FYZ

Building with blockchain & AI in service of humanity. Conscious tech for a better world.

[FYZ @TokenRX_ICP]

@TheAlchemi2t @NickGroen @dominic_w Said by one who calls himself the alchemist!

[FYZ @TokenRX_ICP]

@8YearGang Awesome

[FYZ @TokenRX_ICP]

@jackbearsupply He did not sell.

[FYZ @TokenRX_ICP]

@mosesibb He is selling and he is getting paid for it. Fudders, hackers and leaving influencers will get paid. That is a good sign, I smell fear. These are just small retentions of the huge tsunami thats coming with or without you JB.

[FYZ @TokenRX_ICP]

@ICPLEGEND1966 @SnassyIcp He got paid for leaving. Theres a budget for: hacking, turning icp influencers against icp, fudding. Esch guy has it's price.

[FYZ @TokenRX_ICP]

The future of ecosystem funding should not be based on who shouts the loudest, who has been around the longest, or who produces the most content.

It should be based on measurable impact.

I understand the frustration of content creators like Jerry Banfield. Creating content takes time, energy and money. After contributing for years, it is understandable to feel the ecosystem should recognize that contribution.

But there is another side:

The ecosystem is not responsible for sustaining anyone's personal finances.

And when a request for support starts sounding like an obligation — "I have contributed, therefore you owe me" — resistance is almost inevitable.

I don't think the solution is deciding who deserves funding.

The solution is changing how we define value.

From funding activity → to funding impact

A video is an activity.

A post is an activity.

A conference is an activity.

But what impact did it create?

Imagine tracing the entire funnel:

Attention → Interest → Wallet → ICP purchase → Staking → Usage → Loyalty

If a creator produces content that results in 500 new users buying ICP and staking 100,000 ICP for two years, that is measurable impact.

Now we have something very different to discuss.

Instead of:

"Should we give this creator $50,000?"

The question becomes:

"What percentage of the measurable value they created should return to them?"

That could completely change the conversation.

But there is an important step BEFORE this.

We need to understand WHO we are trying to attract.

ICP reportedly has millions of wallets, but wallet size alone doesn't tell us who these people are.

We need customer archetypes.

Who invests in ICP?

Why?

What do they believe?

What is their risk profile?

What prevents them from investing more?

Where do they get information?

What would make them stake for 8 years?

What would make them USE applications running on ICP?

A person with 100 ICP today could potentially have the capacity and willingness to own 50,000 ICP tomorrow.

Wallet size doesn't tell you that.

The profile does.

DFINITY could conduct customer research and create ecosystem-wide archetypes that could be shared with developers, content creators, marketing teams and community members.

Then content stops being:

"Let's talk about ICP and hope someone listens."

It becomes:

Right audience → Right message → Right channel → Measurable conversion → Measurable impact.

And this logic shouldn't stop with marketing.

It should extend across the entire customer journey.

We should measure:

Acquisition → Onboarding → Wallet experience → App usage → Satisfaction → Loyalty → Investment → Staking → Advocacy

Then we can ask much more powerful questions.

Which applications create satisfied users?

Which generate repeat usage?

Which projects bring new users into the ecosystem?

Which content creates investors?

Which experiences increase staking?

Which services create loyalty?

And perhaps ecosystem subsidies could follow the same principle.

If an application creates demonstrable adoption, satisfaction and loyalty, helping subsidize its computation or growth could make enormous sense.

But if something consumes ecosystem resources without producing measurable value, why should the ecosystem continue subsidizing it indefinitely?

This is particularly important when an ecosystem is trying to control costs, reduce inflation and become economically sustainable.

Scarcity forces better capital allocation.
And better capital allocation requires measurement.
I believe this could become something much bigger than an ICP discussion.
It is potentially a new economic model:
The Impact Economy
Don't reward activity.
Don't reward promises.
Don't reward visibility.
Reward verified impact.
Measure the journey.
Understand the customer.
Trace the outcome.
Reward the people and products that actually move the ecosystem forward.
If we can measure impact, funding stops being political.
It starts becoming economic.

[FYZ @TokenRX_ICP]

I wouldn’t fund an ICP creator based on follower count.
I would fund them based on provable impact.
Views are a KPI. Engagement is a KPI.
But the strongest KPI is conversion.
If your content leads someone to open a wallet, buy ICP and stake it — and that referral can be traced — then we know exactly what economic impact you created.
Imagine your channel drives 100,000 ICP into staking.
Would I be willing to allocate 3,000 ICP in marketing rewards for that impact?
Absolutely.
Because I’m not paying for followers.
I’m not paying for promises.
I’m paying for measurable outcomes.
A creator with 3,000 followers who can prove they generated 100,000 ICP of staking may be dramatically more valuable than someone with 100,000 followers who generates nothing.
This is how I would think about ecosystem marketing:
Measure → Attribute → Reward → Reinvest.
Minting or ecosystem funding should follow verified impact.
If you can prove your impact, you deserve funding.
If you can’t, why should the ecosystem keep paying?

[FYZ @TokenRX_ICP]

This post is the Japanese equivalent of harakiri: cutting open your own stomach in public.

It is built on a partial truth, presented without sufficient knowledge of a much more complex reality—one composed of many different layers.

That may become painful to watch. We will cameback.

Peace to your influencer soul.

[FYZ @TokenRX_ICP]

@8YearGang It would be shooting its own foot by following $ICP. But maybe it is possible specially with the meetings for the war in IRAN, between JD Vance and PM of Pak

[FYZ @TokenRX_ICP]

@rushicrypto Not only holding, building and solving real company problems with ICP. Cant be more bullish

[FYZ @TokenRX_ICP]

@WifiMochi @Ramses_ICP @mingleberrymedi My web was migrated by @mingleberrymedi those guys know how to do it.

[FYZ @TokenRX_ICP]

@cb_cooper @mosesibb Yes! That tells you the type of customer or service that is really needing it, what is it solving, so then you look for the same type of guys

[FYZ @TokenRX_ICP]

Today, we can see how much ICP is being burned, but what is much less clear is what is actually driving that burn.
If we want to understand the real economic activity of the Internet Computer ecosystem, we need to go one level deeper.
For every ICP burned, we should ideally be able to understand:
What type of project generated the burn? What product or service was being used? What problem was being solved? What type of customer or user generated the activity? And is that activity recurring, growing, or a one-time event?
This is essentially the same way a company looks at its revenue.
Knowing that a company generated $10 million in revenue is useful. But if you want to grow the company, you need to understand where those $10 million came from.
You want to know which customers, products, services, use cases, industries, and behaviors are generating revenue. Once you understand that, you can ask the most important growth question:
«What is working, and how can we multiply it?»
The same logic should apply to ICP burn.
Instead of only having a Burn Dashboard, we need something closer to a Burn Attribution & Growth Dashboard.
For example:
1 ICP burned → Project X → AI application → enterprise customer → document processing → 5,000 transactions → recurring usage.
Now that 1 ICP becomes much more valuable information.
We can understand that this particular type of application, serving this particular type of customer and solving this particular problem, is creating measurable demand for compute on ICP.
Then we can model:
1 customer → X ICP burn
100 similar customers → 100X potential burn
1,000 similar customers → 1,000X potential burn
Suddenly, burn becomes more than a tokenomics indicator. It becomes a market intelligence and growth indicator.
The strategic question is therefore not only:
“How much ICP are we burning?”
It is:
“What economic activities are causing ICP to be burned, which of those activities are growing, and which ones can we systematically multiply?”
That would allow the ecosystem to identify its strongest product-market-fit signals and focus resources, developers, investment, partnerships, and business development around the use cases that are actually generating sustainable demand.
In other words:
Burn tells us that the network is being used.
Burn attribution tells us why.
And understanding why tells us how to grow it.
If you put an Net Promoter Score to every service, then you also know how much loyalty is this product is creating? This is crucial, because you whant to increase burn with loyalty so the burn sticks cause the product/ srvice creates real value. If its not good, then you need to change direction. I am lacking this analysis.

[FYZ @TokenRX_ICP]

@ICPulse_io What do those 46 addresses do? What type of business and if the burn is part of a value creating process. Any idea?

[FYZ @TokenRX_ICP]

@NFT_Collector13 I love to see this, alot of drowning fudders. The tech is awesome, I am using it on clients! Let´s keep going!

[FYZ @TokenRX_ICP]

@mingleberrymedi Thanks Marlon! We are ready to go forth!

[FYZ @TokenRX_ICP]

@phasmafuture Of course incentives amplify usage , you have to roll out strategically

[FYZ @TokenRX_ICP]

The biggest challenge for any new DEX isn't technology. It's user confidence.

Imagine a different onboarding model:

Every new account receives 1 ICP to explore the platform in a risk-free environment. Instead of rewarding only the "top traders," reward learning.

Users earn additional ICP by:

- Opening and funding their account.
- Completing educational milestones.
- Unlocking new platform capabilities.
- Providing valuable product feedback.
- Referring new users.

The objective isn't speculation—it's competence.

By the time the DEX goes live, users already know how everything works. They've built confidence through hands-on experience, making the transition to real trading natural.

Think about the economics.

An onboarding investment of around 5 ICP per user may seem significant, but if even a fraction of those users become long-term participants holding or trading hundreds or even thousands of ICP, the return on that investment could be enormous.

Today, the Internet Computer ecosystem has roughly 3 million wallets, but only about 900,000 funded wallets.

Adding another 100,000–300,000 active funded users would represent a meaningful increase in ecosystem participation. More importantly, those users wouldn't just use one application—they would become participants across the broader ICP ecosystem.

Adoption doesn't happen by waiting for users to arrive.

It happens by designing a funnel that rewards learning, engagement, contribution, and ultimately, long-term participation.

The real product isn't the DEX.

The real product is creating confident users.

[Moses ∞ @mosesibb]

Only possible on #ICP✅

[FYZ @TokenRX_ICP]

@CheekyCrypto Holding, buying, building, onboarding, burning, staking