Arguably, the debate between tech and community, in terms of which should come first is predominantly seen in the crypto space.
The tension between these two elements shows a somewhat unique dynamic that's particularly visible in blockchain projects, though similar patterns may have emerged in other technological movements.
Of course, I'm not so involved in other tech spaces, so I could be wrong in that regard. But I think one of the reasons why community is a prevalent aspect in crypto is the financial incentive and the backbone from which it is built on, i.e a global network of participants who share both risk and reward.
Traditional tech companies mostly follow a top-down approach. Products are built and then presented to users.
Bottom-Up Innovation
Crypto flips this model on its head.
In the sense that Bitcoin's origin story began with a whitepaper shared among a small community of cryptographers and grew organically through grassroots adoption.
The same could be said of Ethereum's development, driven by a global community of developers and enthusiasts long before it became a household name.
It's always fascinating for me to grasp the idea of people from all over the world coordinating to create and build a decentralized ecosystem that transcends borders from scratch, especially the financial aspect.
In a way, I think the proper term is capital formation, which I've been hearing more recently. The experts I listen to say crypto is a more efficient way for capital formation compared to traditional financial systems and venture capital.
We've witnessed projects raise millions through token sales in hours, something that may take months in traditional finance, with all the bureaucracy involved.
That couldn't happen without a diverse global community, right? The beauty of crypto is in how it breaks down geographical and also institutional barriers.
A developer in Malaysia can contribute to the same project as a designer in Norway, with their work valued based on merit rather than location or credentials.
Product-Community Fit
So, community is very important for sustainable project development and maintaining true decentralization. It's like the life blood that runs through a system to keep it functional.
Now, without the system in place, can the life blood flow properly or rather efficiently across the system?
This is the kind of train of thought that people who argue for building the tech first conjure up and it makes me nod and shake my head at the same time.
I think it's a bit of an oversimplification to frame this as a chicken-and-egg problem.
Knowing that a synonym for the digital space is dynamic space, it just creates theoretical framework that's not adaptable to real-world market conditions or adoption patterns.
The reality is more nuanced in this aspect, technology and community can grow together side by side in an almost symbiotic relationship.
As could be seen with some of the successful projects in the space like Uniswap or Chainlink.
Stickiness mostly comes from having a good enough product that a community can gather around and iterate upon through continuous feedback loops.
If I had to choose between tech and community as a project founder, I'd follow the Pareto principle: 80% tech and 20% community.
Knowing that 20% of the effort usually brings 80% of results, I'd be betting that solid tech creates natural community gravity.
Thanks for reading!! Share your thoughts below on the comments.