I want to clarify that the specific group listed is ‘enthusiasts joining DAO’s’ (opposed to crypto enthusiasts). This is a subsegment, but broader/adds to developers. Which I agree, in itself is too small a TAM. Crypto enthusiasts in general can be very broad and doesn’t help define problems to solve (i.e. direct product development). By honing in on 'enthusiasts joining DAO’s, we’re also putting less focus on ‘Defi users & “Yield Farmers”’, a segment I believe (as described in more detail above) we are in a lesser position to cater to as well as moves further away from our mission.
Excellent question. I don’t have the answer, but I think this ventures into who do we build for vs who do we market to. Who do we build for is generally helped by narrowing to specific target users to restrict requirements. We still have the referral program and friends and family messaging features coming out.
I think that together increases total audience size
I don’t think we need to compete on custom integrations. Let’s also not confuse CeFi users with DeFi users. I think the reason why many are participating in DeFi are for reasons aligned with Status principles. For example they could use a CeFi product like BlockFi and have to sign up with KYC etc and earn ~8% APR on ETH but there is ~$250mm in ETH locked in compound alone earning a measly 0.18% APR. It seems they choose DeFi over CeFi for reasons like privacy, permission-less participation, self custody. Some of the largest users of non DeFi protocols like ENS are DeFi users. I don’t buy that they are here just for the profits, it would be like saying World of warcraft users play just for the points.
Notifications would be useful to dapps but making that our focus I believe misses the bigger picture and continues on the path of Status building an opinionated messenger + wallet rather than an operating system for Ethereum. If we look at the use cases citied in the whisper whitepaper most of them are not possible today with Status.
For example, a currency exchange DApp may use it to coordinate an offer prior to creating one (or two, depending on how the exchange is structured) transactions on the exchange.
This is actually how 0x works except they use centralized servers for the matching instead of in channels.
My point is not that we should build this functionality into Status, but that we should open Status up to unleash developer creativity and enable dapps to leverage the status network in their design.
If we open up the api and allow dapps a way to send and read from channels the use cases now become possible and more (gas abstraction, voting, L2, etc).
These are not necessarily at odds. Devs are a leverage point. For example if Sythentix used Status to create a decentralized troll box for their DEX or Waku to replace a central server their L2 DEX then we just imported ~11K users from a single dev.
I was referring to building tools used during development where the target audience/market is only the developers and not users of their products.
But if we are thinking about api-fication of Status or marketing to developers of specific projects to use Status building blocks in products for their users, such developers are absolutely a leverage point. Agree with that.
I see that this is probably what is meant by “Developers looking to integrate their products” which I misunderstood from its description to mean dev tooling. This absolutely makes sense and convincing a few projects to move over to Status would bring in K’s of users. And like I said earlier, this B2B approach is perhaps better than a B2C one.
Major thank you for everyone who joined the Roadmap planning workshop today! Jumping between groups I heard some great discussions and it was wonderful to see so many community members and ambassadors chime in.