Nice job on the term co-determination TPan. I dig it. It's more realistic and possible to achieve than co-creation which just feels like the buzzword of the month.
A couple thoughts to share:
- I wonder how much holder participation is a result of being absent vs outright confusion. Some of these mechanics/steps are confusing AF. Sure web3 nerds love this stuff but when we onboard billions what are the tactics that will work for the masses? The blind box feels like the tactic that will really win here long term. It's simple and fun for users. Its correlates with IRL experiences everyone is familiar with - opening a pack of sports cards, blind box beanie babies and pokemon packs. Cyptoys is an interesting example that is really building an entire business using the blind box as a key component to create surprise and delight. Doodles Pharrell Pack another recent example of the blind box.
- Does veefriends burn island fit into co-determination? I can't decide. Right now I'm framing burn island as digital sweepstakes. Burning feels like one of the most powerful mechanisms to constantly bring users back and continually grab attention. I'm really impressed with Goblintown S2 which seems to be leaning into this concept in a big way. The mcgoblin collection has gone so low with very little liquidity. So they enable you to burn that collection in order to join a new more exciting collection.
Great thoughts! Here's some more of mine about the topic, didn't add them into the original piece because it can get complex quickly and this is novel so I don't have all the answers!
- Co-Determination is ALSO a buzzword. However, I believe the distinction is important for operators to broaden the range of options and understanding. You don't have to literally create together, but rather involve the community at some point in the process.
- There is definitely some aspects of retention and absenteeism involved, with the RTFKT AF1 forging being a great example. There's no cost (besides gas) for forging, yet ~10% of sneakers weren't forged. This goes back to UX/UI/Onboarding IMO. Clearer instructions, but also the reality of crypto where self-soverignity is an important value. However, mainstream wants convenience and things done for us. I do feel like ease of use will come in the future with things like Account Abstraction.
- Agreed with blind boxes/manual reveals. It's a familiar experience and simple way to build in game theory. Consumer web3 has been very good at building hype (to a fault), and that includes reveal mechanics. Possibly because that's the common denominator of all collections.
- I would say veefriends burn island would be co-determination. It's opt-in, nothing is net new created, and the community member isn't doing the creating. They decide whether they want to participate and veefriends determines the parameters of the program, what can be burned, and what can be redeemed.
When I think of strict co-creation some examples:
- QQL: holder actually creates the art and submits it to Tyler Hobbs, Hobbs created the platform for it. There's also a co-determination mechanic since there's the mint pass and revealed state
- Music featuring and remixing: Artists are creating together or creating on top of each other, IRL example. Other examples of this with NFTs could be RTFKT x Fewocious sneakers and did this with other artists. Or art collections like 6529 Seize the Memes or Notable Pepes, featuring art from other artists.
- Nike x Our Force 1: I believe(?) that some of the designs were in collaboration with community members. For those community member creators, that's co-creation. For almost everyone else we're just the consumers. However, they do plan to allow for creation on top of those virtual sneakers so that's where there's an additional of co-creation
- It's fair to argue that co-determination is a version of co-creation. However, that's why I think there should be a specific distinction because it's more than just that and a specific vein of it.
10% of RTFKT sneakers not being forged actually feels like a good conversion rate to me. I just wrote an article about adidas. From the original 30k phase 1 mint there are only 18k ALTs now. Still possible for more people to burn into ALTs but I don't see that number rising much more. Only 60% of people have converted which feels low to me. Unless it's just a bunch of collectors diamond handing thinking the originals will have value decades from now but that seems highly unlikely with such a high supply.
What I like about all these mechanics is that it leads brands to be able to discover who their superfans are. Like you say with your premium subs. Those who support you the most should be rewarded the most. Finally we have a way to track consumer activity like never before and then grant bigger and better rewards the further you go down the funnel and the less people make it through.
Completely agree account abstraction will make a huge difference for onboarding/ui/ux. Also wallet to wallet messaging/notifications will be huge whenever this happens.
It's too bad co-creation sounds way cooler than co-determination lol. Only a minority number of consumers want co-creation. But a majority wants co-determination. Give users a set of guidelines and limited choices and then let them feel empowered to choose their own path without paralyzing them with too many choices.
Sounds like a good podcast episode to me for sure!
- Agreed 90% conversion rate is actually impressive considering the gap in time and the general market, and the multi-step process. Known unknown is how upset would that 10% be when they realize they missed out and will that create adjustments in future forging process? One way I think this could be addressed is a 'last chance' forging window for that 10%, while the 90% get some loyalty bonus (either physical, digital, or both) for being engaged throughout the process. Engaged holders get rewarded for good behavior while the disengaged holders don't lose out.
- Agreed on co-creation vs. co-determination! It is what it is, as long as there is a nuance applied when it matters :)
I like this. Co-determination within the context of web3 sounds like something that should already be a phrase ;) (and now it is)!
Interesting & great research!
Thanks Marc!
The Color Me Mine throwback 🤌
You know what's good :)
Nice job on the term co-determination TPan. I dig it. It's more realistic and possible to achieve than co-creation which just feels like the buzzword of the month.
A couple thoughts to share:
- I wonder how much holder participation is a result of being absent vs outright confusion. Some of these mechanics/steps are confusing AF. Sure web3 nerds love this stuff but when we onboard billions what are the tactics that will work for the masses? The blind box feels like the tactic that will really win here long term. It's simple and fun for users. Its correlates with IRL experiences everyone is familiar with - opening a pack of sports cards, blind box beanie babies and pokemon packs. Cyptoys is an interesting example that is really building an entire business using the blind box as a key component to create surprise and delight. Doodles Pharrell Pack another recent example of the blind box.
- Does veefriends burn island fit into co-determination? I can't decide. Right now I'm framing burn island as digital sweepstakes. Burning feels like one of the most powerful mechanisms to constantly bring users back and continually grab attention. I'm really impressed with Goblintown S2 which seems to be leaning into this concept in a big way. The mcgoblin collection has gone so low with very little liquidity. So they enable you to burn that collection in order to join a new more exciting collection.
Great thoughts! Here's some more of mine about the topic, didn't add them into the original piece because it can get complex quickly and this is novel so I don't have all the answers!
- Co-Determination is ALSO a buzzword. However, I believe the distinction is important for operators to broaden the range of options and understanding. You don't have to literally create together, but rather involve the community at some point in the process.
- There is definitely some aspects of retention and absenteeism involved, with the RTFKT AF1 forging being a great example. There's no cost (besides gas) for forging, yet ~10% of sneakers weren't forged. This goes back to UX/UI/Onboarding IMO. Clearer instructions, but also the reality of crypto where self-soverignity is an important value. However, mainstream wants convenience and things done for us. I do feel like ease of use will come in the future with things like Account Abstraction.
- Agreed with blind boxes/manual reveals. It's a familiar experience and simple way to build in game theory. Consumer web3 has been very good at building hype (to a fault), and that includes reveal mechanics. Possibly because that's the common denominator of all collections.
- I would say veefriends burn island would be co-determination. It's opt-in, nothing is net new created, and the community member isn't doing the creating. They decide whether they want to participate and veefriends determines the parameters of the program, what can be burned, and what can be redeemed.
When I think of strict co-creation some examples:
- QQL: holder actually creates the art and submits it to Tyler Hobbs, Hobbs created the platform for it. There's also a co-determination mechanic since there's the mint pass and revealed state
- Music featuring and remixing: Artists are creating together or creating on top of each other, IRL example. Other examples of this with NFTs could be RTFKT x Fewocious sneakers and did this with other artists. Or art collections like 6529 Seize the Memes or Notable Pepes, featuring art from other artists.
- Nike x Our Force 1: I believe(?) that some of the designs were in collaboration with community members. For those community member creators, that's co-creation. For almost everyone else we're just the consumers. However, they do plan to allow for creation on top of those virtual sneakers so that's where there's an additional of co-creation
- It's fair to argue that co-determination is a version of co-creation. However, that's why I think there should be a specific distinction because it's more than just that and a specific vein of it.
Seems like this could be a podcast episode huh? 😉
10% of RTFKT sneakers not being forged actually feels like a good conversion rate to me. I just wrote an article about adidas. From the original 30k phase 1 mint there are only 18k ALTs now. Still possible for more people to burn into ALTs but I don't see that number rising much more. Only 60% of people have converted which feels low to me. Unless it's just a bunch of collectors diamond handing thinking the originals will have value decades from now but that seems highly unlikely with such a high supply.
What I like about all these mechanics is that it leads brands to be able to discover who their superfans are. Like you say with your premium subs. Those who support you the most should be rewarded the most. Finally we have a way to track consumer activity like never before and then grant bigger and better rewards the further you go down the funnel and the less people make it through.
Completely agree account abstraction will make a huge difference for onboarding/ui/ux. Also wallet to wallet messaging/notifications will be huge whenever this happens.
It's too bad co-creation sounds way cooler than co-determination lol. Only a minority number of consumers want co-creation. But a majority wants co-determination. Give users a set of guidelines and limited choices and then let them feel empowered to choose their own path without paralyzing them with too many choices.
Sounds like a good podcast episode to me for sure!
- Agreed 90% conversion rate is actually impressive considering the gap in time and the general market, and the multi-step process. Known unknown is how upset would that 10% be when they realize they missed out and will that create adjustments in future forging process? One way I think this could be addressed is a 'last chance' forging window for that 10%, while the 90% get some loyalty bonus (either physical, digital, or both) for being engaged throughout the process. Engaged holders get rewarded for good behavior while the disengaged holders don't lose out.
- Agreed on co-creation vs. co-determination! It is what it is, as long as there is a nuance applied when it matters :)