Interesting problem in crypto:

If you offer incentives you pump your usage and distribution.

Also, you attract a userbase that cares more about token prices than product.

This applies less to marketplaces like Blur, etc. More to products where trading is not the main use case.

helping others build with LLMs and ML | YC S22, CMU CS + LTI | I write technical posts for ML builders at http://dbmikus.com

It can fuck up the ability to understand if you're getting PMF or just have user interest when token prices are high

Totally agree.

Companies don't often pay the cost of delivering incentives besides some dev work to set up the incentive program. Those that get dumped on as exit liquidity pay.

When value created is <= value captured, crypto is a closed circuit zero sum game. I'm interested in positive sum games where all win.

Another problem I see a lot: 

Value captured < value of incentives delivered

Incentives and value creation need to be aligned otherwise you're over/underpaying for contributions (which is likely unsustainable)

Fixing this requires more rigorous  token distribution controls (e.g., vesting, rep. bonuses, hurdles, etc)

Gamer, educator, dev translator | Writings, memes, thoughts, and mints in /nerdery | lead /tabletop /sobriety

I like the "open yourself to become a base layer". Open systems lose some defensibility of data/network lock in, but they gain a stronger platform that is composable. The more integrated your base layer, the better it becomes and the stronger its moat.

Only way to really do it is build a great product with PMF, bring the members, build the community, open yourself to become a base layer and then do a retro reward. Tokens aren't sticky rewards without the ability to build. 

Mercenary activity is worst activity

ha, i just read something about this 😄
https://warpcast.com/li/0xb29eb9