Now that we have launched an updates Status.im, we can start to introduce more content and pages around specific areas of focus including Research and SNT Utility.
We have been planning the information architecture and copy for an SNT Utility page ahead of the token economics and research which will be going out shortly.
Goals of the Page:
Introduce SNT to interested people and new users to Status Community
Raise awareness of all use cases and the utility it holds within the Status Network
Raise awareness of research we are doing around the token models
Serve has hub for Token Economic Research Campaign >> drive to appropriate status channels, workbooks, blog posts, etc
This pages can also serve in the linking strategy to specific DApps that leverage SNT - ENS DApp, Teller Network, dap.ps, voting dapp
Audience for the page is pretty wide ranging from new people in the community looking to learn more about the product and token, to investors, to economic researchers looking to learn more about our research efforts.
Feedback on V1 of designs and information architecture welcome. Looking for general feedback on:
The type of information presented and the order in which we present it (copy is NOT final).
General design and layout. I.e. do the abstract representations of each SNT feature work well?
Linking strategy - I.E should we link to Github, Status Channel, and financial workbook for each SNT use case? Too much? Not enough?
** Please note - copy not final. Have not included all SNT use case designs and copy yet. Want to nail down direction first and then will produce remaining.
The stylized “SNT token” feels off to me. feels a bit “shilly” to me. I almost prefer the Status Logo (which is also seen on exchanges to represent SNT)
I feel like we should add a line of copy to description “See the White Paper”
P2: The Basics
feels a bit flat to me and not very engaging. Perhaps with some animations and transitions, it could work to highlight the content more.
P3: Using SNT
I like the abstract illustrative style for each feature. We don’t have enough UI shots right now and introducing a mix of UI and illustration will look odd
Can we color code the “status” of each feature? Does that make sense - Blue = In Progress / Green = Live / Yellow = Research
Needs to be more clear that you can toggle between use cases. either add arrows to tab through side to side or make more distinction between active and non active state.
Each use cases will have an associated workbook. Need to account for that
Teller network - will eventually need CTA to the DApp so please account for that
ENS Name - The illustration should indicate fred.stateofus.eth
P4: Research:
Not sure how I feel about the token distribution here. Feels a bit out of place in context.
Maybe we show some graph from the workbooks. Abstract representation of users > SNT in circulation > SNT locked in contracts >> Transactions >> Value IDK?
P5: Get Involved:
The only one that doest fit well is bounties. Perhaps we need to be more clear for researchers to test models?
Looks sweet! Agree on the feedback, my only other gripe is with the choice of layout for presenting SNT Utility swarms. The pager is quite neat but terrible at showcasing the full breadth of what we’re doing and giving justice to each utility. Imho a section for each, or a two column grid like we have on home, where you can actually scroll through them would be better. Scrolling is natural and better to digest the parts users find relevant, whereas a pager, I doubt people will be motivated enough to go through the entire thing.
Great feedback @maciej thank you! My initial concern was the amount of content one would have to scroll through considering we want to include some visual representation, CTA for Status, GitHub and the Workbooks, and the fact that there are 9 Utility Swarms.
But i agree with you so will explore an option to account for this feedback. Stay tuned for new version.
@ivomynttinen thanks for sending through the next round of design.
I prefer version 1 as the “card system” works well (the full width snt utility sections dont look as nice imo).
A couple of notes:
for the cards - remember, we should include links to the Status Public channel for each use case (so people can learn more if desired)
We also need to ensure we have space for each SNT use case to include a CTA to the financial model workbook
Sticker Market design - I like this however, lets replace with some real stickers. Ill send you the community designs. @rachel, do you have the commissioned art?
SNT Voting DApp - have a look at the actual voting DApp in Status to get a better sense of the UI. This image doesnt really work for me. vote.status.im
DApp curation - check out the UI of the new discover feature in Status for a better sense of how the DApp Store works.
I’m not entirely sure about the governance and open source headers in the basics. Open Source isn’t that important to SNT utlity, and Governance is presented as a SNT utility, so unclear why this has priority over others.
I agree with @maciej, I’m not sure we want to hide the utilities behind a carousel, my initial instinct was to scroll and got the research and my initial reaction was “that’s it?”
Sticker Market design - I like this however, lets replace with some real stickers. Ill send you the community designs. @rachel, do you have the commissioned art?
I can help out with those commissioned stickers. btw, where can I see the revised designs you mentioned?
Good point - as it is worded it is a bit unclear. The point we are trying to make is:
SNT can be used by anyone within the network. If there are other uses cases that someone comes up with for SNT, they are free to do so. I will have a pass at revising
Governance - good point as it is mentioned below. I think it is more important to highlight the concept of users as stakeholders as called out in the white paper. I will have a pass at revising copy to reflect that.
Agree this is currently a bit underwhelming. The goal is to drive people who are interested into the workbooks from Barry to learn more. The workbook content is pretty dense so I am struggling to figure out a simple way to present it. Will have a think about how to present that. Perhaps we show an abstract version of the inputs and the effect on network value.
I have been thinking about this and I believe (without rigorous data) that open source and governance structure impacts economic value via increased/decreased risk of those future value flows.
Here is a back of the envelope study that indicates the market recognizes this.
| Name | Is Open Source | Governance | Supply Interest Rate |
|—|—|—|—|—|
| Dharma Lever | No | Multisig - No clear plans further| 14% |
| dYdX Exchange | smart contracts only | Multisig - No clear plans further | 9.5% |
| Compound Finance | smart contracts only | Multisig - plans to migrate to DAO | 7.5% |
The quick takeaway and running theory is that the more open and decentralized a protocol is the lower the required return to compensate for the risk of locking up value in that protocol.
A further test of this theory will be when MakerDAO launches the Dai savings rate. As MakerDAO is more open and decentralized then all of the above it’s rate should be lower if the theory holds up.
@jonathan@barry oh I see I understand, with that in mind it makes alot of sense, if we can find a way to get more clarity on this it would be good stuff
Please note that final copy has not been added to mock ups but rather tracking copy in this copy deck.
Tweaked copy for “Open Source” and think we should should publish a blog post outlining the thoery called out above. We can then point to this article to quantify the statement.
Tweaked Copy for governance to “Users-as-Stakeholders” as defined in the whitepaper.
Agree that the research section is a bit uninspiring so tried to introduce the concept of the workbooks and various inputs via an abstract graphic. Also - beefed up the CTA to drive people into the workbooks.
