Hey TPan, thanks for covering both of these products in such details. Have been following your newsletter for some time now and love your style with jokes sprinkled around here and there.
Out of curiosity on questing, do you think if the quest is validated by on-chain validators, like L1s have people validating txns, it will increase the trust and attract more suited crowd to these platforms and questing in general?
Thanks for the kind works Nishank! Always try to add in jokes where I can (and depending on my mood haha).
Not a satisfying answer even for myself, but I think the answer is 'it depends'. I don't think a quest need on-chain validation at every step is necessary or even desirable depending on the audience. If it's a web3 native audience, it's probably not as big of a deal, but definitely should be something abstracted away from the user if it's more of a non-web3 audience.
IMO the goal is to provide as much reliability and signal for user quality (and positive business impact) while making it frictionless, which requires those tradeoffs and considerations. Ideally, the fact that a user connects their wallets can already tell you a lot and may not even require validating transactions in the way I'm interpreting your question. Hope that helps!
Awesome blog. Do you think a focus on community re-targeting and content ambassadors can differentiate quest platforms from the ones which already exist, such as Zealy and Layer3?
I think that's one of many angles. From my piece, I believe the unique areas of focus for Sesame (automation) and Intract (growth dashboarding) are differentiators.
Eg, if Sesame and Intract continue moving in their directions of focus (hypothesizing here), the evolution COULD look like this:
Sesame: Automation Lite --> End-to-end full quest automation (quest creation, quest ordering, quest reward value) optimized to the user level based on their on-chain and off-chain activity.
Intract: Dashbording Lite --> Template dashboards and offer personalization based on the partner vertical and auto-segmentation with targeted suggestions based on goals and metrics that the partner wants to optimize.
Because these SaaS spaces are getting more crowded, and IMO more commoditized, we're going to see more specific use cases and areas of focus for that differentiation. Sort of like blockchains, there's a lot of them out there but the best way for them to sustain will likely be based on specific use cases like appchains.
Hey TPan, thanks for covering both of these products in such details. Have been following your newsletter for some time now and love your style with jokes sprinkled around here and there.
Out of curiosity on questing, do you think if the quest is validated by on-chain validators, like L1s have people validating txns, it will increase the trust and attract more suited crowd to these platforms and questing in general?
Thanks for the kind works Nishank! Always try to add in jokes where I can (and depending on my mood haha).
Not a satisfying answer even for myself, but I think the answer is 'it depends'. I don't think a quest need on-chain validation at every step is necessary or even desirable depending on the audience. If it's a web3 native audience, it's probably not as big of a deal, but definitely should be something abstracted away from the user if it's more of a non-web3 audience.
IMO the goal is to provide as much reliability and signal for user quality (and positive business impact) while making it frictionless, which requires those tradeoffs and considerations. Ideally, the fact that a user connects their wallets can already tell you a lot and may not even require validating transactions in the way I'm interpreting your question. Hope that helps!
Awesome blog. Do you think a focus on community re-targeting and content ambassadors can differentiate quest platforms from the ones which already exist, such as Zealy and Layer3?
I think that's one of many angles. From my piece, I believe the unique areas of focus for Sesame (automation) and Intract (growth dashboarding) are differentiators.
Eg, if Sesame and Intract continue moving in their directions of focus (hypothesizing here), the evolution COULD look like this:
Sesame: Automation Lite --> End-to-end full quest automation (quest creation, quest ordering, quest reward value) optimized to the user level based on their on-chain and off-chain activity.
Intract: Dashbording Lite --> Template dashboards and offer personalization based on the partner vertical and auto-segmentation with targeted suggestions based on goals and metrics that the partner wants to optimize.
Because these SaaS spaces are getting more crowded, and IMO more commoditized, we're going to see more specific use cases and areas of focus for that differentiation. Sort of like blockchains, there's a lot of them out there but the best way for them to sustain will likely be based on specific use cases like appchains.