is in the next cycle and jump on that bandwagon :rofl:

Chart Perspective

Its got 27 hours to close above $0.751. My $1 limit order filled, ill look to add more @ $0.38 if it doesnt :fire: It hasnt been this oversold since Nov 18’

4 Likes

Good stuff Jarrod. I have a couple thoughts on this.

On point #1, giving a more concerted effort to reach out organically is never a bad idea. It’s not my favorite thing to suggest, but it would probably not be a bad return on investment to engage with a couple of the more influential people within the greater web3/NFT community. @KevinMehrabi might have some thoughts to share on this point too.

  1. I don’t think there’s enough participation or awareness of the governance process to justify charging fees to participate in “official” channels. That doesn’t feel like it’s in the spirit of Tezos, even if I would still be happy with the outcome. We don’t need to make this corner of the ecosystem even harder to participate in.

  2. I think having some sort of social score or generalized grade of your on-chain data (shout out to the GOGOs project, they did something along these lines with their airdrop almost a year ago) is fine. Would need specifics and to see something like this in action to have a real opinion.

  3. We already have anonymous forums. Agora is anonymous if you want it to be. I don’t think we would need a designated forum for anonymous conversation.

  4. Providing standard templates and best practices that anyone can use and adopt to their own needs sounds like a good idea.

  5. Can you summarize the Voting Markets thing or provide a timecode on where to start listening? 2 hours worth of audio is a lot to try and scrub through. I, and many others would greatly appreciate it.

On point 2.

Who said anything about official channels?

Regarding fees. You and the ecosystem will pay one way or another. Bad/poor actors leech energy, attention and time. It is an asymmetry that needs to be responded to and a mean that needs to be found. That is best solved by market forces. People choosing to participate in a DAO or not voluntarily, are market forces.

On point 4.

True but with #2 and #3 anonymity would be more effective.

On point 6

The idea convo starts an hour and four min in. This link should take you there.

The #BlockchainEvolved Show - Archetype - DAOs and Crypto Philosophy with Mike Evron

Great job, its sad to see such kind of feedback but its a great initiative and we can learn and improve from that

1 Like