DApp's "AARRR" user operation strategy (part 2)_PANews report interpretation

This article is an excerpt from the report "Behind the DApp "AARRR": ETH/EOS/TRON Three Public Chain DApp User Profile Research" (below).

The main problem facing the current DApp development process is not unmanned development, but how to operate so that DApp can "live" for a long time and "live" better.

DApp, as a new thing that started from Internet products, the formation of its operation model will inevitably reflect the thinking of Internet product operation. The "AARRR" model, that is, the operating model of "renew-activate-retain-transform-referral" has gradually matured in the development of Internet products. The next part will focus on observing the performance of DApp in the two links of conversion and referral.

PAData Inghts:

1. The total monthly revenue of EOS gaming DApp reached 269 million U.S. dollars, and 42.85% of gaming users can make profits every month. Last month, TRON averaged 25.94% of gambling users to make a profit, with the lowest percentage of profitable users.

2. On EOS, there is an average of 1 "local player" out of 833 users, 1 "local player" out of about 1667 users on ETH, and 1 "local player" out of about 2500 users on TRON.

3. The DApp with the highest average user net worth in the financial and financial category on ETH has reached an average daily transaction volume of US$709.3 per person.

Gaming is the most profitable

DApp revenue pressure on ETH

The actual meaning of "conversion" is how many users of the DApp operator or community have converted to pay and how much money they make. The deeper point behind it is whether the DApp has a profit model.

Different types of DApps have different profitability. According to the April average DAU Top

 According to the estimated monthly turnover of 50 DApps, on EOS, the dominant type of gaming DApp is the most profitable. On ETH, game DApps, which are also the dominant type, have the strongest profitability. But on TRON, the dominant type of high-risk DApp is not the most profitable category. Its total gross profit is about 15 million U.S. dollars, which is far lower than the total gross profit of gaming DApps of more than 200 million U.S. dollars.

If you look at the micro-levels within different public chains and different types of DApps, you can see

 The profitability of various DApps within various DApps also shows obvious differentiation. Individual DApps with strong revenue capabilities in the head "beautify" the revenue performance of the entire category. The prosperity of the overall revenue of DApps is largely questionable. of.

For example, the gaming DApp with the strongest overall profitability on EOS has obvious differentiation in the profitability of a single DApp. The average daily turnover of a single DApp exceeds US$350,000, and the median value is only US$90,000. It can be seen that there are only Individual DApps have strong profitability, while most other gaming DApps have relatively average profitability. Similarly, game DApps on ETH also showed a similar situation.

Monthly turnover can measure the pressure of the DApp operating team (including the community). The higher the magnitude, the lower the operating pressure. On the contrary, the greater the operating pressure, and even unsustainable.

Assuming that monthly turnover of less than US$1,000 (revenue rating of 0) cannot survive, then DAU TOP on the three public chains

 There are 12 out of 50 DApps, accounting for 8%. Assuming that the monthly turnover is more than US$1,000 and less than US$5,000 (revenue rating of 1) is very difficult to operate, then DAU TOP on the three public chains

 There are 10 out of 50 DApps, accounting for 6.67%. Assuming that the monthly turnover is above US$5,000, and those below US$10,000 (revenue rating of 2) are barely maintaining operations, then DAU TOP on the three public chains

 There are 6 out of 50 DApps, accounting for 4%. There are a total of 28 of these three categories, accounting for about 19%, of which ETH accounts for 13 of them. From this point of view, the profit pressure of DApp on ETH is relatively greater.

EOS has the most "tyrant users"

TRON's "leeks" are often harvested

"Typical players" refer to users who bet more than US$1 million per month in gambling DApps. EOS has the largest number of “local players” on gaming DApps, with the highest proportion in the first four months of this year reaching 0.21%, with an average of 0.120%.

 This is roughly equivalent to 1 "tyrant player" out of an average of 833 users. However, these "local players" on EOS tend to be lost, and the proportion of "local players" has a downward trend.

There are much fewer local players on ETH and TRON than EOS. In the first 4 months of this year, ETH has 16.5 "local players" every month, accounting for an average of 0.059%.

 It is roughly equivalent to 1 "tyrant player" out of 1667 users. In the first 4 months of this year, TRON had an average of 52.3 “local players” per month, accounting for an average of 0.039%.

 This is roughly equivalent to 1 "tyrant player" out of 2500 users.

In addition to the proportion of "local users", the proportion of profitable betting users is also an important reference indicator for measuring the user ecology. If the proportion of profitable users deviates from 50%, the more the "bookmaker-player" relationship becomes unbalanced, the user The ecology is not healthy.

Taking the first 4 months of this year as an observation window, it can be seen that an average of 42.85% of users of gaming DApps on EOS can make a profit each month, which is the most balanced "banker-player" relationship among the three gaming DApps on public chains. The proportion of profitable users of gambling DApps on ETH has jumped, from about 30% in the first two months to about 63% in the past two months. Although there are more players making money, the "banker-player" relationship has always been State of imbalance. The proportion of profitable users of gambling DApps on TRON has continued to decline, from 32.04% in January to 7.11% in April, with an average monthly decrease of 25.94%. The relationship between the “banker and the player” is not only in a state of imbalance, but also in an accelerated imbalance. status. This means that the possibility that gaming DApps on TRON may be closed due to a lack of continuous inflow of users is increasing.

Dominant DApp users have low net worth

The highest average user net worth on the exchange

Although there are “tyrant players” in gambling DApps, on the whole, the user net worth (user single transaction value) of gambling DApps is not high. The average user net worth of EOS gaming is only US$89.7, TRON is only US$31.5, and ETH is as low as US$13.5.

It is worth paying attention to the exchanges. On EOS and TRON, the exchanges are all DApps with the highest average (median) average daily customer unit price, reaching an average daily transaction volume of US$934.8 and US$83.8 respectively. Moreover, from the perspective of revenue ratings, no exchange is in a 0-2 operating pressure zone.

In addition, the gambling, gaming, and high-risk DApps that dominate the three public chains have low user net worth. If these three types of DApp want to obtain more users to maintain or improve their operational status, they need to face more intense competition in the process of new and activation.

On the other hand, user net worth can also be used as a red line to measure DApp operating costs. If the average customer acquisition cost is higher than the average user net worth, the DApp's capital chain will face greater pressure.

 From this point of view, financial finance and exchanges are the two types of DApps that are most able to withstand operating cost pressures, or can be understood as the two types of DApps that are most capable of "burning money" and fighting for growth.

Social network efficiency has not yet formed

Judging from the existing public information, some DApps use "referral" marketing techniques. For example, some exchanges or games have launched invitation rewards and dividends in the early days, and old users can get certain token rewards after inviting new users to register.

However, the "referral" methods currently used by most DApps are profit-driven, and their essence is that compound interest makes the parties involved in the fission mutually beneficial. This has created some new problems, such as increased direct costs and reduced profit margins. The bigger problem is that cashback tends to attract some non-precise users who only come for cashback, which is also an important incentive for brushing.

In addition, there are already more mature methods in the "referral" operation of Internet products, such as community fission, clock sharing, resurrection, test sharing, challenge sharing, inventory sharing, grouping, distribution, unlocking , Bargaining, equity sharing, group welfare... have not yet appeared on a large scale in DApp operations. DApp has a lot of room for imagination in the future "referral" operation.