AZ Investment Thesis Position Paper

In light of some recent discussions on the .org forum I want to gauge the communities temperature on the mandatory use of funnels and attribution links through .org when applying for marketing AZs.

AZ Purpose:

  1. Write an investment thesis position paper on NoM similar to what Multichain Capital wrote about THORChain. The length of the paper will be +/- 10 pages and will be written in the same quality as the example paper. EDIT: I’m willing change the content per this suggestion below.

  2. The paper will NOT have any links to funnels, attribution links, conversions or any professional marketing tools. It will be posted on the /zenon-netwok repo and any website that will host it.

I am proposing this structure to understand the communities feelings on demanding professional funnels, link attribution and value creation on all marketing AZs.

Voting Criteria

  • If you vote YES on this AZ you are telling the community funnels, link attribution, and measured value creation are NOT required on all marketing AZ. This will set the tone for future AZs.

  • If you vote NO on this AZ you are telling the community funnels, link attribution, and measured value creation ARE required for all marketing AZ. This will set the tone for future AZs.

Funding Request

1,000 ZNN. I expect this to take 40 hours at $50 USD per Hour. 40 x $50 = $2,000 USD / $2.00 = 1,000 ZNN

I’m not sure when I can do this work and I hope someone from the community will collaborate with me.

Community Voting

In addition to pillar voting, I’m asking the community to anon vote below. Your opinion matters and will help other marketers understand the requirements for future marketing AZs.

UPDATE: I would like to add “Value Creation” in the vote list but I’m past the time cut off. It should read “Funnels, Link Attribution and/or Measured Value Creation”

  • Funnels and Link Attribution ARE required on Marketing AZs
  • Funnels and Link Attribution are NOT required on Marketing AZs
0 voters

Track Pillar Votes Here

If the static funnels weren’t branded as .org, would you include them to measure some metrics and offer paths of nurturing/conversions? They’d simply be hosted by .org but have no backlinks to the brand. The funnels would automatically set the referral in readers browsers, and can be tuned to offer your readers a path to conversion.

Would you collaborate?

Clearly we should be trying to figure out what marketing efforts are “working”. So where ever this gets hosted, I hope we can track views and clicks. So yes I’m more than willing to collaborate.

My goal with this AZ is to understand where the community stands on a strict adherence to professional marketing tools on every AZ. I’m proposing that we do some FAFO marketing to see what works. However, I don’t want to waste funds to find out random stuff. Or to find out if my random thoughts on NoM are interesting to people.

I’m proposing an investment theses that can be shared and posted anywhere. Anyone who posts it can use any tool they want to track clicks, etc… Or, they can simply not track clicks at all. If the community and Pillars demand precision on marketing efforts, then we know what to expect for future AZz.

Why are you limiting the measure of value to funnels and link attribution? There are many other ways to track and prove value.

Value must be proven in exchange for obtaining community funds. The way how it is proven is secondary.


Define FAFO, it’s not a known marketing term.

I’m proposing no value tracking, link tracking, or funnel tracking. Simply produce high quality work we think will be useful. But we cannot determine its usefulness today or upon submitting the AZ.

Why ask for funding if you don’t have a plan on execution?

Why set a mindset that there should be no way to measure value?

Do some marketing without having a way to determine if it results in buying $ZNN or clicking download on syrius. But it’s a useful piece of work that could generate a positive outcome for NoM.

For example Twitter Gamez. I have no idea how many people bought ZNN or downloaded syrius. But we could see that Zenon was trending with twitter trending analytics as a result of this campaigns.

How can you determine that?

How can you determine the Gamez was the reason for the trends?

because not everyone can do that. Or has the time to do that. Or even wants to do that. But that does not mean then cannot produce useful work. I’m sure there are people here who are afraid to submit any marketing AZ for fear of getting push back on the funnel and value creation.

we don’t track the value created by every piece of code written.

1 Like

In that case I’d say the grantee should be able to show how previous, representative work he or she delivered was able to provably drive value. Else there’s no precedent and basis to ask for funding.

Would you pay me to do a surgery if you didn’t know I was a qualified surgeon? It’s a basic comparison but you get what I mean.

I wouldn’t pay anyone for incomplete code.

game start, trend up. Game stop, trend down. FAFO.

We are going to test again when Sol returns.

1 Like

They can if they collaborated on funnels they’d think would be useful for their strategy. This comes back to my point in my post on .org forums: people don’t want to just because.

How about the rest of the influences in the market? Maybe PA had something to do with the trends too? I love attribution, but proven please.

my AZ does not consider that, so please vote accordingly.

The AZ will get paid out if the quality of the work is consistent with the AZ: institutional quality consistent with the sample

that is why we are going to test again. when the marketing is quiet. More samples.

Instead of measuring trends (which are hard to prove), why not put efforts to measure results conversions which Attribute offers. The logic is flawed: Putting efforts towards strategies where its metrics don’t quite tell you if things work.

1 Like