Community Designers: The New Heroes in the Web3 Multiverse of Madness

Open Sources, Hard Fork Wars. But No Forking, No Community.

“Happy Web3 builders are all alike; every unhappy Web3 builder is unhappy in its own way.”

To quote the famous words of Tolstoy, each unhappy Web3 builder is struggling to find the direction of their community in their own respective way. Meanwhile, successful Web3 builders are alike in that they are based on a strong community.

The life of a Web3 builder is more unhappy than not. It is hard enough creating a roadmap for the product, but it is even harder to win the hearts of the community. Yet strangely enough, there are communities that have survived various twists and turns — forking, hacking, node suspensions and are still steadily active.

I found that the common characteristic of such successful Web3 builders was that they received support from their community members. In hopes that Web3 builders will consistently commit to not only Github but also Discord communities, let us begin a series on the methodology of community design.

TL;DR

1. It is the age of open sources. We live in a time when the entire code of the product can be forked in just three days. At a time like this, the community alone is the unique distinguishable aspect that can never be forked.
2. In Web3, we can access beyond mere “reading and writing” to now “owning”, and users share incentives of product growth as investors.
3. The key to a successful Web3 product is designing a community where members voluntarily participate rather than the builder burdening everything.

#01 Is Open Source a Blessing? Or a Curse of Hard Forks?

Sushiswap began with one tweet from a user in the community. Chef Nomi, who came across the tweet attached below, forked Uniswap (who was №1 in the industry) in just three days to reveal Sushiswap to the world. Quite literally ate sushi via fork.

Its impact was tremendous. Investors began to flock, securing $1BL TVL in one week, and it was even once considered top 2 in the industry. How was this possible? Simply copying a code would not have been enough to move the community. Sushiswap was successful in building a strong community by emphasizing that it gave more incentives to its participants by distributing more revenue.

In the age of Web2, development was a sacred realm. In order for the product to succeed, there needed to be a developer wave attack, and, in order to invite expensive developers, there needed to be enough capital. But now, we live in an age where one anonymous developer can make a DEX (decentralized exchange) in just three days.

This blessing came to us thanks to the open-source culture of Web3. Anyone can make use of the available code, and we call this a fork (not a spoon or knife). Meaning, that the days of sourcing codes out of a rabbit hole are over, and the days of copying and pasting codes are here.

You can ask “Isn’t this just a curse of hard forks?” If it’s going to be hard forked so easily, why would anyone start a Web3 business? Don’t worry. The true moral of Sushiswap is revealed with the resignation of Chef Nomi. It now stands as an example of how one can prosper through a community but also fail because of a community.

In December of 2021, there was a proposal from the community regarding the obscure leadership structure of Sushiswap. Due to the prominent opposition from community members, in January 2022, Chef Nomi stepped down as CEO. A perfect example of beginning through a community and ending through the community.

#02 If You Don’t Know What’s Key in a Community, Lift Up Your Eyes and Look at the History of the Web.

As we saw with Sushiswap, the community can save or kill a product. But builders focused on programming overlook the importance of community culture. These builders live believing that their product — that is at the mercy of others — is what will change the world. All the while neglecting the work of the community.

🤓 Community management, isn’t that just answering questions?

🤬 Why open a community when one dissatisfied person can ruin the atmosphere?

🤯 It’s all too complicated. Isn’t it fine as long as we make an even better product each time?

I have briefly explored the history of the Web for these community atheists. Let us take a look into why the web has evolved to guarantee more freedom and participation for users and why the power is shifting from product-driven to community-driven.

Web 1.0 | Creative Copywriters Who Can Steal the Hearts of Consumers

• For the age of Web 1.0, exhibiting information online itself was revolutionary. You were limited to reading what was displayed on the web. Therefore, the message that companies put on view became the brand. We called the recipients of this persuasion our consumers.

• During this time, companies pondered which message would best resonate with consumers for marketing purposes. Hence, brilliant advertisement strategists like those we saw in MAD MEN were the main attraction of marketing in Web1.0. They were able to move the hearts of consumers with a mere expresso commercial.

• However, consumers were placed at the end of a one-way structure in which they were limited to accepting the message of the company, without being able to respond publicly in the Web space. In order to provide feedback, consumers would have to return to offline means of sending mail or making phone calls.

Web 2.0 | Scientific Growth Hackers Who Initiate User’s Clicks

• The rising of the age of Web 2.0 can be seen through the emergence of social media such as Twitter and Facebook. From here on, users were given the freedom to fully express their opinions on the Internet which was never possible with Web1.0.

• As a result, marketing representatives in each company began analyzing opinions across multiple channels and targeted advertisements optimized for each platform. Thus, in the age of Web2.0, the main attraction became data scientists called growth hackers. These experts carefully targeted users based on an analysis of even one’s scrolling time.

• With the transition to Web 2.0, the position of users became increasingly prominent. Nonetheless, there were limitations, the web was designed to limit the “flow of money” to circulate within companies and a handful of executives. Consumers may have had a voice but not ownership. Today, this is called “the original sin of the Internet”.

Web 3.0 | A Collaborative Community Designer on the Same Boat as the Holder

• As we move into the age of Web 3.0, the surfacing of crypto and the concept of ownership is becoming imperative. Now, users can hold ownership of a product by investing in its initial token sales. We call them holders.

• If authority was concentrated within platforms in Web2, this new phenomenon of Web3 is changing the direction of ownership back to the users, and thus, striving towards a fair distribution of value. So, the Web3 persona is unlike the Web2 user in that now users are no longer passive respondents that will react with clicks to a well-planned experiment. Now not only as users but also investors, consumers ride the same boat towards the growth of the product.

• Web3 holders who understand that the success of the product leads to a thicker wallet build the brand of the product together, at times actively protect it, and even serve as a support level during bearish times.

• Of course, not everyone who owns a token can be considered a contributor with full ownership. That is why the role of the community designer is so important. They welcome new members, set a governance structure that is worth adding value to, and cultivate contributors who can grow with the community.

#03 Happy Builders Do Not Work Hard Alone. Motivate Contribution From Community Members

In reality, many successful products in the Web3 world have builders that are outstanding community designers. As explored in the example below, it is important to sprinkle a little decentralized salt on the community at the right time.

The point here is that the builder themselves do not do all the work. After making a structure optimized for participation, they wait for the community members to contribute. Web3 products are most attractive when they seem to have an owner but do not.

Bitcoin | The Founder May Be Unknown but the Narrative Continues in the Hands of the Community Members

• The anonymous Satoshi Nakamoto first referred to Bitcoin as “electronic cash” in his 2009 white paper. Though the founder was never revealed, that was not important. Community members began to eagerly debate what Bitcoin was.

• Thus, as shown in the chart below, the brand narrative of Bitcoin such as , , and steadily evolved. Bitcoin became the first example of a community-led protocol despite the absence of its creator.

• On the other hand, unlike Bitcoin, Vitalik, the creator of Ethereum, is actually quite the attention seeker. He gladly accepts a Times magazine cover appearance and often raps on stage. Nonetheless, the community itself runs without Vitalik. For example, the first introduction of DeFi, which became the killer app of Ethereum, started with Maker DAO, independently of Vitalik. Even what led to Ethereum’s revival through Money Lego was not the creation but a member of the community.

Osmosis | If the Builder Explains Defi With Gibberish, Member-Based Marketing Dao Plans the Education

• Osmosis, as the name suggests, is an osmotic phenomenon; a phenomenon in which two solutions of different concentrations move through a cell membrane. It exudes a laboratory image that meticulously oversees two different swap pools. Along with smooth branding and UX, it has received strong community support on the Cosmos Chain and once climbed to the top 2 in the industry.

• The problem was that the branding was smooth, but there was a gap between the product and the customer. Originally, DeFi was intended to make top-level financial services accessible to anyone. However, it is difficult to actually use “everyone” because the product can only be used with the highest level of financial knowledge.

• In particular, builders can fall into the curse of knowledge while designing products for a long time. It is at this time that community members propose to make an education-oriented marketing DAO. That is how, for the first time in a DEX, an educational DAO was born to help educate novice DeFi users.

Pool Together | When Builders Suffer From Investment, Community Members Attract New Investors

• Pool Together, a lottery-based DeFi product, rewards holders by drawing a lottery once a week. From the fact that it provides a new gift every week, it is immediately a customer-friendly product. Thanks to these fun programs, Pool Together is acting as a gateway for new DeFi users.

• The work philosophy of the Pool Together team is “working in public as much as possible”. Hence, they moved their online workspace from Slack to Discord. Rightfully, Slack would have been more useful to manage development stacks. Nonetheless, in order to keep with the products’ community-friendly philosophy, the team uses Discord even at the cost of their inconvenience.

• That is how they communicate more with community members and gradually blur the boundaries between the core team and community members. From the direction of the product in terms of its UI/UX to much larger matters such as receiving investments from a better VC, these opportunities are linked through community members. This collective intelligence from community members who hold ownership proves to be highly effective.

Until this point, we have looked at the legitimacy of the age of the community by looking back on its history. Then, how can one run a successful decentralized community? In the next part of, let us look at what elements of MVC (Minimum Viable Community) are needed to form a minimal community.

Come for the Articles? Stay for the Community

Let us define the ambiguous role of a community designer together through ! Don’t forget to clap and subscribe!

Author | Sujin Keen I’m typing today for a desirable community culture in the Web3.0 era.

Special thanks to Esther Kim for your kind translation

***Inspired by ***Headless Brand, Pool Together Research from Other Internet

Also published here