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.