Rethinking "Marketing" — The Story of Nick and Polygon
I didn't expect you to be so cheap.Source: Yin Yu Cheng Ge
Nick Johnson may have never hated Twitter's notification feature as much as he did last night before bed: "I have no expectation of waking up early tomorrow to check notifications. This is just because of the spam gifted by Polygon… I thought the deceptive messages disguised as Metamask were bad enough, and now it's just unimaginable! If that wasn't bad enough, there are also the entanglements with Banteg and Sassano in my mentions."
Had he known this would happen, Nick, the founder of ENS, might not have tweeted that message 11 hours ago—a screenshot of an email accompanied by the following note: "Ever wondered why the Ethereum guys seem so positive about Polygon? Also, oh my god, I’m not 'operating', and even if I were to 'operate', it would cost much more than a one-time payment of $500!"
To better explain the situation, I have attached the email screenshot and my translation.
As of the time of writing, this tweet has been retweeted 122 times and liked 757 times. Why is Nick so agitated, and why is the public reacting so strongly? What did this email touch upon? It seems like just an ordinary marketing email.
### 1. Digging for Secrets in the Comments
Perhaps we can find answers in the comments? Oh, but first, let’s briefly introduce the background of the situation.
Ethereum is currently the most popular smart contract public chain (as evidenced by its expensive usage); Polygon is an Ethereum sidechain that is fully compatible with Ethereum, but its security has always been questioned. However, most people don't care much about security, as it is simply too cheap compared to Ethereum.
Nick has been a core developer of Ethereum since 2016 and is the founder of ENS (Ethereum Name Service), which has now become independently operated outside of the Ethereum Foundation.
Response from Polygon
The two co-founders of Polygon, Sandeep and Mihailo Bjelic, quickly responded.
Sandeep: We Didn't Do This
First up is Sandeep, considering he replied at 3 AM New Delhi time, which shows his dedication to the project. Sandeep denied that this was an email sent by them, saying it resembles a type of scam message.
He also expressed his frustration with Nick's actions using a Web 1.0 era emoji—"I wish you could confirm with us before making such serious accusations about a project. :( :("
He then requested Nick, "Could you please post the full email header?"
Nick: I Have Evidence
Nick posted a screenshot, citing Sandeep's reply to Captain Nemo before Sandeep's post. Clearly, Sandeep had not read the replies under that tweet, which is forgivable considering he might have been woken up by a phone call in his sleep. The screenshot is as follows:
Note: Sent by polygon.technology, signed by polygon-technology.20150623.gappssmtp.com.
What does this mean? Let's see how Mihailo responded.
Mihailo: We Respect You, I'm Sad, I Hope You're Joking
Mihailo first expressed his respect for Nick. He said they would clarify the matter, but it was clear that the email was not sent by them. The reason is that Polygon knows who Nick is; why would they try to bribe him to promote them, especially with just $500?
Secondly, Mihailo said it would have been better if Nick had contacted them for confirmation before posting, but even now, he is grateful. Finally, he hoped that what Nick implied was a joke, suggesting that Ethereum community members' positivity towards Polygon was due to being bribed. "We are adding value to Ethereum. Sincerely."
Nick: Let Me Explain the Evidence
"SPF and DKIM have both been verified. If it wasn't sent by you, whoever it was has your email's signing key. I should have contacted you privately, but it clearly came from your domain, so it seemed unnecessary."
Mihailo: Maybe I Was Wrong, I Will Clarify
Mihailo's tone softened. He retracted his statement "We won't try to bribe you" and replaced it with "Maybe it was just me…" He is not an expert on SPF and DKIM, but Polygon will clarify the situation!
2. What Are SPF and DKIM?
This is not a technical article, so I won't explain these details. If you take a look at the comments under this tweet, it’s not hard to figure it out.
In simple terms, SPF verification ensures that the email is sent from a specified list of IP addresses, while DKIM verification ensures that the content of the email is signed with a specified key.
Therefore, the conclusion is that this email was sent from Polygon's server IP address and used Polygon's key signature. Either it was sent by a member of the Polygon team, or the server was controlled by someone else or the key was leaked.
The former seems more acceptable than the latter.
3. Reactions from the Onlookers
The reactions from onlookers are also quite interesting, roughly divided into several categories: one is questioning the authenticity of the email; the second is questioning Nick's motives; the third is evaluating Polygon's marketing strategy; and the fourth is mocking Ethereum and its opinion leaders.
Questioning Authenticity. Nick uniformly replied with a picture of DKIM, which appeared over 20 times in total… This might be DKIM's most glorious day on Twitter? (I think the county magistrate would be very happy)
Questioning Nick's Motives. These people do not doubt the authenticity but accuse Nick of not being professional for posting this tweet. Some mock that the payment was too low (some say $600, others say $5000), while others believe Nick should have confirmed with the Polygon team first, and some accuse Nick of being directed by Polygon's competitors.
Evaluating Marketing Strategy. Martin Köppelmann, founder of Gnosis, believes this could be a poor marketing strategy from an advertising agency hired by Polygon. Lefteris Karapetsas questioned whether Polygon's mansion strategy was legal.
Brantly from the ENS team believes this is the result of hiring people who don't understand the field and that crypto natives must be hired. Vitalik's father lamented such an old-fashioned guerrilla marketing! The mischievous cultleader.eth praised Polygon and demanded they pay up!
- Mocking Ethereum and Opinion Leaders. Some mocked Ethereum's transaction fees, as a single transaction can easily cost hundreds of dollars, while the money earned from a tweet isn't even enough to cover a transaction fee; others mocked other Ethereum folks supporting Polygon, with Banteg calling out the well-known Ethereum community "leader" Sassano, saying, "I didn't expect you to be so cheap."
Sassano explained that he has supported Polygon since 2019 and became their advisor in early 2021, but "I haven't received any tokens yet and won't for a long time." These words were repeatedly ridiculed by Banteg and Nick. (I won't include personal attacks here).
In another thread, Banteg explained that he has no grudge against Sassano, "I just used his name to refer to Ethereum educators and opinion leaders."
Voices from the Chinese Community
I saw this tweet in the morning, but I decided to write this article because I saw comments about this incident in a Chinese WeChat group in the evening.
The vast majority of comments believed "the main issue is that the payment was too low," and there were some doubts about Nick's motives, but no one questioned the authenticity of the email (I forcibly educated them about DKIM).
Although the sample size is too small, it seems to indicate that people feel (1) such marketing behavior is quite normal and not problematic, and (2) that if they had offered more, it would have been fine.
I don't think so.
### 4. Rethinking Marketing
What Did Polygon's Marketing Do Wrong?
It is evident that, whether from a behavioral judgment or personal standpoint, most people find the content of this email absurd and unforgivable, to the extent that they doubt its authenticity. So what exactly did they do wrong?
- First, Lack of Respect for Individuals. Not understanding who Nick is might be the biggest mistake Polygon made. If they had understood this, they would never have sent such an email.
It's not shameful to seek profit, but some people's honor is priceless; how could they give up their stance for money, especially when they are already quite wealthy! ("Who can price their freedom?" Refer to El Salvador)
Secondly, Lack of Passion for the Product. If you replace Polygon's name in the email with any other project's name, the email would not feel out of place. So where does Polygon's uniqueness lie, and how can it attract people? If even team members are too lazy to summarize and promote their own product's advantages, how could others be motivated to care? This is no different from mindless flattery.
Finally, Lack of Reverence for the Industry. The cryptocurrency industry is significantly different from other industries in that it originated from the cypherpunk community and was promoted by idealists.
If an expert or scholar from another industry received such an offer, they might just laugh it off and, out of consideration for the industry's reputation and their future development, would not choose to make it public. However, practitioners in the cryptocurrency industry are more candid and not constrained by unspoken rules, which leads to such a big uproar.
How Should Marketing Be Done?
The liberal tradition and high speculative nature make the commercial behavior in the cryptocurrency industry very complex, but simply viewing it as an investment and product for promotion does not seem very wise.
Some people discuss the market and operations from a community perspective, which seems to grasp the pulse, but I feel this term is somewhat vague in the Chinese context; it might be better to replace it with "small community."
Marketing is about strengthening the cohesion of the small community and conveying describable consensus outward, building clear brand attributes, and even "doctrine." Moreover, it has a prerequisite: it must have a value proposition and cannot be easily falsified; otherwise, it is just a scam.
Returning to this example, if Polygon really wanted to interact with Nick, they might as well honestly invite him to evaluate Polygon's shortcomings. There’s no need to worry about creating a negative image because followers will always believe, and in the face of a sincere and humble team, no one would want to mock or ridicule them.
I am not a marketing operations expert, so the above is just my personal rambling.
In conclusion, this might be the best example of DKIM marketing.
This article follows the CC BY-SA 4.0 license. It was completed overnight without any funding and does not provide any investment advice. I have no intention of making a profit declaration; feel free to think however you like.
### References
https://twitter.com/nicksdjohnson/status/1432809303027503106
https://twitter.com/nicksdjohnson/status/1432991807537778689
