Yam Brand Part 1: Brand Perceptions - RFF

Yam Brand Exploration Part 1: Brand Perceptions

This is part 1 of a multipart exploration.

Purpose
The purpose of this post is to get input, critique and feedback on Yam Brand Perceptions from the community. The idea is to flesh, as best we can, the key perceptions of Yam.

Description
Brand awareness at any given moment is made up of positive, negative and neutral perceptions which are defined in the lists below. From these lists the plan is to construct a “current perceptions statement”, and a “desired perceptions statement”. This will help to establish one of the foundational elements for branding, marketing, communications, and more.

Request for input
Please review the lists below and add, delete, debate, etc. All input welcome.

Positive Perceptions
Positive perceptions are assets to be leveraged in strategy development, communications, marketing, PR, and branding.
- first food coin
- second fair launch
- founders are known/respected in industry (not all Anons)
- token distribution pools included tokens from eight top defi communities
- has a highly engaged and committed community
- raised 600mm+ market cap at one point
- early entrant in the yield farming space
- media coverage on Yam and the founding team
- no rug pulls or shady actions
- v3 has successfully launched with audited contract
- treasury has been built as a key asset
- donates to Gitcoin 1% of positive rebates

Negative Perceptions
Negative perceptions are liabilities to be managed, changed and learned from. They are feedback which if ignored can cause problems, or embraced and potentially overcome.
- team launched with unaudited contract that had a show-stopper bug
- v3 launch had much lower involvement than v1
- v3 LPs expectations not met - many Yam holders have suffered losses
- rebasing is general misunderstood (meaning the project was misunderstood)
- expectations for high yield farming replaced by reality of extraction into treasury
- a lack of project purpose lead to confusion and misaligned expectations
- a lack of simple, clear information about the rebase mechanism
- ‘fomo in’ assumptions by investors and lack of performing dyor
- investors have defected due to dissatisfaction
- dissatisfaction is palpable in the community Discord
- Yam v3 token price is down from its high and well below the target rebase rate
- Yam v2 is still on the market and likely causing even more confusion
- calculating protocol value, market cap, token value are nebulous

Neutral Perceptions
Neutral perceptions can exist as neutral, or be captured and transformed into positive perceptions.
- Yam is still referred to in media confirming retained mindshare
- Yam is producing proposals and engaged in community governance
- Yam is still around and has an LP pool but few other sources of revenue at this time
- more to add here…

6 Likes

希望团队重视起来,社区已经失望透顶,快出措施吧

The negative summary is very comprehensive

Yam v3代币价格从高位回落并远低于目标基准利率
-Yam v2仍在市场上,可能会引起更多混乱
-计算协议价值,市值,代币价值或模糊,说的太好了,这就是事实

-v3发布的参与度比v1低得多
-第3版LP的期望未达到-许多山药持有者遭受了损失
-重新基准化被普遍误解(意味着该项目被误解了)
-对高产农业的期望被提取国库的现实所取代
-缺乏项目目的会导致混乱和期望不一致
-缺乏有关变基机制的简单,清晰的信息
-投资者的“假设”假设以及业绩不佳的表现
-投资者因不满而背叛
-社区不和谐明显,~~~~~~引用别人的

The following is in part personal opinion, and in part observations from the wider community.

Positive perception:

  • Clean UI/ overall attractive site (Yam.Finance) to use (can be seen by many projects copying the Front End)
  • relatively large community (given the market cap)

Negative perception:

  • YamV3 is moving too slowly (relative to the broad de-fi space)
  • YamV3 Holders (especially early holders) incurred significant “tax” costs to the treasury, while there is no clear plan on treasury utilisation (and in particular, no clear roadmap on how future gains will accrue to Yam holders)
  • no viable product yet (treasury is arguably not a product, but rather an extension of the protocol)

edit: grammar

2 Likes

In v2 we have a strong community consensus and now we are losing it

1 Like

是啊,时间流逝,沟通也不方便,工作进度也不清楚,后面可能会用脚投票了。

yamv3就是坑第一批贡献者,当代的农夫与蛇

  • v3 has successfully launched with audited contract

Highly doubt the community would vote for a successful launch of V3 when this question would be asked in a survey.

Maybe technical. But not in terms of marketcap or community sentiment.

This is an excellent summary, thanks @designer

In simplistic terms, I think these point to an exciting history of YAM and a lot of potential, which has yet to be realized.

The thing I feel like people consistently forget is that this is a 2 month old start up. From concept to now has only been 2.5 months, and we’re doing things that have never been done before. People want the contributors and protocol to act as a well oiled machine, people have valued us in the past as a well oiled machine, but the fact is that this is a difficult and sometimes messy endeavor.

I think people fail to recognize the scope of the project – “Why is there no direction for the treasury, why aren’t we modifying protocol elements, why aren’t we building more products, why is governance taking so long?” Well, because the Yam protocol functionality is a big job to handle, managing a multimillion dollar treasury is a big job, optimizing governance is a big job, building financial protocols is a big job, managing a +5,000 person community is a big job, and creating an organization without any of the traditional structures of a company is a big job.

I don’t know exactly where these ideas fit, just adding color.

I suppose to add to my original simplistic summary, there is a misunderstanding of where YAM is in its life cycle and a corresponding disconnect in expectations.

It’s also potentially helpful to break out the negative perceptions according to price related and non-price related:

Price-related:

  • v3 LPs expectations not met - many Yam holders have suffered losses
  • expectations for high yield farming replaced by reality of extraction into treasury
  • ‘fomo in’ assumptions by investors and lack of performing dyor
  • investors have defected due to dissatisfaction
  • dissatisfaction is palpable in the community Discord
  • Yam v3 token price is down from its high and well below the target rebase rate
  • calculating protocol value, market cap, token value or nebulous

Non Price Related:

  • team launched with unaudited contract that had a show-stopper bug
  • v3 launch had much lower involvement than v1
    - rebasing is general misunderstood (meaning the project was misunderstood)
    - a lack of project purpose lead to confusion and misaligned expectations
  • a lack of simple, clear information about the rebase mechanism (i actually think we’ve conquered this info gap)
  • Yam v2 is still on the market and likely causing even more confusion
    - Governance has been difficult due to LPs not being able to vote

I’ve bolded a couple I find to be particularly signficant, and added one in italics.

2 Likes

Thanks for the great additions!

For the v3 successful launch, I was trying to say (but did it poorly) that the protocol successfully executed the rebasing function – I’ll make that one more specific. There is however a counter perception in the negative perception list…

  • v3 LPs expectations not met - many Yam holders have suffered losses

@trente, Thanks for the ‘color’, and I like your price related groupings. Agree with level-setting the fact that this project is very new and just forming. Especially like the point about the challenge of “creating an organization…without any of the traditional structures”. The team and community’s dedicated and tireless efforts are appreciated!

Everyone: The point of this exercise is to understand what is working, what is not working, and to use the information gained to steer in the right direction.

@27342785, in response to your feedback: “-Calculate the agreement value, market value, token value or vague, it’s too good to say, this is the fact”. I agree. I did not write this good. I should have wrote it as “It is difficult to calculate the value proposition of Yam using the token value (because it rebases), or the market cap”. I hope this addresses your input, if not, let me know.

Yam made me lose 90% for the first time. Everything may be because I believe too much in v3 and the team. Maybe v1 has no bugs. With the help of mining, the vault may be 30 million instead of 3 million. Yam’s model will be successful, but Many mistakes have brought us to where we are now

hey designer nice post i will offer a few semi random thoughts:

I agree with the summary so far. i’ve witnessed perception go from high to low to high to low again since V1. What this tells me is that some of these perceptions may be illusionary or perhaps temporary.

Ideally we want to take focus off of areas that could be construed as ‘disappointing’ at times and put the focus on areas in which we are growing consistently.

This would help people to associate the YAM brand with ‘safety’ (something that would definitely help for a smart contract insurance product)

focusing on 0 funds lost, our growing governance, constant innovations/products to grow the treasury are things that nobody can ever ‘throw in our face’ if the market swings bearish.

Something we need to be careful of is the perception of the treasury once we start taking risks with it. A volatile treasury can have a negative perception.

Maybe branding ourselves as experimental would be a good idea considering some of the things we are attempting could end up as incredible or a dud. This would eliminate possible backlash if a YAM product falls flat.

I would say our big presence in china is a plus and something that needs to be considered for all branding decisions as well.

Look forward to continuing this conversation into the next phase of YAM!

1 Like

Good input, thanks.

“Ideally we want to take focus off of areas that could be construed as ‘disappointing’”

Yes, the goal of the Brand Perceptions exercise is to capture the full range of perceptions from the community. The next step (in progress now) is to craft a current perceptions statement and then a desired perceptions statement. The later is what will become a guide for making adjustments and creating new agendas that will move use towards the desired perceptions target.

Please keep contributing, it’s valuable.

The list of negative perceptions is long. Unfortunately, YAM can be the butt of jokes sometimes, in the form of, “We don’t want another YAM situation”. I obviously respect what the launch team has done and understand that things don’t always work as intended. The important thing is they are building.

I enjoy all the farming puns that come along with this project, but I’d like to suggest a possible rebranding of the name. Instead of YAM the potato, we could be YAM that stands for Yield Asset Management. Rebrand the website to a more professional feel. The UI is beautiful and we can keep it as is with a few minor tweaks: change the fonts, color scheme, and some graphics. But this kind of rebrand shows that the project is still being developed, and it’s not just a dead, failed farm coin. It also is a boost in the level of professionalism.

I could be wrong on this completely, and the brand awareness is more valuable than the negative publicity YAM has gotten. And with some strong products people will come around to YAM again. But being realistic, there is likely a non-negligible number of people who will not use YAM anymore. A rebranding of the name, while keeping the same ticker symbol, says, “We’re putting this behind us and continuing to build, but we are still YAM.”

So, are the millions of eyeballs that saw YAM the potato too valuable, or, would rebranding be a net positive?

P.S. A rebranding would also get rid of the confusion between YAMv1, YAMv2, and YAMv3.

1 Like

@AAA, Thank you very much for the input.

Let me address your first comment first. The long list of negative perceptions is a key step in understanding our challenges. Kind of like going to a shrink who helps us stop denying the facts. Bad analogy but It’s the best I can do late on Friday.

Your point is very important, and perhaps offered due to the long negative perceptions list. As the title of the forum post indicates, “Yam Brand Part 1” is the first step in figuring out how to brand Yam. Rebranding, or a brand evolution is a likely outcome in my mind. Primarily because while the initial brand was very effective for farming – encouraging liquidity to build the treasury – Yam is currently in a new stage now with different and additional requirements. Plus, Yam will continue to evolve, so ultimately we need a brand and site architecture that can facilitate future needs (much of which is still be figured out).

I hope you stay involved, and provide input on the upcoming Yam Brand Part 2 forum post.