I've been reading a lot about startups and web3 games in my little to no spare time. I am cooking something over the past year, but it's evolving incredibly slowly because well, I do it in my spare time, and with my current work/family scenario, I barely have time to do anything unrelated to those two. I'm not complaining, I'm just laying it out so you give this post a read and please, give me as much feedback as you can to help me steer the wheel of my secret concept.
Does a new web3 company's product have to be 10X better than the existing options to take-off?
Most of the times the answer will be a hard yes because in order to get eyes in what has become one of the most competitive attention economies, you need to have not one, but several value propositions, a real killer MVP, and you need to know how to market it.
But there are some cases where a soft No can be the answer.
Why?
Because most of the web3 companies are fighting web3 Tank battles.
Web3 startup companies win these tank battles when their MVP is a little better than the competition in the market. In a space like crypto where 1-5% is a lot, and where 3 months feel like years, this slight edge means everything for possible adopters and potential loyalists.
To get a little bit of context about Tank Battles, let’s step back in history to WWII, a time in the mid 20th century where Europe faced massive destruction between the Axis and the Allies, and Tank Battles were a center point in the ground battles. From WWI to WWII, progressed from a “limited role with improvised tactics" to a scenario where strategy and speed became through the Blitzkrieg approach. The German tanks were the most advanced at the time and their strategy worked perfectly, to a point where if a German tank faced an English tank 1on1, the outcome would be a flattening defeat for the english.
The reason for this is fairly obvious but worth stating:
If one tank was faster, counted with anti-tank support from the artillery, was able to move fast and fired a small percent farther and more accurately than those of another, it should win ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of the battles between them.
This caused that every single time a German tank was in sight, the Allies' tanks would retreat and they would reconsider their strategy, because they were facing a sure defeat.
Minor improvements led to devastating advantage and therefore justified investment in continuous improvement. Rinse and repeat.
This is true for many segments of the financial services ecosystem. Lending businesses are a good example of the tasnk battle concept. Small advantages can literally suck the oxygen out of a market and create havoc for the competitive landscape.
And the why is obvious: Because financial products exist in a world of increasingly near perfect information and good customers behave rationally.
I’ve observed this effect time and time again in my 30+ year career building and funding financial services companies and I can say without a doubt that the cannon effect is more present than one would initially think.
Which brings us to the moral of the story. Ask yourself how important small improvements in price or service are to your prospective customers. The more important they are the more likely you’re entering into a tank battle. And when fighting a cannon battle, if you can’t definitively say that a rational customer would pick your product when faced with perfect information then you might as well give up before you start.
Why get into a battle you know you can’t win?"
Posted Using InLeo Alpha
