Let's Grow RARI Together! 🌱

[Jaf]

Hi RARI community,

During our Community Calls and Proposal Review sessions, we’ve talked about the importance of finding better ways to bring artists and collectors to RARI. This thread is about kicking off a conversation on creating a DAO initiative (RARI Growth Program) that benefits artists, collectors, and our community altogether. Through incentivizing community members to invite artists and collectors, we aim to create a vibrant ecosystem that benefits all stakeholders.

TLDR;

Introduce a gamified DAO initiative where our community rally artists & collectors to RARI marketplace, receiving rewards in return.

---

There are of course challenges towards implementing a strategy like this

CHALLENGES:

• Track who brought the collectors to a specific creator. Need to find a mechanism that allows to track easily the who and how?
• Creators might need to confirm and validate that a person/group was actually working to get traction for them??
• This is a DAO initiative. It requires supervision and might also require some conflict resolution. Meaning it will require 1 program Lead.
• Need to define the rules of the game clearly.

For instance:

• Cycles will run for 1-2 months
• Max 1 collection per artist per cycle
• Artists must get a minimum of 10ETH in volume
• Max volume per artist per collection = 30 ETH (only if RARI allocates budget from treasury)
• Rewards to Collectors and “BD” will be paid at the end of season (3 months) or ever X cycles.

OTHER:

• Rewards don’t necessarily need to come from the sales fees, they can be funds allocated to the program. Although everyone working with the same goal in mind makes the game theory better.
• The program can define a max # of collections and/or artists to support per season.

---

Conclusion:

The proposed Community Growth Program seeks to harness the collective efforts of our community to drive the expansion of RARI marketplace. By incentivizing community members to invite artists and collectors, we aim to create a dynamic ecosystem that fosters creativity, collaboration, and sustainable growth. Through structured seasons, transparent reward systems, and ongoing engagement, this program will serve as a catalyst for RARI marketplace growth and advancement in RARI DAO’s practices experiments.

[dzonson.eth]

I find the current approach to be completely out of touch with the state of the market. Despite Rari’s efforts to incentivize and prioritize artists, it doesn’t seem to be yielding the desired results. Considering the data at hand: All the artists who launched their collections on Rari chain managed to generate only $100 in trading volume over the past 7 days (including possible wash trading lol). These figures are quite disappointing, especially given the significant amount allocated towards marketing for these same artists and the recent launch of Rari chain, which was just weeks ago btw. The public’s reaction, as evidenced by these data, should serve as a significant red flag regarding Rari’s approach.

Take, for example, the recent marketing strategy employed during the launch of Rari chain. Rarible is a well-known name, and Rari chain is a valuable asset, which attracted significant traffic, right? However, what transpired next was disappointing – Rari directed all attention to artists and incentivized users to engage with their collections to receive rewards. The result? Artists collectively earned almost a million dollars, but their collections plummeted to zero value within a few days. There was virtually no trading volume. Meanwhile, the community became frustrated as 99% of individuals ended up donating funds to artists who subsequently disappeared. Their collections lacked utility, users had no means of communicating with artists, no roadmaps were provided, and excitement was nonexistent. All collections consisted of only one NFT with no distinctive traits.

Users are dissatisfied, as can be seen in comments across various social channels. FUD that Rari has faced in recent months has reached unprecedented levels, even during times that should have been cause for celebration due to numerous exciting updates.
Creators will not choose Rarible as their primary platform due to the lack of traffic. We have more people in this chat room than there are active users across all chains. Rari chain effectively died just a week after its launch.

What we should prioritize currently is the USERS, not the ARTISTS. When the marketplace becomes active, artists will naturally follow. We require a gamified experience to engage users in competitive TRADING. This could involve implementing mechanisms such as points, leaderboards, and experience points for each action (e.g., bidding, listing). Rari boasts numerous custom marketplaces with well-known names. Why aren’t we taking action? Why aren’t we incentivizing trading on those collections? There are countless strategies to attract traffic, but focusing solely on artists is misguided, as individuals who purchase NFTs solely for art are outliers as data shows.

It’s becoming increasingly clear that the current approach, which heavily favors artists, may not be yielding the desired results. Recent developments highlight the need for a reassessment of our strategies. While supporting artists is important, we must also prioritize the broader user experience and engagement. Finding a balance between artist incentives and user-centric initiatives could be crucial for the long-term success and sustainability of our ecosystem.

[forexus]

I do believe we have to bring back rewards, incentivize collectors and art itself. Rewards should be claimable on a daily base, instead after 3 months. The locking period should remain for that however.

We have to apply a reward system on a more larger scale for a longer period of time, focusing less on the artist and more on the collector, however with less I do not mean we must ignore the artist at all. These things can go perfectly together if done correctly. We still have to find out what is the correct thing to do.

We can bring in artists through the launchpad by giving them reward pools, instead of using collectors that are not there, once they drop an open edition or a collection in partnership with Rarible.

To track who brought collectors, a referral link system should be in place. Referral systems tend to flourish when more stats will be showcased in the dashboard. Collectors should get a percentage of rewards once one of their referral artist sells something.

[sohobiit]

I think this is very important, for NFT markets to attract LATAM artists, as well as incentivizing is part of the process and also a reward for the community and growth as a whole.

Reading the proposal I have 2 points:

1. As an artist, I don’t know how to feel about *(maximum 1 collection per artist per cycle) it could be that supply and demand have an effect but on the other hand. I think that if I feel comfortable with the platform I will want to be creating and being limited would be sad, maybe if with numbers it shows that I am an active artist and if I am making complete edits, moving them, bringing eyes or I’m simply farming, you know.

2.Maybe conditioning emerging artists ( * Artists must get a minimum of 10ETH in volume) with such lofty things will make them scared and look the other way. It would be to create a fair gamification system for everyone that is achievable and that we all benefit from as well. If they are not attracted to the same brands that we see everywhere, the idea is to open a space for people who may not have as many eyes on them but are very good artists.

The idea of ​​gamification where the person who buys art, as well as the artist and the website, benefit, it seems to me personally to be something that we are going to be seeing a lot in the coming years.
And this way you still attract more people to buy art

But otherwise I love the idea, I feel that we should bring initiatives of this type to LATAM that make the RARIBLE platform and the artists more visible, I love the initiative that you are having Jaf

[bitblondy]

What “limits” would you suggest instead?

[Jaf]

It’s encouraging to see that we share a common interest in further developing this topic. Based on the feedback received here and in our discussions, it remains evident to me that this needs to be a collaborative effort that takes into account all participants in the Rari ecosystem. We shouldn’t lean more towards artists or users exclusively - it should cater to both.

The gamified approach, such as the trading competition and leaderboard idea proposed by @dzonson.eth helps develop a vibrant & engaged community. Combining this with successful past initiatives like the Rewards program, but extending its duration, could prove to be a wining combination. Additionally, implementing a referral links system, as suggested by @forexus , could enhance the effectiveness of a gamified strategy.

Considering the perspective of artists, as highlighted by Soho, is crucial to ensuring that the program is enticing enough for them to join Rari. Details such as participation conditions, limits, and rewards could be further discussed once we’ve identified appealing and effective game mechanics.

Drawing from our experience in establishing a working group for the delegates incentives program, I propose we create a formal working group to delve deeper into this matter. Perhaps initiating the discussion based on the documents initiated by Forexus and @Firefly808 would be a great starting point.

I will continue trucking this one until we either present a proposal to the DAO or decide to explore alternative initiatives.

Happy to create a telegram group to focus on this topic, and keep updating the community here.

[dzonson.eth]

In my view, artists are already deeply connected with Rari, mainly due to the fact that they’ve had initiatives to release their works in the past, they have been rewarded, and most importantly, because they receive royalties on the Rarible platform. This is in stark contrast to competing platforms like Blur and OpenSea, which offer 0% to artists and are focused solely on the benefits for traders.

What I believe we need to do is to incorporate into our vision a way to motivate users to use Rarible. From the beginning, there have been two main deterrents for them:

• the mandatory payment of royalties (which I support btw, but a trader who wants to resell items isn’t a fan of so we must implement other tools that will still incentivize those users to choose Rarible),
• the lack of listed items from NFT collections, which is caused by the same issues I’ve mentioned in the post above → Due to the non-optimal approach, we have a minimal number of users.

Therefore, we must work on some interesting ways to attract people to come and use Rarible, even though they will be paying a fee. Again, it’s a fact that people who buy NFTs just because they like the art are outliers (statistically very rare). Mostly, purchases are made because they can earn from them or they provide some utility, access to communities, etc.

Rari has already had good mechanisms for Reward programs, and these can certainly be utilized in the future. I agree with you, Jaff, entirely that we should create a working group and work more actively on this issue. Again, I repeat, it seems unreal to me that we have more delegates active every week on calls than active users on the platform. Excuse me if I’m expressing my opinion unfiltered, but I do so because I genuinely care about making something good happen. We have the resources, we have a great product, we have people. What we need now is execution.

[sohobiit]

GM

One of my favorite words is amplification because it encompasses so many things. I differ a lot with you when you say ‘In my view, artists are already deeply connected with Rari,’ it seems to me that giving a very clear example and speaking from where I’m, which is LATAM.

LATAM saw an immense boom in marketplaces between 2021–2023 to use, however many of the artists, including myself, opened profiles and uploaded some works but we did not connect with the site, payment methods, gas fees or rewards. Something that Web3 is bringing is that closeness no matter where you are, as well as equal opportunities for everyone and highlighting that there are incredible Artists in LATAM who have not yet found that place where their works belong and move from one side for the other.

So the interesting thing would be to approach and talk to the artists and communities of artists with whom I personally have contact, it seems to me that this is how you come to create a good product market fit and know what their pains are and how we could build loyalty in their use of the platform. In fact, I’m releasing an alpha right now I’m working on a proposal that I will put soon on this pain point together with @happ3nxyz we will make a proposal so that artists from LATAM retain their stay in RARIBLE and get amazed with all this that we know but that if We don’t come out and say it, it stays between the 4 walls of Discord. We will have a super active campaign in LATAM for Artists to use RARIBLE more and more through their art, know the advantages and of course attract their buyers.

This has to be like the golden circle, talking about a why, how and what, having the coherence to inspire and impact more people each time and being oriented towards the vision and purpose of the parties involved.

🫰🏻

[sohobiit]

More than limits i think we can think in amplify and make this attractive to the parties involved, that’s how we can go further.

[dzonson.eth]

During the release week of Rari Chain, LATAM artists launched their collections and successfully generated a significant amount of ETH through initial mints. However, this influx did not translate into tangible benefits for the Rari ecosystem. Post-mint, none of these collections maintained their sales momentum (despite initial incentives by Galxe), leading to a current valuation of $0 for these artworks. Consequently, Rari Chain is experiencing a notable lack of transaction volume. It’s concerning that this critical issue hasn’t been adequately addressed or identified as a top priority.

I would recommend taking a moment to review feedback across various social media channels, where it’s evident that only a minuscule fraction of users purchase NFTs purely for the artistic value. This underlines a significant point I believe was overlooked in my previous messages: the pressing need to attract users to the platform. Despite a daily influx of art by talented artists, there remains a stark absence of buyers.

Creating an ecosystem where liquidity, traffic, and general interest converge is essential. Only then can Rari Chain truly become a vibrant and appealing marketplace for artists and buyers alike.

P.s. What other NFT marketplace are artists more connected with in your opinion?

[lionmsee]

I support this initiative to grow Rari, though honestly it’s taken me a while to sit with this from @dzonson.eth

@dzonson.eth

Artists collectively earned almost a million dollars, but their collections plummeted to zero value within a few days. There was virtually no trading volume. Meanwhile, the community became frustrated as 99% of individuals ended up donating funds to artists who subsequently disappeared.

Question that’s been running in my mind: How could we retain users’ interest in the artists and their work, in a more organic way? The last thing I would wish is for the “Blur”-ification of the collections on Rari…

Some strategies could be: Running established channels/spaces to retain the interaction of artists and collectors in a regular basis. Maintaining the presence of artists who dropped on Rari Chain to boost their overall recognition among collectors. Collectors love art airdrops too…

As much as I fully believe in aligning both artists and collectors’, there is a current concern around user sentiment: we should prioritize the users that put trust in Rari Chain because their early support is what made the launch a success.

[dzonson.eth]

Honestly we can have different opinion on this matter and I respect it but the fact is that there is no organic demand on the market for Rari chain collections which Rari has been dropping/marketing in collaboration with artists. It’s not me saying that - it’s the data. Every single collection was minted just because there was reward program for users ongoing (which btw flopped massively due to poor execution). They are all worth $0 collectively now. People paying hundreds of bucks for digital art of not established artists are outliers.

Because of this, Rari chain, even though it just dropped, has 0 volume. No one is touching it. That’s the problem I wanted us to work with. Artists were incentivized through grants, expensive marketing and what not but it didn’t work out, at least from the users perspective. We have no active users. Artists earned 7 digits and we have 0 established collections. There is nothing fun nor entertaining on Rari chain.

Do you agree with me that these stats are screaming with red alerts?

I believe that approach needs to be changed and that we collectively need to start thinking about how to bring users to Rarible because this approach right now is not working out :’)