Web3 Cold Start: How to Get Your Project Noticed by More People and Enter the Market?

Author: SunnyZ_Crypto

TL;DR

Background

As someone responsible for growth in a Web3 project, a common question I hear is how to cold start a project, which simply means how to do GTM, i.e., how to make the project known to more people and enter the market.

Compared to Web2, there is currently no systematic GTM methodology in Web3, which is still in a relatively blind growth stage. The way of managing community user expectations through Tokens and NFTs is also different from the growth hacking methods of Web2, making it difficult for many Web2 marketing tactics to be applied effectively, or even suitable.

However, the logic and processes of both are similar, requiring customer acquisition, activation, retention, and referral. Among these, customer acquisition in Web3 has many universal tactics, such as AMAs, Giveaways, and Collaborations.

Therefore, based on these common scenarios, effectively utilizing Web3 native growth platforms can greatly improve early customer acquisition efficiency and reduce customer acquisition costs. At the same time, good community operations can relatively accurately retain loyal seed users, which is simply amazing!

AARRR Model

With the increase of various Web3 projects (it feels like there are more project teams than users in the bear market), the Web3 Growth space has seen a surge of products, gradually refining into niche areas. There are many DApps available for user acquisition, community management, information alerts, reward distribution, data analysis, and more【see the chart below】.

Source: Twitter@Safaryclub

The most relevant aspect to project cold starts is user acquisition. Recently, my LoopX project has been going through this cold start process, so I reviewed how I used Web3 native growth methods to achieve the project’s growth from 0 to 10k followers. I also hope to provide some inspiration and help to other project teams working in the market.

Growth Path

In the past month and a half, I deeply utilized 13 platforms in the order shown in the chart below, initiated multiple activities, and recorded data on Twitter follower growth. Overall, there has been a steady upward trend, with rapid growth in September and October due to more activities, while in November, my activity slowed down significantly due to my laid-back approach, focusing mainly on collaborations and giveaways.

If you are unsure how to arrange the order of cooperation among various platforms, you can refer directly to the chart below.

Although these 13 projects have different directions, their functional similarities are high, especially among all-in-one platforms, where the differences are not significant. It is also evident that each has a trend of "borrowing" from others, mainly competing on product iteration and business development speed, which is quite intense.

To better utilize each platform, understand their strengths and weaknesses, and optimize activity details, I analyzed the data from these 13 platforms based on practical results (the activities of Aki and Clique have not yet concluded, and data will be updated after they finish), focusing on comparing functionality and traffic, corresponding to the core pain points of solving needs and providing value (traffic generation). Below is the introduction and comparison information for each platform:

(Disclaimer: This is not an advertisement or promotional content for any platform, nor is it related to any interests.)

Summary of Web3 Growth Tools Testing

Platform Introduction

There is a lot of information and articles about these projects, so I will provide a brief introduction and include links for you to check out.

In fact, besides the aforementioned platforms like Layer3, Dappback, etc., there are also great projects, but they charge for activities, so they are not included in this evaluation. After all, I prefer to use free tools.

From the perspective of platform growth logic, Web3 currently does not charge fees, which is essential for better expanding the B-end market. The cost of user migration is low, and the substitutability between products is strong. Users will choose the one that is cheaper, more convenient, and effective, which is a healthy competition in the industry.

Testing Logic

Before presenting the data, let's clarify the logic. The method mainly involves controlling variables and multiple tests to ensure the comparability and relative accuracy of the data.

• Task Setup: The task settings across platforms are similar, involving social media follows and filling out a product feedback Google form (of course, some platforms do not support redirecting to form filling, so they only have social media tasks). The content of each platform's form is consistent but with different links;

• Screening Method: Real users are manually screened based on the responses in the Google form backend, and rewards are distributed;

• Data Analysis: Data is analyzed based on user wallet addresses using mintkit.ai, categorizing users into five types: Bot, General, Diamond Hand, Blue Chip, and Whale based on NFT holdings, categories, address balances, wallet associations, etc.;

• Multiple Tests: If conditions permit, the same platform will be tested for various functions, with platforms like Galxe, Link3, Quest3, DeNet, etc., tested at least twice;

• Segmented Scenarios: For example, for AMAs, the same Space will be used to measure data across multiple platforms, and the same applies to GA.

(Note 1: All data in this article comes from the real growth data of the @loopx_web3 project. Single test data may have some errors, and actual operations should be taken as the standard.)

(Note 2: For ease of identification, this article uses abbreviations for some platforms and common terms: TW for Twitter, DC for Discord, TG for Telegram, TS for TwitterScan, WL for Whitelist, GA for giveaway, Txn for Transaction.)

Traffic Comparison

• The traffic of each platform shows significant differences, roughly divided into three tiers. Galxe stands out alone because its natural traffic can balance the second-tier platforms, which include Port3, Pyme, Quest3, Link3, TaskOn, and Trantor, among which Quest3 Banner has a clear traffic advantage;

• From the indicators of activity and spread on TS, Port3, Quest3, Link3, Crew3, and TaskOn are very active on Twitter, so their activity spread is also relatively wide (by the way, why do so many projects have "xx3" in their names?); Galxe has shown signs of complacency after issuing tokens for a long time, as it has a solid foundation, and even if activity is low, its spread is not significantly affected;

• Platforms with high traffic also have many Bots, with almost all platforms having 15-30% Bots, and Quest3 has 36%, with nearly half being Bots, indicating that DID projects still have a long way to go; among these platforms, Port3 and Clique support filtering rewards based on various data conditions. Notably, Clique's data monitoring depth is the most thorough, which can largely avoid a large number of Bots holding rewards;

• I was quite surprised by Trantor. Although it has few Twitter followers, it has many activity participants, and user data performance is also good. In subsequent communications, I found that Trantor often initiates joint marketing activities with multiple projects, which greatly helps enhance B-end user stickiness;

• Crew3's data is not very reliable this time due to domain issues. Web3 projects are still quite fragile, and any problems with domain accounts can be quite detrimental to project development.

User Overlap Comparison

• All platforms have a high overlap with Galxe users, indicating that users do not have a clear preference for platforms, and cross-platform exploitation is the norm. It also shows that Galxe has a large user base and a clear first-mover advantage in the market;

• Port3, Link3, and Galxe users are highly overlapping, possibly because Port3's previous version did not support direct reward distribution and needed to be used in conjunction with Galxe, so this portion of users comes from Galxe. Galxe was also the first platform to launch the AMA badge feature, while Link3 primarily promotes the AMA niche market, so it is normal for their user sources to overlap significantly;

• Pyme and Trantor also have a high user overlap, with Pyme having a clear advantage in the Indian and Southeast Asian markets, and Trantor being incubated by StarryNift, which also indicates that users converted from GamFi are mainly distributed in the aforementioned markets;

• Among all platforms, TaskOn's data is very different, with both Bot numbers and overlap being quite unique. TaskOn is incubated by OntoWallet, indicating that DeFi users and NFT badge collectors are likely not the same group.

Functionality Comparison

When comparing projects horizontally, it is impossible to exhaust all functionalities, so I will focus on the functionalities that are relatively essential and frequently used by project teams, divided into on-chain tasks, off-chain tasks, reward distribution, data analysis, and scenario coverage. The gray indicators represent the presence of this functionality, while the green indicators indicate that this functionality is better than other platforms.

The comparison of niche platforms and all-in-one platforms is not on the same dimension, so they are also split by platform type. It is recommended to view them separately for a more reasonable comparison.

• The functional differences among platforms are not significant, mainly showing a focus on off-chain verification, with on-chain verification as a supplement, and a multi-scenario coverage situation, which corroborates the aforementioned DApp functionality competition and the strong substitutability of each;

• The data analysis function is very important, but not many projects have this feature, with only Port3, Link3, BetaPlug, and Clique offering it. Data analysis needs to be integrated with data monitoring, which is not a cost-effective feature for platforms, especially for retention data, as the requirements for showcasing it are quite high. This also indicates that Web3 growth has not yet reached a data-driven stage;

• Functionality completeness does not necessarily correlate with traffic, which relates to each project's market strategy. There are differences in whether to achieve To C through To B. For example, purely tool platforms like CWallet, Genki, and of course Gleam only focus on To B growth and not To C, meaning they will not directly benefit from their platform, which also determines that this type of platform is not suitable for early projects to use for cold starts;

• The specific differences in product forms mainly stem from the different long-term missions of each platform. For example, Galxe aims to create an on-chain credential system, so it focuses on issuing badges in great detail. The initial process can be completed similarly to Gleam, which also gives Galxe strong scalability, but it appears rather ordinary in task publishing; for instance, Crew3 aims to create a Web3 Discord, so it has many templates for community activities, such as daily check-ins, content creation, and invitation tasks, which are more focused than other platforms;

• Although all-in-one platforms have comprehensive functionalities, their depth of verification in segmented scenarios is insufficient, and their functionalities are not perfect. This has led to the emergence of many niche products derived from high-frequency scenarios like GA and AMA, indicating that the online earning market is vast, with many opportunities to seize.

Here are screenshots from each project's backend, allowing you to intuitively feel the differences and functional details ⬇️

Combining the two hard indicators of functionality and traffic, the general distribution of the above projects is as follows:

(Once again, the single test data may have some errors, and actual operations should be taken as the standard.)

We can see that this space does not have a very obvious leading product; it is a flourishing market with many new products emerging, which is a very good market signal. Each DApp can find its own positioning and has enormous room for development.

Other Factors Comparison

In addition to the two major indicators, during the process of using products and connecting with teams, the following projects performed well in design, development, and business development【no particular order】, among which Quest3's design, Link3's iteration, and Clique's business development are particularly noteworthy ?

• Timely BD response: Clique, Port3, DeNet, Pyme, TaskOn, CWallet;

• Excellent product design: Quest3, Link3, Crew3, Aki Network;

• Rapid functionality iteration: Link3, Quest3, Beta Plug, Clique.

Often, the differences in BD response determine the speed of cooperation for project teams. These soft indicators often truly determine the future direction of a project, especially for DApp products, as product needs are common. The breadth and depth of information acquisition by frontline market personnel and the speed of feedback to the product directly influence product development and iteration. Therefore, when choosing to use a certain product long-term, it is advisable to check the project's Twitter activity and iteration speed before making a decision.

Usage Suggestions

1. In the absence of deep cooperation with other platforms, it is recommended to use Galxe for the first activity, as its natural traffic is very effective, and it has a large user base, allowing for relatively quick acquisition of early users;

2. Try to reach a Co-PR and community promotion cooperation with project teams. If you can secure a Banner or other recommended positions, be sure to strive for it. Quest3's Banner is quite good, and Galxe's Banner can be used when growth reaches a certain stage or when a major product launch occurs;

3. Do not focus solely on one platform for exploitation; use a distributed approach. After using a single platform multiple times, there will be no new users, which is no different from only conducting activities within your own community. In the long run, using 2-3 all-in-one platforms is more suitable, while niche platforms should be segmented by scenario, with 1-2 for each scenario being more appropriate;

4. Relatively mature project teams can focus more on activation and retention activities. Currently, I have not seen many project teams with these activity methods. Port3, Trantor, Crew3, and BetaPlug are still viable, but I have not discovered others for now. If you know of any interesting platforms, feel free to recommend them!

Cooperation Contact

After confirming with the project team, the following contact information is available for direct communication and cooperation. If you have any questions, it is advisable to connect directly with their team.