Thesis & Dysmorphia Interview

I'm sorry, but it seems there is no transcript text provided for me to clean up. Please provide the text you would like me to edit. Hi, this is Charles Hoskinson broadcasting live from warm, sunny Colorado. Today is a special edition, and I have a lovely interview with the legendary Mata, the publisher of the largest scientific survey of the Cardano space. I’d love for you to introduce yourself a bit and give some background on how you entered the Cardano space and your particular project.

Thank you very much for this opportunity. It’s a great honor and pleasure to be here. When we started this project, it was one of those things where we thought, maybe someday we’ll end up here talking to you, Charles. So, thank you for this opportunity to present it to the community. My name is Mata, and I come from Croatia.

My partner in this project, Marina, and I have a background in kinesiology, specifically in the field of physiology. While I was pursuing my PhD, I also became involved in the Cardano NFT space as a side hobby. I learned about blockchain and NFTs, and then I delved deeper into Cardano NFTs. By nature, I’m a person who likes to create and innovate, and I wanted to make something new for people because it interests me. At that moment, being in the space, which was evolving so quickly, we felt that it could be interesting to have facts about it—not just opinions.

We wanted to research and put those facts on paper. While I was working on my PhD, it clicked for us: we decided to create a project called Thesis and Dysmorphia, and we wanted to conduct a study to find answers to some questions about the demographics of the space and the reasons people are involved. We started the project in August 2022, and less than a month ago, we published the results. Let’s talk a little bit about NFTs. This is a study that you put together on the Cardano NFT space.

What was interesting about NFTs compared to DeFi or other categories? Why was this particular sub-community within the Cardano community appealing for you to study? We were most familiar with the NFT part of the Cardano scene. We were involved in many NFT projects and communities. Now, as we think further, we want to include the broader Cardano space, like DeFi and many other startups.

However, at that time, NFTs were a good starting point for us because we knew how to create a community. It’s also a significant area to research within Cardano itself. I had a chance to look through the report. I’ve been traveling quite a bit, so I haven’t read it as deeply as I wanted to, but I’ve skimmed it a few times. There are some really interesting aspects, especially how you structured the methodology.

You have Thesis as the actual research product and Dysmorphia as an NFT project. Why was the decision made to do both at the same time, and how did they feed into each other? Thank you for that question. That was our starting point, and I was passionate about it. We created the project to be a case study for the research.

It was crucial to do it this way because to study an NFT project from its inception to a year in existence, you have to be that project. You need to understand how it came to be and how the development is progressing. We couldn’t just approach an existing project and ask for their data; we wanted to gather all the data ourselves from the beginning to draw our conclusions. That’s why Thesis and Dysmorphia exist. Dysmorphia had its own NFTs, mints, OG members, and public members who knew from the start that it was part of the study.

It was interesting because people understood they were entering something a bit different, but it still had all the characteristics of an NFT project. In the end, it led us to the study itself, allowing us to explore the questions that interested us over the year. You had four areas of focus: the sentiment of holders, general public sentiment, founders' sentiment, and moderator sentiment. The moderator sentiment is particularly interesting because we often think of founders and consumers, but moderators are essential to community building. How did you decide on these categories and what to measure?

We focused on what interested us and what we knew were hot topics in the space. Regarding mental health, it’s discussed quite a bit in NFT projects and surrounding Twitter spaces. The mental health issues faced by founders have become somewhat of a meme. We wanted to know how the public perceives this, how much stress founders endure, and what moderators think about it, as perspectives vary depending on their roles. We also included questions about experiences with rug pulls, which is always a hot topic.

We wanted to know how many alternative accounts people use and how many wallets they have. When setting up your experiment, you had two groups: the OG and the WL group. How did you decide on these groups, and what was the difference between them? Our main idea was to create two different groups with different benefits, which is common in the NFT space. The OG group meant that anyone who filled out the surveys for a year would receive a free NFT from our project.

The whitelist group meant that if you filled out the surveys, you wouldn’t get a free NFT but would receive a whitelist spot to mint that NFT. We proved that more people in the OG group were willing to participate because they were incentivized to receive something for free. What was interesting was the third group, the public group. Any member who came to our Discord or study could fill out the surveys without special benefits. Over time, we found that more public members participated than those from the OG and whitelist groups.

This indicated that the initial supporters might not always be the ones who stay with you long-term; instead, you may gain supporters who genuinely believe in what you’re doing. You and your partner chose to remain undoxed and included pseudo red flags in the structure. What were the results of this decision? Did it have any significant impact? We wanted to see if it’s possible to develop a project while being undoxed and still succeed.

We found that as time went by, people in our project cared less about our undoxed status. They focused more on what we were doing rather than who we were. They trusted us because they saw our daily activities, heard us in spaces, and engaged with the community. However, in the public part of the study, half of the respondents said that it’s very important for founders to be doxed. This suggests that while people may say it’s important, in practice, it might not be as crucial as delivering on promises.

What was the conclusion of your study regarding why people participate in NFTs? We asked participants why they were involved, and the most common answer was money. Founders, however, cited life experience as their primary reason. It was interesting because we conducted the survey during a bear market, and we expected fewer people to mention money. Still, 50% of respondents did.

It would be fascinating to conduct this survey again in a year to see if the percentages change when the market improves. Community was another significant aspect mentioned in the report. What lessons did you learn about building a community during the year of running Dysmorphia? Community was essential for us. Despite the challenges, returning each day to the community we created felt rewarding.

We built connections with like-minded individuals who believe in what we’re building. It’s become a second home for many, blending our online and real lives. Looking at the limitations of your study, if you could restructure it or do a follow-up, what would you do differently? I mentioned some limitations in the report. It would be great to track individuals over time while maintaining anonymity.

We also want to reach a wider audience for the public survey. We had 450 participants, but we need a better understanding of the active population in the space. More participants would allow us to conduct more robust social experiments. You mentioned the potential for a self-improving flywheel. How do you envision enhancing the methodology or technology for future studies?

We’re aware of the need for improvements and are looking to apply for Catalyst funding to support future studies. We want to expand our team and conduct broader surveys, including reaching out to students globally about their awareness of Cardano blockchain technology. Can you explain the relationship between the PDF of your study and the Forkit website? The NFT will provide access to the PDF of the study. Within the PDF, there are links that direct readers to the Forkit platform, where they can explore the data interactively.

This platform allows users to visualize and engage with the data, making it more user-friendly than just reading through the 82-page report. The Forkit platform is designed to showcase the data from various surveys, allowing users to explore demographic data, investing behavior, and sentiment data. It’s a way to make the data more engaging and accessible. What inspired the names Thesis and Dysmorphia? The name Thesis comes from my journey toward my PhD and the desire to write a thesis about Cardano.

Dysmorphia refers to the phenomenon of people heavily editing their images, which Marina was exploring. We thought about what it would mean if people began to identify more with their NFTs than their real selves. As we wrap up, do you have any closing thoughts or calls to action for the audience? I invite everyone to support our work by visiting our Forkit platform to access the data. Community support is crucial for us to move forward, expand our team, and deliver on our plans.

Thank you for this opportunity; it’s been a pleasure.