So we’re still keen to work on a more long-term engagement with Pocket. I’ve gotten approval for the following amendments to hopefully make it more amenable to the DAO:
Reduce the buffer needed for us to accept $POKT intead of stables to 5% (making it $26,250 at the time of payment)
Add in a termination clause at the end of Q2 where the DAO can cancel the engagement if they feel they are not receiving enough value from our services.
Do you provide a variety of services for DAOs and protocols at different price points or do you have a standard one that you are pitching in this thread?
I am thinking if there is a middle ground between “do nothing” and the one in discussion.
Maybe there are ways to start getting associated and get value through specific services (whether its content, reporting/analytics, marketing) before we go full-stack.
There is indeed an overwhelming excitement for Messari in the community. The response to the recent coverage is a testimony. The problem is the timing- market and other internal debates within the Pocket ecosystem.
Liquidity is poor in the market (although that could change) and its extremely poor for Pocket given no DEXs and no tier 1 CEXs. V1 test net has been pushed to Q4,23 and main net to Q1, 24, etc etc. 2023 will be another “year of building” for Pocket, without newsworthy catalysts that are visible at this point.
I still believe that there will be lack of support for a full-stack partnership with Messari at this moment primarily because of the timing, even though Messari is highly respected by the community.
Therefore I am curious to know if there are alternative ways (favourably priced for the conditions) to start the partnership and gradually build it over time.
@Jinx @Dermot @Cryptocorn thoughts?
I think there is a lot to be said for the exposure that Messari brings to the table, and as you’ve often mentioned, the narrative is a critical part of the health of the economy. I am also divided on the timing, and the relative cost.
I guess there are two questions:
Given a similar budget in the current market, is there another platform which might be a greater catalyst to broader cryptosphere interest in the protocol and token?
Is this proposal “affordable” to the DAO (with the understanding that we don’t have a hard definition of what affordable means)?
If the answer to 1 is no (which I lean towards), then I think we have to wrestle with 2.
I think Messari did a great report on governance and Pocket last week, kudos to the team that wrote that.
Mainnet is at least a year away, which is a lifetime in crypto. (PNF/PNI?) Should look to build a marketing plan commencing in q4: 3-6 months is plenty of time in crypto to build excitement. They should negotiate with a variety of service provider like Messari, and engage with those who will give the most perceived ROI.
The Pocket marketing team should come to the DAO with a proposal and budget, not individual vendors.
I’m against this proposal in its current form. Pocket marketing should put a plan together, negotiate with vendors and set a needed budget as a DAO proposal for v1 marketing work ($500k? $1M?). At that point, I’d be glad to see Messari as one such vendor that we work with, I fully agree they have the potential to bring a lot to the table for us, timing/management/planning needs to be enacted however.
Thanks @Jinx and @Cryptocorn
In short, what I am curious to know from Messari @JackPurdy_Messari is that are there limited services plans to get the ball rolling, such as maybe one simple blog post per month (similar to what they recently wrote), etc? And that could be about opportunities and constructive criticism as well if needed, and not just about strengths.
Hey @Caesar - thanks for the tag.
My perspective here, and please note that this does not reflect the view of PNF, is that we should be thinking in bets
And by this, I mean what is the probability that Messari will have a significantly positive impact on how the current community as well as potential contributors, new hires, customers, investors, etc etc perceive POKT? What is the potential value of a new game-changing hire worth? Or a new major investor? Or a new contributor or two worth? Or a major new customer?
Is any of this worthy of betting 0.65% of the DAO’s treasury?
And what’s our downside risk? Paying c.$50k (if we choose to trigger the termination clause at the end of Q2) for six months of Pocket being on the Messari portal and receiving two quarterly reports on Pocket, along with the potential for greater coverage in Messari’s general news coverage and governance updates via its newsletter and platform.
It feels like the community is leaning towards saying this bet isn’t worth it. However, if you say so because you believe the DAO needs to save its capital for another day. I would implore you to reconsider your frame of reference, as the purpose of the DAO is not to save money for another day. It is to invest money now for the future.
Leaving me to ask; thinking in bets, do you think this Messari proposal is worth the risk?
Just want to echo Dermot’s perspective and add one point which is that even if we spend $50K the downside risk is less than that because we will learn something (Messari are gods; It was too early, etc)… the concept of intelligent failure is a really valuable way to think about how we reduce downside risk without limiting the upside
@Caesar at this time, we don’t have another offering for recurring coverage outside this quarterly format.
@Jinx in terms of “affordability” I think @Dermot was spot on with his probabilistic thinking. You can think about it as a $50k call option on the possibility of a fruitful engagement that leads to increased partnership, investment, development, etc. Worst case the DAO has spent a fraction of a percent of the treasury, whereas best case there is a meaningful amount of new human and monetary capital in the ecosystem helping to grow the network.
Additionally, if the DAO deems the services are worth it and chooses to renew, the actual number of $POKT that spent from the treasury could very well be less than $100k worth of tokens right now since the payments are quarterly and we’re fresh off one of the most apocalyptic market environments in crypto’s history.
Thanks @JackPurdy_Messari , have no further questions for now.
@Dermot and @b3n going all intellectual on an anon clown 
Big fan of Annie Duke’s books! A very X 2 similar one is Maria Konnikova, highly recommend her books too!
I respect the opinions of the dissenters on this thread but I personally am leaning towards making this work. Therefore I keep coming back with something or the other.
I am agnostic about paying in POKT, specially through pressure and conditions. Whatever the community decides, I will be ok with.
@Jinx doesn’t appear strictly against from his last message.
I agree with @Dermot and @b3n on the 50k bet argument. Amongst us, can we agree on starting from Q3 onwards? So basically Q3 and Q4 for trial. Of course if you think there is merit there. I believe this will give us some basis to at least resume the conversation with the larger community because timing, V1, other catalysts or lack of them, exchanges, bank for the buck, etc have been laid out as factors. Otherwise seems like it’s a non-starter at this point.
Please feel free to put forward your comments/recommendations as individuals or representing PNF, whatever you decide is appropriate.
Having said all that, I humbly disagree with-
I would say it depends and is situational. Will leave this discussion for some other thread.
Thanks for engaging.
Yeah, I’m leaning towards at this point.
Love this whole post. 
I’d start it in June for 6 months ending in November. No sense in building too much hype right now. And maybe if we sign something this month with Messari, they’ll be generous with their coverage even before the start date.
For sure its worth the risk!
Is there a way to gather info on results for other projects that engage but later terminate such arrangements. What I worry about is coverage bias turning negative - whether deliberately or due to subconscious factors - for those who terminate arrangements. Practically, we may not be able to easily achieve “try out for 6 months and then terminate if not worth it” if the end result of terminating is worse off than having never engaged in the first place.
So we haven’t had any cases of projects terminating. However, I can assure you that any separate coverage would not be impacted as our entire business is staked on our reputation as an unbiased source of information which we are incredibly mindful of in everything we do.
For those in favour of this proposal, can you give me your thoughts on:
Why would it be better to engage Messari now than in Q4 just before v1’s release?
What will Messari write about? They did a great piece on our DAO, but now what major releases do we have coming that are worth of 5 figure ad spend, pre v1?
Have you bought advertising before? If so, did you negotiate with the vendor at all, or just pay the first number they said?
The points i’m trying to re-emphasise here:
a) buy and use advertising - take a ‘bet’ on it, when the timing is right, not just because an advertiser approached you selling something. Messari will be a great partnership - when we can optimise ROI for our benefit, not their sales figures.
b) negotiate with suppliers. PNI just took a massive haircut to salaries and staff, and now the buyers of this service don’t want to negotiate? This is not just for Messari, but all suppliers to the DAO, we need someone actively negotiating on our behalf, not just signing off the first numbers given to us.
As part of any arrangement for coverage by Messari, the DAO should insist on playing a role in the editing process, including most importantly fact-checking, to ensure that any material that’s published is accurate and mistake free. No one knows Pocket like Pocket people. While Messari writers may be good “journalists,” journalists are not perfect. GRIP would be happy to play this role (no, this is not GRIP creep). It would be a win-win. Messari, of course, would retain full editorial control.
Thanks @Cryptocorn , yes my last post says that I am leaning towards it.
I proposed Q3 but I am fine with Q4 as well if that helps get consensus. I am not OK with Q1/Q2.
If timing is your concern, I have addressed it above. The DAO article was a teaser I think; the scope of their quarterly coverage is much bigger than a blog as far as I understand.
Yes, I have and several times- print and digital. I agree with you and have echoed the same sentiment in my initial posts. I have been doing some digging about advertisement, blockchain analytics costs in this space and I am kinda bowled over by the rates.
Totally agreed!
Agreed here too! I have introduced 3 ideas in the community- A) Active DAO Treasury Management (that includes budgeting and planning), that will force the kind of stand you are proposing ; B) DAO level (may be through PNF) Marketing oversight. PNI marketing is for PNI and they don’t represent all of Pocket. A PNF/DAO representative to work/coordinate with all the vendor/stakeholder level marketing teams, interact with the DAO on marketing ; C) Space and Competitor Research- what are others doing?
Unless we have the above (or similar), we are basically acting blind and reactive. So we need to have the pillars and processes in place first.
Going back to Messari- I 100% lean towards giving Messari a fair chance for 2 quarters, and I am OK with Q3 + Q4 OR Q4 + Q1 24 (we can debate that).
As far as price goes, let me ask @JackPurdy_Messari once more and directly- is there any room for negotiation in your 25k X 2 (50k) offer? Seems like if we can get an attractive initial discount (a BAFO), it will be easier to get the ball rolling and hopefully start a long term partnership.
Comments from @Dermot & @b3n are still welcome. In case you would prefer to be observers and let the community decide, an acknowledgement at least will be great.
I believe this deal with Messari will do more good than harm to the Pocket ecosystem. Even though I am confident our community can do its own reports, the reach of such reports is limited. Also, we cannot be in the mindset that we should be doing everything on our own, instead work with entities that can multiply our efforts and reach communities beyond our reach.
Even though the POKT price has fallen, the network has progressed well fundamentally with ‘all-time new highs’. Now I get that info because I am continuously tracking the KPIs and preparing reports every quarter. Believe it wasn’t easy unless I track every ‘Relay Cap’ and without the charts of c0d3r.org. Currently, an outsider has no way to judge pocket network unless to look at the price action of POKT and conclude - oh this not doing well. And I don’t think anyone will really jump into the rabbit hole of pocket considering the myriad of other web3 projects one has to consider. You need quick and easily comprehensible indicators that go beyond price, that can be easily found in well-reputed web3 research catalogs.
This is where well-written quarterly reports with key KPIs, even including data points that are not extensively covered currently such as latency & no. of applications, will be a benefit for us to show the progress. And such reports have to come out from entities independent of the Pocket ecosystem as externals will trust that more than ones created by the community or foundation. Also, I don’t believe the market will respond well to one of marketing reports (say after the V1 launch). You need to show consistent progress over time to attract good investors, builders, and node runners.
We also have portfolio companies coming to us asking whether it is the right time to start working on Pocket. They find it too difficult to track the governance process and changes. The report done by Messsari on the governance process is a breather here, and so is the overview of all the governance proposals. Also, when Messari covers it, it is a signal to me that it is a reputed project where some real things are happening.
So all in all, I would urge the community to think: Is this beneficial to reach more people? Are we reaching quality readers? Can another provider do better? Or can you as a community reach more people than Messari?
It would have been better if the foundation have a budget for this approved by the DAO. It is a bit unusual to see the pricing discussed here. If I were from Messari, I would never indicate a price, especially a discount, since I am setting precedents for the price of my product in a public forum. So instead of the DAO negotiating, it should be taken over by the directors of the foundation. I believe they can reach what is worth paying - by considering what it costs with another provider & by considering what other projects pay Messari. But it wouldn’t make sense to negotiate here and expect Messari to provide indications of discounts here.
Normally the offering is $100k cash upfront. We recognize market conditions are tight, so we offered quarterly payments instead. Seeing the DAOs preference towards token payments we made that provision, flexed down our normal required premium to accept tokens, added the 6-month termination clause, and even put together a governance analysis free of charge. I’d call that pretty effective negotiating on the DAOs part!
Unfortunately, we have no more room to discount but as I noted above, we’ve really done our best to make the terms as attractive to the DAO as possible.
IF we go forward with this, I tend to agree with the Q3 timing. Assuming the SER (emissions reduction) proposal passes, an Aug/Sep first release will be able to highlight single-digit inflation. Plus even though v1 mainnet will still be months away, testnet will be immanent and we an start building hype around upcoming v1
I think Caeser has brought up some important points around:
DAO Treasury Management
Marketing outside PNI
Competitor Research.
These topics stem from the above, but tangential, I think they need their own space to be more fully explored and tie up with some of the points I’m making above + what Jinx is focusing on with the payment system.
Better understanding a budget + forecasting will allow for a separate marketing budget (that can manage this PEP & others) and make research grants.