Thanks for dropping by and engaging with proposals on forum. Much needed community participation in governance overall.
I disagree on this point. As I mentioned on my post, I spent a weekend doing strategic searches both on Google and on Youtube directly. All results for NEAR are people outside the ecosystem discussing PRICE - very superficial analysis of actual tech or potential.
The truth is, all the quality, deep content has very few views and subscribers. I strongly encourage people to follow:
My content stands out as I spend anywhere between 7-10 hours editing, and hundreds of dollars per month to increase the quality of video, sound, graphics, etc.
A few other points on low engagement -
- This is true for all media assets across the board. If you do a ratio analysis of the NEAR Protocol account with 18k followers and only 700 views on the best performing town hall you get an idea where we are at. Similar situation on Aurora, perhaps more extreme as the majority of people showing up for Aurora Leaks have been getting paid by Aurora to grow community (where are their community members?).
- The vas majority of my followers came in when I was creating video consistently (during bull market). I’ve also mentioned that for a long time I put MDAO work, among other things, ahead of content creation. Now I am back on full production mode (see last four videos in two weeks). It takes a while to ‘train the algorithm’ and being noticed again.
Don’t know what you are referring to here or where are you getting this data. Once again:
- I am consistently getting positive feedback and requests from content from active members of community (see twitter engagement and NEAR Social). This is partially the reason why I have been among the ‘Top 10 NEAR influencers’ for several weeks in a row now (I first entered that ranking over two years ago, also around the time when the Channel was most active).
- I have not shared my Youtube analytics but they are in line with industry (Click through rate, percentage watch time) with over 900% upvotes and even some engagement in comments.
- My I-am-Human video kickstarted the use of the referral page - a cool widget, lying dormant. I led the pack up until a few hours ago with 13 referrals (Across my personal and podcast account) AND the people I referred have also been very active referring others. This is a good example of how it takes some information, some hype, and then the action flywheel begins.
I have also been a pioneer of Sharddog links as user engagement. My 'Let’s timestamp who was building on NEAR [this month] goes back to March and is part of an ongoing attempt to inject life into the community, build a sense of identity, reassert the BUILDER culture (it is builders who are going to get us to 1 billion), and have since been adopted by many others including Naomi and Nearweek.
The June Sharddog link was the firs month where we implemented the functionality of redirecting people to Wuipod Channel on YouTube and successfully increased both followers and views significantly. This is a big achievement as most of wuipod listeners are audio only.
July sharddog link will redirect people to Alpha Leaks w. AVB Youtube channel. This is an easy way for community OGs excited about collecting an NFT to see the content and subscribe fi they want.
I have also been experimenting this week with Youtube tooling around Clips and Shorts.
This is an interesting question - the tag line of the channel has always been ‘where we cover the things getting us closer to mass adoption’. I’ve been cutting out the introduction recently to make videos more concise but I’ve certainly been the most aggressive pursuer of the Mass Adoption requirement (including writing the current guidelines for MDAO and Charter).
Most of the scope of the MDAO includes what is referred to as ‘top of the funnel’, which means that it can be very hard to have meaningful metrics. A user could deposit X TVL into Spin Finance after my video or we could recruit a killer dev. While these feedback does find its way to me eventually, it’s borderline impossible to measure - certainly at the time of writing reports (as evergreen content continues to generate value even after the report has been written) but particularly for future content (past views are indicative of past content and market sentiment, not a limiting factor in future views or market sentiment). This is why the content guidelines focus on many parameters (would encourage you to re-read them as it may have been some time). Some of these include:
- Depth of knowledge of content creator (does it accurately portray NEAR, products and services, etc.)
- Quality of production
- Building a brand which adds to NEAR ecosystem brand and positioning
Perhaps the easiest way to think about this would be to ask - how would the NEAR ecosystem be impacted if this content did not exist? If the potential loss is greater than the requested amount, then the decision is easy.
Finally, for the sake of transparency, I invite anyone else reading Romanus questions - and the standard he applies to my content - to also go read his current proposal to Creatives DAO and hold him to the same standard.