Happy new year to everybody! Let 2021 become a great year for you / your families. Let 2021 also become a year of a great breakthrough for Free TON after a great start in 2020.
The community approved over 20 partnerships last year. Some better, some worse. I think it would be good to discuss some learnings from those proposals as they are being realized and show some results.
I think one of the criteria is added value to the network, which typically should boil down to the quality / relevance of the use case and amount of users. But there can be more criteria.
Suggest we have an open exchange of opinions on the subject.
In a dynamic and adaptive system, feedback should work.
I suggest listening to A&S SubGov first, they should have to say something
Now we are listening to Alexander Filatov under this topic, and both are converged.
The more difficult the partnership conditions are, the more difficult it will be to attract the sharks of the crypto industry. Firstly, we need to decide whether we want to work with them at any cost, whether there is any value in such partnerships at all, even if it is not obvious with a delayed effect, or whether they are just sucking blood out of us.
I see a scheme in which a working group is assigned to each partnership, created from participants from both sides. FreeTON members play the role of auditors and communication bridge between two partners and report few times a month about the progress in the corresponding topic. They also receive rewards for their work and are selected on a contest basis.
Restricted stock vesting is also a possible option here. Rewards are partially blocked for both: partners and auditors for certain period of time. Alternatively a partnership progress may be split into smaller iterations with payments in smaller portions after each successful iteration.
Important point - transparency and strait information flow. Since the birth of the partnership, everything must be in one place: arguments from those who made a decision on our part, reports about the progress, summing up.
We need a simple and understandable matrix with tiers of Partnership appetites on X axis and conditions list on Y.
“Specialized contest” here means a contest for analyzing and continuously reporting about partnership KPIs and usefulness (or even a number of contest stages, with each stage for every new KPI iteration). Something like system mentioned by @aicracy in previous post.
“Iterative payments” not only means the split of payments in time, but a KPI on every new payment.
Additional items can be added to this conditions list. For example, obligatory proofs of audience from open statistics sources. That’s just an example, it’s better ask A&S sub-governance or just collect more opinions to do the fine-tuning of tiers and condition levels based on previous partnerships.
Also, we should have clear and accessible guide for partners in all entry points:
- on the main page of freeton.org;
- on a new forum member invitation greetings;
- on Telegram community chats bot welcomes;
- specialized partner landing page with B2B SMM.
This throughout partnership guide should clearly state:
In fact there must be something like a landing page for partners, not a guide somewhere at the bottom of the forum…
Here I described iterative approach:
Of course not every partnership was a disaster. Significant number was successful. The big fault - there is no single word this about on the main page. We have to emphasize every victory. Even a small one. Success, success, success… A big list of stories.
Just an example…
I agree that small iterations paid for a specific success will be more effective in the financial aspect of the partnership. In addition, there is a lot of work to strengthen warranties for transparency of all operations. The added value of the network will be a weighty argument in the current year.
I think we should listen to A & S SubGov, they should say something