[Incubation] Napkin ads pilot

Proposal Discussion
1

TL;DR

  • Proposal to run a 3-month Napkin Ads pilot (1.7M branded napkins with QR funnels) to drive ShapeShift wallet installs and trades.

  • Modeled funnel: ~6,700 new trading wallets at ~$8.95 CAC, nearly aligned with our ~$8 target against a ~$23 LTV.

  • Total cost: $60K in FOX (DAO ask: $50K FOX, Marketing WS subsidizing $10K). $10K FOX deposited into rFOX for token utility.

  • Campaign includes incentives + retargeting to maximize conversions.

  • This is incubation only: meant to spark discussion, bring in the Napkin Ads team for Q&A, and refine assumptions before a formal vote.

  • If approved later, launch would be Q1 2026, giving time to finalize attribution layers, bespoke landing campaigns, and user-first funnels.

Preface (lets get into it)

Over the past few weeks, I’ve spoken with a number of people internally about Napkin Ads and the possibility of running a pilot with them (and have tried to include that feedback in this proposal and timeline). The purpose of bringing this forward now is to give the wider community visibility, gather more opinions, and optimize the approach before moving into a formal vote down the road (silos = bad).

The intent here is not just to propose a one-off spend, but to use the incubation process to evaluate Napkin Ads in public, with transparency on assumptions, funnel modeling, and ROI. Ideally, if this is approved, we would aim to launch in February or March of next year—after doing additional research on where these ads are currently distributed, how customers are engaging with them, and potentially securing another anonymized case study from Napkin Ads to compare against.

We’ve already been provided with one case study (from a wallet project very similar to ours) that showed compelling metrics, and we’d like Napkin Ads themselves to join this thread, answer questions, and provide clarity on their side. At the same time, this gives us the chance to ensure our own funnels and attribution layers are fully locked down so that any campaign we run in Q1 can be measured and benchmarked accurately.

This proposal is just one of several larger acquisition experiments the Marketing Workstream is exploring. You can expect a few more incubation posts in the coming weeks, all designed to test unconventional ways of reaching high-value users—especially those who block traditional ads, are difficult to track onchain, or are otherwise costly to acquire through standard digital channels. The Napkin Ads pilot is an opportunity to test whether offline QR funnels can be a scalable part of ShapeShift’s acquisition mix, and your feedback will help sharpen whether this is a bet worth placing.

Title:
[SCP-TBD] “Napkin Ads (Offline QR Funnel Pilot)

Summary:
This proposal requests approval for a three-month pilot campaign with Napkin Ads, distributing 1.7M branded napkins nationally to drive new ShapeShift wallet installs and first-time trades.

Napkin Ads has delivered a 19% conversion rate from installs to trades in prior web3 wallet campaigns. Based on those results, our modeled funnel for ShapeShift projects ~6,700 new trading wallets at ~$8.95 CAC; nearly aligned with our $8 acquisition target against a $23 LTV per connected wallet.

Total campaign cost is $60,000 in FOX. The DAO is asked to contribute $50,000 FOX, with the Marketing Workstream subsidizing $10,000 FOX. Of the DAO’s contribution, $40,000 may be converted into USDC for vendor payment, while $10,000 will be deposited into rFOX to strengthen FOX utility.

This proposal is an aggressive, incentive-driven pilot including 5 x $1,000 FOX trader rewards and retargeting spend to maximize conversions from the initial distribution.

Motivation:
Traditional digital ads often cost $15-$50 per active trading wallet. Modeled napkin economics come in significantly lower, with a projected ~$9 cost per trading wallet under this campaign.

This initiative complements ongoing digital acquisition experiments. ShapeShift is currently running Apple Search Ads with promising conversion metrics as well as evaluating bespoke retargeting and targeting campaigns using Addressable. At present, these campaigns are in low-flow mode as we refine attribution and onchain conversion tracking with engineering and product. By running Napkin Ads in parallel, we diversify our funnel mix and build learnings on both digital and offline user acquisition.

Based on initial calculations done with Tokenomics, ShapeShift values a connected wallet at approximately $23 over three months (LTV). Our acquisition goal is ~$8 per connected wallet. The modeled funnel for this napkin pilot achieves ~$8.95 per trading wallet, nearly aligned with CAC targets. The other bonus of this program is our ability to pay entirely in FOX tokens without an additional cost penalty.

Specification:

  • Vendor: Napkin Ads

  • Term: 3 months

  • Distribution: 1.7M branded napkins

    • QR scans

      • 76k projected

        • 68k guaranteed. If not hit, the campaign will be extended at their cost until the minimum is hit.

    • Total Cost: $60,000 in FOX

      • DAO Ask: $50,000 FOX

        • $40,000 FOX sold to cover costs (or paid in USDC if preferred)

        • $10,000 FOX deposited into rFOX

        • Marketing Workstream Subsidy: $10,000 FOX

Budget Breakdown:

  • $50,000 FOX → Napkin Ads distribution & package (1.7M napkins, QR tracking, creative, brand lift study, social research)

  • $5,000 FOX → Incentives (5 winners of $1,000 FOX each for first-time traders)

  • $5,000 FOX → Retargeting campaign for scanners who don’t install via Addressable

[Best Case] Modeled Incentivized Funnel Economics ($1,000 bonus for trading):

  • Napkin Distribution: 1,700,000

  • Scan Rate (Aggressive w/ incentive & urgency): ~8% → ~136,000 scans

  • Wallet Install Rate: ~26% → ~35,400 installs

  • Active Trading Wallets (19%): ~6,700

  • Cost per Trading Wallet: $60,000 á 6,700 ≈ $8.95

[Worst Case] Guaranteed Non-Incentivized Funnel Economics:

  • Napkin Distribution: 1,700,000

  • Scan Rate (guaranteed): ~4% => 68,000 scans

  • Wallet Install Rate: ~26% → ~17,680 installs

  • Active Trading Wallets (19%): ~3,359

Cost per Trading Wallet: $60,000 ÷ 3,359 ≈ $17.86

Tracking & Reporting:

  • Unique QR codes per batch tracked into Mixpanel funnels

  • Metrics: scans → installs → wallet connections → first trade

  • Retargeting lists built from scanners who do not install → nudged with paid ads

  • For first-time mobile traders, Mixpanel data can be paired with onchain wallet addresses to filter out repeat users and minimize reward abuse

  • DAO will receive a post-campaign report comparing results against modeled funnel and Apple Search Ads benchmarks

Funnel Sensitivity Analysis

Sensitivity by Scan Rate (install rate fixed at a projected 22%)

If 1.7M napkins are distributed and install rate stays constant at 22%, the scan rate becomes the driver of CAC.

  • Conservative Case (3% scan rate): About 51,000 scans. At 22% install, ~11,200 installs. With 19% of those trading, ~2,100 trading wallets. CAC: ~$28.60.

  • Moderate Case (5% scan rate): About 85,000 scans. At 22% install, ~18,700 installs. At 19% trading, ~3,550 trading wallets. CAC: ~$16.90.

  • Aggressive Case (8% scan rate): About 136,000 scans. At 22% install, ~29,900 installs. At 19% trading, ~5,680 trading wallets. CAC: ~$10.55.

  • Best Case (10% scan rate): About 170,000 scans. At 22% install, ~37,400 installs. At 19% trading, ~7,100 trading wallets. CAC: ~$8.45.

Sensitivity by Install Rate (scan rate fixed at 8%)

If scans hold steady at ~136,000 (8% of napkins), the conversion from scan to install is the key variable.

  • Low Case (18% install rate): ~24,500 installs. At 19% trading, ~4,655 wallets. CAC: ~$12.90.

  • Realistic Case (22% install rate): ~29,900 installs. At 19% trading, ~5,680 wallets. CAC: ~$10.55.

  • Aggressive Case (26% install rate): ~35,400 installs. At 19% trading, ~6,730 wallets. CAC: ~$8.95.

  • Best Case (30% install rate): ~40,800 installs. At 19% trading, ~7,750 wallets. CAC: ~$7.75.

Industry Benchmarks for Context

To give external perspective beyond ShapeShift’s own funnel modeling:

  • OOH QR Scan Rates: 1–3% is typical. With incentives and strong CTAs, 4–8% is achievable. Best-in-class campaigns can exceed 10%.

  • Scan-to-Install Conversions: 15–25% is common. With incentives and optimized landing flows, 25–35% is possible.

  • Install-to-Trade Conversion (Fintech/Crypto): 10–25% depending on onboarding friction and incentives.

  • Cost per Active User (CAC):

    • Crypto apps: $40–$100+ per active trading wallet.

    • Fintech apps: $20–$40 per active user.

    • Napkin pilot modeling: $9–$20 per trading wallet under most scenarios, with downside risk to ~$30 if scan rates underperform.

Summary: Even under conservative assumptions, CAC falls within normal fintech/crypto ranges. At modeled aggressive levels (~8% scan rate, ~26% install rate), CAC lands near $9, aligning with ShapeShift’s target of $8 per connected wallet against a $23 LTV over three months.

Benefits:

  • Cost-effective acquisition: ~$9 per trading wallet, close to CAC target

  • High visibility: national brand exposure in everyday environments. Specifically geofenced towards target demographics for ShapeShift wallet users.
    Distribution will focus on venues where our target users already spend time, such as sports bars during game nights, coffee shops near tech hubs, and restaurants in urban districts with higher crypto adoption. This ensures ShapeShift is in front of both everyday consumers discovering crypto for the first time and fintech-savvy professionals likely to trade.

  • Novel experiment: data-rich test of offline → onchain user acquisition

  • Diversification: complements Apple Search Ads and other digital funnels

  • Earned media & social chatter: ~46K posts expected

Drawbacks:

  • Modeled funnel performance may vary in real-world rollout

  • Incentives require careful design and onchain verification to prevent abuse

    • Easily checked against new wallets that have done a trade for the first time

  • OOH channels are less iterative than digital, so creative/message testing is limited during the campaign

Funding:

  • Total Campaign Cost: $60,000 in FOX

  • DAO Ask: $50,000 FOX

  • Marketing Workstream Subsidy: $10,000 FOX

Vote (no vote needed–this is just incubation)

  • For: Approve funding of $50,000 in FOX for the Napkin Ads pilot campaign. $40,000 may be converted for vendor payment, and $10,000 will be deposited into rFOX.

Against: Do not approve funding for the Napkin Ads pilot campaign.

Closing Note(s)

The reason I’d like to keep this pilot scoped for Q1 is to give us the necessary time to feel confident in both our attribution and acquisition layers. By then, we’ll be better equipped to empower new users to take immediate action in the app, supported by bespoke landing campaigns tailored to their needs. This ensures that if we do drive a large volume of traffic—as we saw during the recent QRCoin experiment—those users will get a first-touch experience that maximizes their chance of becoming long-term ShapeShift traders. We want to avoid a repeat of driving traffic without having the right conversion paths in place.

This proposal is open for discussion, and I’d really appreciate any and all feedback. Please share questions, concerns, or ideas so we can refine assumptions together. The Napkin Ads team has been invited to join this thread and governance calls to provide additional context on funnel performance, distribution strategy, and campaign mechanics. If you can’t make a call, feel free to drop questions here — I’ll make sure they get answered. Your input will help us determine whether this pilot is the right bet for ShapeShift as we plan our larger Q1 acquisition initiatives and continue evolving the app into the best version of ShapeShift to date.

As most of you know, I’ve historically run a lean and tight marketing ship. Q1 2026 represents our first real step into bigger, higher-visibility campaigns designed to drive meaningful traffic to app.shapeshift.com. Thanks in advance for your thoughts — they’ll be critical in deciding whether this is a bet worth placing.

3 Likes
2

Hey @hpayne_shapeshiftdem, thanks for putting up this proposal!

I support this and think it’s a good use of funds for the DAO.

Our current market outreach is insufficient for spreading and getting new users, and traditional (digital) methods have proved to be ineffective, inefficient, or impossible for us as a DAO.

This method, to pursue activations in meat-space through geo- and time-specific napkin placement makes a lot of sense to me.

In the conversations we had regarding this, one of the strongest points (to me) was that they would take FOX. However, since they have told us that they would need to sell the FOX for USDC in order to pay for the costs of the napkins, I am more amenable at this point to pursuing this proposal with $40k of usdc that the DFC can TWAP into, and spread out the price impact of such a large sale.

I like that they are wanting to participate in rFOX, and that marketing is contributing $10k to it.

One of the missing things here is some evidence of previous napkin advertisement customers and effectiveness–I know they have discussed this with you but I think the presence of some larger companies as well as the presence of a similar project (e.g., crypto wallet) would help to quell any worries that 1) this is their first rodeo and they want to use us as a pilot (which, in my understanding, is not the case), and 2) that they can place these in locations that actually drive conversions (which, again, my understanding is that they have done so in the past and know what they are doing).

On the whole, the idea of napkins as advertisement isn’t the most exciting, but doing the same thing we are doing and expecting different results is the definition of madness, and that’s kind-of what we’re doing; we need to mix it up, and get new eyeballs on the platform via different mechanisms. This is a level-headed and well documented proposal that provides some realistic expectations for what we can expect as a result of this outlay of funds. Even in the worst case scenario, I still support this and think we should be supporting such expenditures going forward to increase the presence of users and volume on the site.

3

What are the specifics of this? What are the target demographics for shapeshift wallet users we are targeting? Males 18-65 in tech or office settings?

How granular can we get with the timing–can we have them in sports bars only during game nights? probably not. So is sport bars a good place? I think not.

My recommendations:

Coffee shops near tech hubs makes sense;

bars/restaurants around weekends/hotels/convention centers where there are crypto conventions or really any tech convention

general restaurants in high-net worth areas like NY, SF, DC, Seattle, Miami,

4

Hey @ProfMcC and @hpayne_shapeshiftdem, appreciate the thoughtful feedback and questions.

On past performance, we’ve run several successful campaigns for fintech and web3 brands, including a major crypto wallet that achieved a 19% install to trade rate verified through their Mixpanel and onchain analytics. While we can’t share the client name publicly, those results were validated internally using unique QR tracking and wallet level trade data.

For targeting and placement, we’ll focus on venues that attract users most likely to download and use ShapeShift’s wallet. This includes coffee shops near coworking spaces and tech offices, restaurants and lounges around major crypto and fintech events, and hotel bars frequented by business travelers. We’ll prioritize zip codes in high income markets such as New York, Miami, San Francisco, Austin, and Seattle. Our placement plan is based on real performance data from a previous wallet partner campaign, allowing us to focus on the venue types and neighborhoods that delivered the strongest scan to install and onchain engagement.

Regarding the FOX conversion, $40K in FOX will be converted to USDC in coordination with the Treasury team to cover vendor costs, while $10K in FOX will go directly into rFOX. Conversions will be handled carefully to minimize any market impact.

We’re excited to run this as a transparent, data driven pilot and deliver measurable onchain results that can inform the DAO’s broader acquisition strategy.

5

Appreciate all the feedback and engagement on this proposal. To share a bit more transparency around past performance, we recently completed a campaign for another crypto wallet that gives ShapeShift a realistic benchmark for this pilot.

That campaign distributed 625,000 napkins and generated 28,948 QR scans, leading to 6,397 app installs. Of those installs, about 1,216 users became active onchain traders after their first transaction, and roughly 24% of those users went on to trade multiple times within the first 30 days.

All figures shared above represent past campaign performance and are provided solely for modeling and benchmarking purposes. Actual results may vary based on targeting, creative, and market conditions

6

https://snapshot.org/#/s:ideation.shapeshiftdao.eth/proposal/0x0e495ecc9d845bac522fdfff4cfe61e3671d614fb485f57e4bc1c7156d5d36ac Ideation vote

7

Thanks @hpayne_shapeshiftdem for this proposal and your initiative to get more eyes on our app/brand and thanks to @PTT and @proforproforproforprofor pushing to get insightful numbers about the potential ROI on that campaign.

Even if we might not turn profits on this first attempt/pilot I think it’s important that the DAO focuses more on bringing our brand back into public awareness and this implies inevitable costs. It’s good that we make sure the spending is done with purpose and with financial ROI in mind but brand building/image is also a long term *investment* so it can make sense that not every single initiative turns instant profits (especially after a long time not spending significant amounts on such marketing campaigns).

The length/scale of the campaign vs. the costs seems reasonable especially when compared to online campaigns (which we have tried at small scale with very mitigated results and difficulties due to regulations regarding crypto). So I’m in favor of this proposal/attempt.

At first I must say I was taken aback as “napkins” seemed a bit of an absurd (for lack of a better word) medium but giving it more thoughts I think we can reach tech/crypto-inclined people who would likely never get exposed to our ads online due to the prevalence of ad-blocking in this sphere (until someone invents a napkin-blocking system I guess :sweat_smile:).

The focus should really be put on targeting places/businesses frequented by such audience in my opinion, if we want tap that share of the market who ignore the existence of ShapeShift or have an outdated notion of our brand/products since the transition to a DAO.

One question: in terms of tracking, will NapkinAds provide detailed/localized tracking data to know in which venues the campaign was the most successful with some data about the kind of crowds which frequent them (for potential other similar campaigns in the future)? The notion of “batches” might be a bit vague to learn anything from that… unless each venue is a batch? Maybe this could be clarified in the proposal.