A Tale of Two DAOs and the Rise of Contributor Experience

tl;dr: The overall experience for developers and non-developers of engaging with a DAO could be a critical determinant of the success or failure of a crypto network. Introducing the new discipline of Contributor Experience (CX).

One of recurring themes across Consensus 2019 may as well have been Steve Ballmer’s famous “Developers! Developers! Developers!” rant.

The crypto industry is at the stage where a large number of Layer 1 protocols have been built. Many teams have executed well (or well enough) on the technical side, but they are really lagging on the demand side.

In short, there aren’t that many people doing too many things via decentralized apps running on blockchain-inspired protocols.

Users won’t come if there are no worthwhile applications. And apps can’t be built without developers.

Where the Devs Are

The challenge for almost everybody is how to attract the attention of the right developers who will:

• be inspired by the mission/cause of the network
• create unique experiences on top of the crypto network in order to drive adoption of the token.

Over 2 years ago I wrote Developers, Developers, Developers: The First Blockchain Industry Battle and I still think it holds.

Easier said than done.

There are far more developers outside of crypto than inside, so that is where the “greenfield opportunity” lies for network.

Of course, everyone knows this and is trying to figure out how (via promotions, events, content, etc.) to attract the attention of developers.

The Developer Awareness Competitive Set

There is little doubt in my mind that more and more developers are kicking around the tires of crypto and will continue to do so.

You can see here, for example, in both Solidity downloads (although this may be a bit dated) and Dapps created. Plus, as the platform risks associated with Facebook, Google and others get even more challenging (due to not only revenue pressure, but also regulatory pressure), I expect others will come.

What is important for each crypto project to remember is that, though they may think that they play in a given sector, say “blockchain interoperability,” the reality of the competitive landscape is far more expansive.

For a dev in the next tranche of adoption, the “cause” and “mission” will be important, but not the only thing that matters. (I could, possibly, see BTC as an exception here).

Once a developer decides that s/he likes the idea of developing in crypto, s/he will start to scan the horizon for interesting projects.

Then s/he will set up a decision criteria for determining where s/he will spend time.

Now, I have no idea what each person’s criteria will be, of course, but some things that could matter might be:

• do I like the stated cause/vision of the project?
• is it fairly easy to understand the documentation?
• are there people like me in this project that I would want to hang out/work with?
• even better, are there a lot of people here or just a few?

As you can see, these questions can yield multiple answers.

What that means is that ARK, Polkadot, and Cosmos are not just competing against each other for “interoperability devs,” they are competing against all of the other crypto projects out there.

In turn, that means there have to be additional ways for a network to differentiate itself in order to attract the contributions of the best developers (and non-developers as well, for other activities).

I am going to argue that it may be worthwhile thinking a bit more holistically than simply doing a good job of answering the common questions that a potential contributor might ask.

Instead, I would advocate for thinking about a transported discipline that I am calling “Contributor Experience.”

What is Crypto-Contributor Experience?

In the “traditional” marketing world, there is a discipline known as “Customer Experience,” usually referred to as CX.

CX studies, for example, all of the “touchpoints” that someone has from the moment they arrive at the airport on one side of a trip until the moment the person leaves on the other side.

“The flight traveler experience” would look at things like curbside check-in, security, boarding process, etc. in order to determine how much time each part of the journey takes and, importantly, how much “friction” there is in it.

The more you are aware of the Customer Journey, the stops along the way, the pain points, etc., the more you can do to create an even better experience.

That, after all, is what United is selling vs. Delta, since both of them can fly you from New York to LA. Price, of course, is a factor, but not the only factor. Loyalty as well.

In a crypto network, I think teams will need to think about the “Contributor Experience,” as a key lever that could result in potentially more (or fewer) devs contributing.

Which, as we said, is what leads to dApp creation and the possibility of an innovative experience that draws in new users to the network.

Thus, one of the key metrics associated with the Contributor Experience is “Time-to-dApp” (TTD).

Think of it this way:

From the moment a dev hears about a project or decides to give it a try to build a dApp, how much time elapses?

That, combined with “how much friction is there in creating the dApp for the developer?” would be two components of the Contributor Experience (CX) discipline.

My Own Crypto-Contributor Experience (two, actually)

This whole concept of Crypto CX came about because of two experiences I have had recently as a would-be contributor to two different DAOs [decentralized autonomous organization].

Granted, it is not as a developer, but I think and hope it will be illustrative.

The DAOstack CX

One of the contributory projects, which I have covered here on the blog, was the proposal to write out a Roadmap towards a Crypto-native CRM.

It was voted on by members of the Genesis DAO, the first DAO built on the DAOstackplatform (disclosure: advisor), and approved.

The other was my effort to put forward a proposal to help drive a higher level of awareness and interest for Decred.

I have blogged about Decred before a few times and think they are a really interesting. Plus, I think their governance system and use of Politeia for voting is quite innovative, which was the thrust of my proposal to them.

What was interesting to me was the stark difference in the CX of the two DAOs.

Now, to be fair, I am a long-standing advisor to DAOstack and know the founders and team well. My “off-chain” reputation is respectable, so I felt pretty confident about the proposal getting passed.

However, an even better part of the proposal process was how easy it was to submit a proposal.

Here they were

1. set up account
2. review a few other proposals to see what worked and what didn’t.
3. write up my proposal in Google Docs
4. fill out the description form
5. pay a gas fee in ETH via MetaMask

Then, my proposal was live and voting began.

The Decred CX

A few days later, I went over to begin the process for Decred.

Here are all the steps I went through in order to submit a proposal to contribute to Decred.

1. download Decredition wallet
2. set up and keep passphrase safe
3. get DCR, which I didn’t have.
4. set up Politeia account
5. review proposal materials and templates (which were really helpful)
6. review past winners and losers to look for what worked and what didn’t
7. review DCR monthly digest (which may be one of the best in all of crypto)
8. join Slack channels to figure out if/how to do off-chain lobbying since I knew that my reputation was not large in the community (though, based on some past interactions and a blog post on Decred, I don’t think it was zero either)
9. send .1 DCR to verify account (need make sure you put in 0.1 not .1 since it will turn to 1 DCR)
10. write proposal
11. deposit another .1 DCR to submit proposal (purchase credit)
12. Get the following message:
13. 
    
14. Your proposal has been created, but it will not be public until an admin approves it. You can download your proposal and use the politeia_verify tool to prove that your submission has been accepted for review by Politeia. Once approved, an “Authorize Voting to Start” button will appear. You will have 14 days to authorize a proposal vote. If you fail to do so, your proposal will be considered abandoned. 
15. Check daily to see if it has been approved. No pro-active notification or update sent (unless I missed it…which is possible).
16. After six days, see that proposal was approved.
17. Respond to comments that were already offered.
18. Submit proposal for voting
19. Check daily (again) to see if it has been approved for voting or not
20. Notice that more comments were added and that I was criticized (fairly) for submitting to vote too soon. (Again, I may have missed notification of the comments)
21. De-authorize voting on the proposal
22. Spend some more time in Q/A on comments about proposal over the course of a few days
23. Update proposal via editing feature
24. Re-authorize/submit for voting.

And it’s possible I forgot one or two.

Different CX Types Are OK

Now, let me be crystal clear.

I don’t highlight the steps and hurdles in order to rain on Decred’s parade at all.

They are a great project and, it could be argued, that having high hurdles is essential to ensuring that only the most passionate, dedicated, determined contributors make it through.

That is a valuable conversation to have.

My point with all of this about CX is that it should be conscious.

Do we want to make it easy to contribute?

Do we want to make it more difficult to contribute?

Both are valid approaches. It’s just about the awareness. There’s a range as well. Too easy and the riff-raff come in. Too difficult and no one comes in.

Brand Experience as a function of CX

The steps to contribute to a project in is certainly a part of it, but so is “brand experience.”

So, for example, on Politeia, after you submit, you get a message that says: “wait until an admin approves your proposal.”

To me, this feels very centralized and controlling, like I am at the mercy of some unknown figure who decides my fate.

It’s the opposite of what a permissionless experience should be. Same for voting. 

Basically, the experience of the Decred brand is at odds with my understanding of the values of the brand.

Friction Points vs. Contributor Expectations

Another element to the Contributor experience, as mentioned above, is some of the friction points and the expectations they inadvertently create.

For example, on Politeia, in order to set up an account and submit a proposal, you need to pay .1 DCR (about $2.50) two separate times. 

This fee serves to reduce spamming, which is great, but it also feels like that is a high enough barrier to entry that I shouldn’t have to wait for some DCR god to grant me the “ok” on my approval or for voting.

There are other things that, I think, could simplify the CX of Politeia.

It might be a good idea to inform a proposer that s/he should wait a few days after proposal was approved prior to submitting for voting in order to address comments and/or modify a proposal. I’ll admit to a rookie mistake on that, but a note would have been nice.

Or, better, perhaps institute a mandatory x-day commenting period, like Civil does on its newsroom challenges.

Also, and this isn’t a major issue, it’s frustrating to not be able to log-in from different machines unless going through the cumbersome process of identity management.

It’s the total opposite of the Single Sign On experience that MetaMask offers on Web3.0

The Future of Contributor Experience

Obviously, we are all very early in the DAO experiment. I certainly don’t have all the answers or monopoly on the truth. 

Still, I think that Contributor Experience as a holistic discipline could be something that helps teams raise their own awareness about the inadvertent barriers they are putting in front of people who want to participate.

Barriers can be tangible (like a .1 DCR submission fee) and intangible (say, for example, if the tone of the comments is collaborative or combative).

Time-t0-Dapp could include “do we have the documentation to help someone get started?” as well as “do we respond quickly as a community on Telegram or Discord).

Given the intensifying efforts around developer acquisition, Contributor Experience (CX) could be an “x-factor” as the next wave of crypto-contributors move into the market.

Again, it’s not the only thing that matters, but CX is going to matter.

Maybe one day there will be a DAO CX scorecard, to help would-be contributors assess where to put their energies/efforts, and help project teams to identify areas to smooth you. We’ll put in our crypt0-CRM suite. 

After all, DAOstack, Decred, and all the others are trying to build a Decentralized Marketing Organization and CX will be a part of overall effectiveness there as well. 

As Maya Angelou once said:

“People won’t remember what you say. They won’t remember what you do. They will remember how you make them feel.”