Increase the minimum $RADAR required for Pro

[Resypto]

Want to gauge sentiment before a formal proposal, and will probably use this as the template for the actual proposal down the road.

I think the 5K $RADAR minimum for Dappradar Pro is very low. With the current price at around $0.012 it is worth ~$60. At the ath price around $0.05, it’ll be worth around $250. Some dex analytics tools with the similar hold-for-premium-services structure require holding amounts worth more than this.

Dappradar already provides a very unique service without any alternative competition. Dappradar Pro has various current and planned perks for users, and also provides the Pro Support service extremely beneficial to project teams themselves.

So I believe the minimum $RADAR holding requirement should be increased drastically to an amount that would accurately reflect the current and near-future value of the Pro services. This would generally serve two purposes: (1) increase token value by requiring more $Radar to be held by Dappradar users and therefore decreasing the practically available supply in circulation; and (2) encourage more contribution and governance participation by requiring users to have more at stake financially.

Although this can be done in various ways, below are two suggestions that can be implemented separately or in combination.

1. Increase the minimum requirement universally for all Dappradar Pro services. (could be 10K, 20K, 50K etc.). This could revisited and adjusted by the community periodically (e.g. monthly) to keep it reasonable. Some benefits of this approach would be:

• more $Radar being held by users of the protocol so, not really but practically, more is removed from circulation;
• users being more invested in the health and development of the Dappradar Ecosystem; and
• further encouragement into participation in Dappradar Governance.

2. Set a different minimum requirement for Pro Support specifically for listing-related help. Project teams are more likely to need prioritized assistance with listings, whether it is updating the information displayed or submitting the correct contracts. Project teams are also financially more capable than the average user. So for listing-related Pro Support, the minimum could be a realistically higher number (100K, 1M, 5M etc.). Pro Users would still get Pro Support for everything else. And the contribute-to-earn spirit is protected since all users would still get listing-related support, just would not be prioritized to the same extent which they usually don’t need anyway. The benefits would be similar, but maybe on a different scale:

• More $Radar held;
• Project teams themselves having a stake in the heath and development of the Dappradar Ecosystem; and
• Project teams being encouraged to participate in Dappradar Governance; and
• In the likely event that $Radar price increases a lot, and it becomes expensive to get this service, those projects who showed support for the Dappradar Ecosystem early on will have been fairly rewarded by not having to pay that high cost.

[nederob]

I like the idea you have here, and it would make sense to increase the price of PRO at the current values. I will comment twofold:

User perspective
Let’s say I’d buy PRO now, I am not American or European, but I live in Asia, Africa or South America. That $60 would be quite a serious investment from my side, getting into RADAR and DappRadar PRO. But, I am convinced and I do it.

I buy my 5000 RADAR and I am a happy PRO user. Now, a few weeks later, the PRO threshold gets adjusted and I need to have 15,000 RADAR. I’d be angry, annoyed, and perhaps even outpriced.

We could do something like x RADAR or at least the equivalent of x USD paid in RADAR at some point. But I’d argue this would come with lots of issues where someone is PRO now, and 5 minutes later now anymore.

Technically we might be able to say everybody who staked or LP provided 5000 RADAR before “DATE x” will automatically remain PRO no matter what. However, those who simply hold RADAR in their wallet can’t be exempted in such a way. It’s probably very tricky.

These are just a few question marks to get the conversation started. You made some excellent points about financial commitment, and encouraging contribution because of that stake in the ecosystem. I agree that more investment also increased contribution and commitment, and therefore builds community.

Dapp perspective
In the very basic nature of things DappRadar needs to be open for everybody, right. We want to list EVERY dapp on EVERY chain. Very ambitious and that requires the help of everybody (contribute2earn) and an open system (opensource, everybody can join, add, help etc.)

What you mentioned as Pro Support, this makes a lot of sense. Letting dapp developers or dapp communities stake / pay or a bit of both in exchange for Pro Support features. Blockchain ecosystems paying or staking RADAR to get listed, and holding their RADAR to influence governance of the platform. Yes, that very much sounds like the way to go.

Closing words
We’re very much in the early days in RADAR, governance, contribute2earn etc. But your ideas do fall in line with a lot of my thinking. It’s just that I would not play with the costs of PRO too much. Maybe vote for price change once per year or something. But I would never increase the price for the sake of increasing.

[Resypto]

I agree. So much so that I actually think it goes without saying that a snapshot would be taken at the time of the announcement and whoever is holding the 5K $RADAR at that time would be grandfathered in. This could be done by whitelisting the wallet addresses or the emails registered with those wallets.

Retroactively changing the amount required is not only bad business, it also would effect community confidence. If you were promised Pro for holding 5K $Radar at the time you bought them, you should get Pro for that amount regardless of what changes afterwards. Plus, again, this way you’re rewarding the early supporters by providing them the Pro services at the low cost. Grandfathered holders/users are usually the most loyal ones too.

I can give an example from personal experience: Chartex (a charting service like dextools) had a similar requirement (5K I believe). At some point they switched to a subscription model but grandfathered the 5K holders at the time. Those 5K tokens I was holding suddenly became way more valuable to me, and I planned on holding them forever. After a while, they changed it again, and this time made it so that the grandfathered 5K holders would just get one month’s free subscription and would have to subscribe like everybody else after that. I didnt even wait for a month, just dumped it all that day and never used the app again.

[vandynathan]

Great proposal @Resypto . I actually like a combination of both suggestions, where we adjust the price and also segment the user base – therefore ensuring that the optimised price for DappRadar PRO is matched with the service and value provided.

I am aware that this proposal is based on the assumption that any increase in price would not negatively affect our conversion rate or the revenue/profit margin. The average conversion rate of a freemium service like ours is from 2-5%. Therefore:

1. Understanding our current conversation rate (the number of PRO membership holders in relation to non-PRO membership users) and
2. engaging with the community to understand why they do or do not use the PRO services

could be a good way to validate a pricing model (whilst also increasing participation) before making any changes to our price structure without pricing out our userbase and community (as @nederob mentioned).

Regarding rewarding earlier users, we could make the snapshot and grandfathering of eligible users, with a visible deadline and announcement for all users to get the PRO services at the current pricing. This would drive users to pay more attention to the services and convert some users before a new price structure is implemented. Being transparent on how long the grandfathering benefits would last would be important to keep community trust long-term too.

Additionally, we could even create a process where based on your contributions to the Dapp Radar DAO, a user could gain a discount on the PRO Services.

As a final addition, the mention of the subscription model is also quite interesting too. With the current PRO pricing model, we decrease selling pressure by making it necessary to hold RADAR tokens to receive the PRO services — but it doesn’t do much to create sustainable buying pressure on the token. If we are segmenting the different services, I could imagine that with sufficient demand we could create a subscription model for certain services (perhaps streamed through a service like Superfluid) to increase token buying pressure and also revenue streams for the DAO too.

I also agree with @nederob that the rate of change in the price should happen slower. Changing the price too often would make it difficult and frustrating for our users to budget the membership cost over a long period of time, especially in uncertain market conditions. Once a year sounds reasonable.

Overall the proposal is great, we need to optimise our business strategy to reward earlier users and capitalise on growth opportunities. My first impression is that it makes sense to give time for the market to adjust to the current pricing model and engaging with our PRO users and community before making serious changes — especially as it’s only been six months that the PRO services have been connected to the RADAR token.

[dragos]

Appreciate your contribution @Resypto - very helpful. You have a few great points there and there were already a few shy discussions scattered around about this, so this came just in time to consolidate all the ideas and proposals in one place.

From a product perspective, I must say that we’re working on bringing even more utility to PRO. We have a few upcoming features and data points which will become available to PRO users.

Also, beside adding extra features, we’re doing research on how we can better display the value of PRO across the product and our channels.

At the same time, the suggestion you’ve made about segmenting different type of users, like dapp developers and offer specific services and tools for them, I believe this makes tons of sense as well.

The initial conclusion is that we’re on the right path, we just need to bring in some numbers (as @vandynathan suggested above), look at the upcoming value of PRO and try to define a list of features and services for different audiences that might want to access PRO. We’re always open to discussions and ideas, at the same time, I will prepare more info about the upcoming changes in the list of features and share it broadly with the community, so we can better estimate the value proposition .

[Resypto]

When it comes to changing the minimum requirement for individual Pro service, I absolutely agree with the slower cautious approach. It is way more difficult to undo changes than making the changes themselves. I also agree that any change should be based on a solid understanding of the current conversion rate.

I feel differently about a couple things. Although they are semantics, and likely don’t need to be addressed yet, it’s probably better to have these discussions early on.

I think the snapshot would need to be taken as soon as the proposal passes, without any further announcements, for several reasons:

• The proposal would act as the announcement (warning) itself and would provide ample time for those interested.
• Announcement of an upcoming snapshot date would cause an artificial price increase in $Radar and would lead to an inevitable crash following the snapshot. While I don’t think the price of the token should be centric to these discussions, abnormal price activity like that creates a bad impression for projects.
• Giving even more extra time to those who hesitate would be unfair to those who have held their $Radar and kept faith. In the end, imo, it comes down to: X who has held the airdrop (or that first 5K bought) vs. Y who dumped it immediately. Again, the goal is not retribution as to Y, but appreciation for X.

I don’t think the 5K $Radar minimum should be changed for those who hold it now and would get grandfathered in with the snapshot. That way the current Pro users would never need to worry about budgeting. At the end of the day, putting aside all details and the fine-print, one way or another, the 5K was a promise from the project to those who bought or didn’t sell. Making adjustments on that may put one tiny crack in the confidence of the community and that would stay. Besides, Dappradar is in a unique position strategically and likely won’t have direct competition in the foreseeable future. For ex., for a charting dapp, the number of potential users out there is just one portion of the entire pie because of direct competition, since most people would only use one service. For Dappradar, however, its the entire pie; if there are 100K dapp users out there, all 100K are potential Dappradar users. So while a charting dapp may not be able to afford to have many users holding a small amount for premium services, Dappradar can.

I know I brought up the subscription services so I want to clarify my position on that: I think any type of periodic subscription model for a crypto project is a recipe for disaster and I have never seen it implemented successfully. It is just too complicated for our space. Pricing becomes problematic due to volatility in $ value of the coin (e.g. this month its $5, next month its $20). Establishing and maintaining a stable payment mechanism becomes an issue. Makes it easier to lose users during financially difficult times since people cancel the subs. And with the minimum hold model, when you’re buying that minimum required for a service, you are not spending money, you are just acquiring the membership as an asset and continue to keep value in your wallet. So it makes entry, aka that decision to get that first 5K, much easier.

[Resypto]

This is all great news, though not very surprising considering the team’s track record.

I’m really happy to see that there is some appetite for such changes within the community, from users to team members. And, as I mentioned in my above response, I agree that we should tread lightly and take a very cautious approach as to making any changes in the membership structure of Pro service for users.

It makes sense to wait and evaluate the change in real value to users, while keeping this discussion going simultaneously, especially if we have more improvements coming up this frequently.

However, one thing I would consider a somewhat faster approach is implementing a different structure with a higher requirement for listing-related Pro Support service. I do think all the above discussed concerns apply to that too. However, the process of that very first listing is where assistance is needed the most, and it is already ongoing for many projects as we speak. So from a business perspective, I would say there is a smaller, and closing, window of opportunity. In addition, it is reasonable to expect project teams, who are more likely to need immediate assistance with listings and use this service, to have the financial means and the foresight to invest early on in such services that will help them maintain strong brand presence.

In short, I think the two suggestions may be separated into two potential discussions for two separate proposals:

1. Change of minimum required for Pro service for users, which will be an ongoing discussion with no final proposal in mind for anytime soon; and
2. A new minimum $Radar requirement for listing-related Pro Support service, which will be a discussion aimed at drafting and voting on a proposal in the near future.

[Resypto]

Lol. You’re in the wrong chat brother.

[madeafterdeath]

5,000 Radar tokens is a good hold for pro. Them who care will make sure they have 5,000 radar in there wallets other wise they don’t get pro. I bought some radar recently i’m not rich far from it. what i managed to buy was a extra 3700 tokens for staking that with the airdrop for a total of 12,000+ radar token i would not of bought that extra 3700 tokens to try and get my pro back if it was taken from me and i’m hearing this term grandfathered into it pro…(personally id call it immortalised) sounds like a good idea but then it would feel like you are legit building what id call a pyramid scheme and usually that ends in tears. Why change something if its not broken is what i say nice suggestion tho. (but id put a no on this suggestion) and i love the thought u put into it.