Just a short opinion on this. Since we don’t know how much time we will need to build revenue streams, I think we need to cover more protocols. So we should focus on a wider range of protocols, not on depth (few reports per protocol) because two reasons:
- Every new protocol that we research and write report about - is a potential customer/client
- With more protocols analyzed, the Prime Rating app represents a more robust product (in this stage). If we measure reporting cost per protocol (with RUP) we extend sustainability with current funds (in a worst-case scenario)
Product quality (reports at this moment) is crucial when it comes to monetization, and I think it is necessary to determine what type of report we plan to offer through Rating API.
We will have MVP. What do you think, at this moment, is Prime Rating app MVP? I think for that answer we need few steps:
- Competitor analysis
- TM analysis
- Define VP (better analysis, insights, “dynamic” reports, or other improvements), but make some noise in space
- Create robust methodology and tools for reporting
- Create Reports
- Test product/service usability with a few free integrations - we will get answers to MVP question
- Then we can set measurable goals for everything
If we have MVP, we can jump to nr 7
,
Internal coordination is important from many perspectives: improves the learning process, saves time and $ and improves the incentive mechanism ( @xm3van thread). All participants in product creation process need to be incentivized and have aligned interest.
Just my opinion