You can certainly sway my opinion by providing hard data. I admire the work Messari does beyond these reports, and as you mentioned, it cannot be paid for, which makes it valuable. Ultimately, it’s a business - your primary research work is paid for by end users, while these reports are commissioned by those who order them. Here’s my takeaway:
You mentioned that “clients value our non-biased reporting,” but these quarterly reports are clearly profit-driven activities.
You mentioned skipping quarterly reports “sends mixed signals out to our community, tradfi, and within your own”, but you haven’t shared any data proving such claim. Not a good negotiating strategy imo.
You mentioned, “I’d urge you to see the bigger picture here in what we all hope to accomplish with this relationship,” but at the same time, the entire proposal is strictly limited to four quarterly reports, which are paid for by another 50 protocols. So, I might be missing where the bigger picture lies in the $100k bundle.
Moreover, you mentioned “access to tradfi investors who actually move the needle on charts,” but if we compare the dates when these reports were released, we don’t actually see such activity. Thus, it’s another baseless claim.
Regarding the old proposal mentions:
These reports would live as free resources on Messari and would be distributed through our newsletter, social channels, and third-party distribution partners including Bloomberg, S&P Global, and Refinitiv.
…
They will be distributed to a wide crypto native audience through the Messari newsletter comprised of 300k investors and builders in the space along with three of the largest traditional research platforms in the world.
- S&P Global
- Capital IQ: 12,000 enterprises
- Bloomberg
- Bloomberg Terminal: 325k users
- London Stock Exchange (formerly Thomson Reuters)
- Refinitiv: 40,000 enterprises and 400,000 users
it would be beneficial to provide a summary of how these reports performed in 2023 across all channels. I’m uncertain if I noticed Pocket Network mentioned by the “third-party distribution partners including Bloomberg, S&P Global, and Refinitiv.”
Basically, what I find disagreeable is this sales strategy. If you approach any reputable business, this vague proposal simply wouldn’t pass muster, but somehow it seems to work well with DAOs. I mean, if you’re asking for $100k, you should put some effort into it and demonstrate your value, especially considering last year wasn’t the best. It shouldn’t just be a copy-and-paste job with prices slightly adjusted per protocol. And even using the same argumentation and data from the old proposal, does that mean Messari has not experienced growth?