Having a token brings a community together loosely with a financial stake, but composable membership holds a community together long term with social capital. That's a lot of buzzwords, so let’s explore this in three parts:
Our data and actions give us identity and relationships, but having a social graph does not give you community. Put in a Web3 context, a group of people holding or trading the same token does not mean you are a community - at best, it gives you clusters. **An actual community has fairly clear boundaries for growth (in more than a financial sense). You've probably seen some variation on the chart below...
It's been almost one year since I really entered crypto, which I count as the day I first subscribed to @bankless. It's been quite a fun journey, and I'd love to share the path I took and some of the lessons learned.
Before I entered crypto, I worked at a large investment bank in their rotational grad program. Over two years, I worked with different teams on everything from managing the bank's liquidity to our commercial real estate portfolio.
User experience (UX) describes how people feel when they interact with a system or service and encompasses several factors including usability, design, marketing, accessibility, performance, comfort, and utility. Don Norman once said,
“Everything has a personality; everything sends an emotional signal. Even where this was not the intention of the designer, the people who view the website infer personalities and experience emotions. Bad websites have horrible personalities and instill horrid emotional states in their users, usually unwittingly. We need to design things — products, websites, services — to convey whatever personality and emotions are desired.”
Ethereum's personality is someone who is extremely inscrutable and easily misunderstood. To make matters worse, most users don't even think about it as interacting with Ethereum when they're using your interface or a wallet. If you're ever in the live chat of an Artblock's auction, you'll notice as soon as an auction ends there are at least a dozen people complaining that it is Metamask's fault that they didn't get a mint. I think in the last year the UX of many dapps on Ethereum has improved greatly in both product interaction and explainability of transactions. For the most part, dapps don't just leave you with a loading spinner after you sign the transaction anymore.
Even with the design of dapps is generally improving, I'm not sure how deep UX research has gone yet. When I see data analytics or research on various protocols, users are mostly treated as homogenous. This is somewhat shifting with some of the analysis I've seen of Uniswap V3 liquidity providers and Rabbithole Questers, but even those are still heavily focused on just confirmed transactions on-chain. From my own experience, most of the emotion evoked and behavioral quirks happen when I'm submitting, waiting, speeding up, or canceling my transaction. For some applications, the user might leave and go do something else after submitting a transaction. But for a product like Artblock's auctions, they're going to stay around until the confirmation has happened, likely checking anything they can for updates and with compounding anxiety.
Airdrops have come a long way in the last year, most notably starting from Uniswap's 400 UNI token airdrop in September of 2020. From there, we've grown into airdrops that are calculated based on the frequency and volume of interactions with different facets of a protocol. Below is one such example:
We've also seen NFT drops recently that rely on more standardized tools built for quickly setting rules/requirements and rewards/distribution. None of these methodologies are bad, but I do believe there's still a lot of room for improvement. This could come from the distribution model, drop frequency, or even the token rules themselves. In this proposal, I'll be focusing on a new distribution model, one that combines data from user interactions in the Mirror $WRITE race, on Twitter, and in Mirror-related Ethereum transactions.
In my previous post on digital identity, I mentioned that "the tokenization of these graph shards could take many forms and will likely be layered upon by proof tokens." I believe that sharded graph identity approach requires coming up with a community-specific reputation score that measures how influential a certain person has been in expanding a specific network. While some reputation scores may be more set in terms of having to have done X or Y actions, this score captures a users reputation in the context of other users in a more fluid manner - acting like a signal rather than a badge.
Typically in Web2, users are "rewarded" by an algorithm which will highlight them based on the engagement and attention they bring to the platform. Thus, their reputation score is just the number of likes or followers they have - regardless of who those vanity metrics come from. In Web3, we typically reward with tokens representing the value of the protocol or product. These tokens also carry a lot of power in the form of voting and other privileges. As such, a score that signals not only influence but also how supportive or aligned a user is with the rest of the community will become increasingly important over time.
For this post, we will be focusing on creating a reputation score for Mirror users (voters, writers, contributors) based on where each user sits on an interaction-based social graph across Ethereum, Twitter, and Mirror data. I chose Mirror for three reasons:
A decade or two ago, your digital identity didn't mean very much. It was represented more by your email address than any social media account you had. Fast forward to today, and we've seen an increased focus on how we appear in online media by everyone: yourself, your friends, and your employers. Most of our day-to-day interactions exist in digital accounts on someone's database.
Yet all-in-all, your digital worth is measured by the engagement (and advertising revenue) garnered. Sometimes you get a share of that revenue, but for 99% of us, the value of our digital identity is locked within the platform. This doesn't just apply to Facebook, Twitter, or Reddit - the "platform" can be our workplace as well.
Let's say you've worked at a company for a few years, and you've decided to move on. When you leave the company, your reputation still stands with individuals you've worked with and in the many programs/emails you've created, but otherwise, the company's reputation is your reputation. This dynamic has slowly changed with the rise of the internet - hence the rise of the personal brand. However, your personal brand is still built off of your own word (which may or may not have much value when first starting out).
Our digital identity exists in fragments, it isn't flexible past the platform it was built on, and it has little reusability other than cross-platform authentication. We don't own our digital identity, and it's not composable at all. Now, what if you could own all of the pieces of your digital identity permanently, while also controlling who you reveal that data to and how it's represented? This would enable us to tell more compelling stories and have a user-controlled value function for identity. I think we're (finally) not so far off from a future where all of that is possible.
Ever since sharding and the internet of blockchains ideas were first introduced, maintaining composability has been a hot topic of discussion. Let's try to better understand the role bridges play in keeping our ecosystem composable.
While I've written about composability of dapps and wallets before, I don't believe I've explicitly defined the word "composable." Generally, I think composability is comprised of existence, flexibility, and reusability. As a pre-condition, everything should be accessible in a permissionless manner (i.e. sufficiently decentralized).
I believe that right now, most people think of bridges as "how can I get token A transferred from blockchain X to blockchain Y," or slightly fancier as "how can I swap token A on blockchain X for token B on blockchain Y."