Thoughts on NDX Marketing and Fund Organization

It’s amazing what this project has accomplished in such short time. I really believe NDX will become the de facto standard for index and managed fund investing within crypto, surpassing Index Coop. I am sure the team is already discussing ways to rethink marketing, and some of this may be a repeat. My apologies in advance. Let me get right to my thoughts on marketing:

1 - We need a core product, similar to DPI. What is that product? Is it CC10 or DEFI5? Or another, yet to be announced fund? This is absolutely key, we must have an industry recognized standard for tracking DeFi. I disagree that DEFI5 is that product. 5 tokens are too few for a properly diversified portfolio. You need 10 tokens minimum for this core offering, and probably 20-30.

When you go to the NDX website, all projects are equal more or less. DEGEN is beside ORCL5 next to DEFI5, etc. There is no differentiation, and no clear understand of which one core offering is our primary product. I think this needs to change. We need a 20-30 token core DeFi offering that everyone can use to track the overall progress of DeFi. And this should be the first fund everyone sees when coming to our website. And we need to brand this as such, e.g. DEFI25, or whatever. But again, 5 tokens (DEFI5) cannot be a standard, it’s much too risky!

I would rename DEFI5 to DEFIBlueChip or something like that. Put it in the ETF category (more on that below). But it should not be our core offering! Perhaps rename CC10 and add more tokens to this.

2 - I see 3 major categories of product offerings from NDX:

(1) our core offering, DEFI25 (or whatever we call it). This is one and only one fund, our primary fund, the first thing people see when they come to our website, what people talk about when they want to know if the DeFi market rose or fell overnight, etc. They look to this index. This is obviously the DPI killer. Or at least something that will be referenced alongside DPI.

(2) ETFs. This can be where we place DEFI5, renamed as LargeCapDeFi5 or BlueChip5 or something. It’s for people who want relatively established projects and accept the risk of only 5 tokens. ORCL5, obviously, is another ETF offering, the ETF for exposure to more than 1 oracle solution. NFTP, an ETF to track NFTs, etc. This is how people think in traditional finance, we need to mirror that in our marketing! If I want exposure to oracles but don’t want to choose between LINK, BAND, or UMA, I simply purchase the Oracle “ETF”. But currently it’s not really marketed that way, it’s just another option on your website. We need to place it in the “ETF” category! DEGEN is probably another ETF offering (since it’s not actively managed by redphonecrypto), which can be placed in a mid cap category. I want projects that are successful but haven’t yet broken out, so there is more risk, so DEGEN! Etc., etc.

When we start to position our funds this way, it will help us understand what holes we have in our total portfolio. E.g. where is our high risk small cap fund? What about an ETF for “interoperability” that includes RUNE, REN, etc.? Lots of possibilities, but we need to think in terms of ETF categories similar to traditional finance.

(3) Managed funds. Here we have an active owner/investor. This is what ERROR is as currently proposed. Let one high profile personality actively manage the fund. This will bring more personalities into NDX and grow our user base. People who come to be part of the personality’s portfolio may stay when they realize they can purchase other funds at NDX, etc.

Right now we have a list of funds with little differentiation. We need to change that asap so people who come to NDX can quickly understand what we are offering. Perhaps later our token policies can support users who are involved in more than one fund, or whatever. But the first step is to put some order to our offering: Core Fund, ETF’s, Managed Funds. Let the website clearly show this!

It’s normal that our funds are all marketed together, that’s how we started, it was important to just code and get some initial products out the door, prove the model, grow the community, etc. But if we want to become the de facto standard in index investing, we need to have clear differentiation about what we have and how it can benefit users. Not just continue to add more funds without this overarching structure. I believe the model above is the way to go.

I once again apologize if this is a repeat of what you are already discussing!

1 Like

We can definitely get the “Premier” 20+ token index by bundling the other indices into a master index - which the constitutes can be voted [or algorithmically, based on a set performance factor] on an on-going basis. Overall, I really appreciate this post, and hope it strikes a lasting impression on the future of NDX :tada:

Thanks. Perhaps I’m just saying the obvious, not sure. I’m only posting this for discussion. But even a 10 token fund would work as the core offering, we can use CC10, definitely. I would want to rename it, but that’s not so critical now. The main thing is to have a clear strategy and all of our funds should be slotted into that strategy. And at the center should be the one, core fund that becomes synonymous with NDX and DeFi investing in general.

I really fear DPI will become the de facto standard and people will simply go there for that, then stay for their other offerings. To displace DPI, we need a comparable offering, then easy to understand reasons for why our offering is superior. It could be lower costs, whatever. Let’s say 3-4 bullet points. And if we don’t have 3-4 bullet points, we need to create them (not the bullet points per se, but new features we can use as bullet points!)…