原文：《The road ahead for the NFT marketplaces》by Henry Ang, Mustafa Yilham, Allen Zhao & Jermaine Wong，Bixin Ventures
Compiled by: Evan Gu, Wayne Zhang, Bixin Ventures
As more and more new NFT markets emerge, Opensea's position as the top player in the NFT market is constantly challenged. Increasingly fierce competition has led to more changes and innovations in the field, such as projects such as X2Y2 and Magic Eden directly announcing the abandonment of royalties. Opensea used to collect royalties and blacklisted NFTs that did not pay royalties. The emergence of X2Y2 allowed Opensen to change the original rules. In this wave of industry-wide innovation, changes around royalties are just one of many strategies to maintain price competitiveness in the NFT market space. Other strategies include reducing transaction fees and incentivizing NFT trading and listing through airdrop tokens.
As competition continues to heat up, several key questions are worth pondering: What will the future of the NFT market look like? Will Opensea continue to dominate the NFT market space? First, this article will examine the current landscape by comparing three major stakeholders, including direct markets represented by Opensea, aggregators represented by Gem.xyz, and new forms of markets represented by Sudoswap. Subsequently, we will examine some gaps in NFT market projects and discuss emerging trends that may influence future iterations of the NFT market.
What are direct markets and aggregators?
Direct Market
Opensea, X2Y2, Looksrare, and Magic Eden can be considered direct markets because NFT initial listings and trading take place here. The goal of direct markets is to attract as many creators and users as possible to achieve high trading volumes, as their main income comes from transaction fees. The main problems that direct markets aim to solve are:
1. A balance needs to be struck between creators and users when implementing royalties. Direct markets need to maintain royalties to attract NFT creators, but there is a risk that small but active users may be alienated.
2. Protect users from malicious NFT projects and phishing sites. A large number of scammers may rush in and steal user assets, so direct markets need to have safeguards to help users.
3. Provide a stable API for Web2 markets and Web3 aggregators - direct markets are seen as NFT trading infrastructure and need to be combined with other platforms.
AMM NFT Market
Similar to how Uniswap helps solve Defi's liquidity problem, new markets like Sudoswap enable users to buy and sell NFTs from a liquidity pool instead of trading with other users. The AMM model has several advantages over the traditional order book model, for example, it unlocks instant liquidity for users because trades are automatically executed instead of waiting for matching orders on Opensea.
Another key selling point is that markets like Sudoswap are decentralized and on-chain, compared to most off-chain order book direct markets. On the other hand, NFT AMMs may not be compatible with certain categories of NFTs (such as blue-chip NFTs and art collectibles that place a greater emphasis on rarity), as sellers typically want greater control over transaction prices. Another disadvantage is that AMMs can be much more complicated for the average consumer user, especially non-crypto native users.
NFT Market Aggregator
Similar to aggregators in DeFi, aggregators like 1inch began to develop after users found it difficult to choose the best DEX from multiple products. NFT market aggregators such as Gem and Genie can make it easy for users to buy NFTs from various markets through a single interface. Aggregators can also prevent transactions from being modified. As Delphi pointed out in this article: "Encourage users to list NFTs at reasonable prices, which will lead to smaller spreads. Smaller spreads mean that traders and collectors will experience the best prices, and the best prices create sticky users and positive feedback." One way to avoid market manipulation and false transactions is to use an aggregator. When using an aggregator, users will have the following concerns:
1. User Interface: Displays all the best prices from various markets.
2. User interaction: Optimize latency, gas fees, and API connections with relevant markets to display the latest price updates
3. One-stop tools: Useful tools that supplement the purchase process, such as analysis, chat box, lending, BNPL services
Direct Market Analysis: Why Opensea is still the market king?
Overview of the top 3 NFT markets and emerging new markets
As a pioneer in the industry, Opensea has accumulated a considerable user base at the beginning due to factors such as easy creation, a wide variety of NFT projects, and an easy-to-navigate catalog system. Opensea has also made full use of its initial user base by including popular features such as well-known NFT projects and implementing multi-chain markets.
In order to acquire users from Opensea, Looksrare not only used a trading-to-earn strategy, but also allocated token airdrops specifically for Opensea traders. In the short term, they ended up getting 26% to 37.2% of the market volume. Looksrare also implemented revenue distribution through a more decentralized approach, where 100% of trading fees would be distributed to $LOOKS stakers. While the rewards incentivized increased trading volume, they also led to a large number of fake transactions. When the incentives eventually decreased as trading volume declined, Looksrare failed to retain its user base and currently only accounts for about 0.7% of users in the entire industry.
Similarly, X2Y2 initially adopted a list-to-earn strategy to attract new users and offer lower transaction fees than Opensea and Looksrare. This brought another set of problems, including the inclusion of many low-quality NFTs that were only created to earn rewards. X2Y2 eventually switched to a system of earning rewards by trading, which again led to a surge in transactions that were only for the purpose of transferring transaction fees. Similar to the case of Looksrare, although X2Y2 redistributes 100% of its revenue to users, the low transaction volume and subsequent low fees earned are not enough to incentivize users to stay for a long time. As of the time of writing, X2Y2 has only retained 2.2% of the users in the entire industry.
Looksrare and X2Y2 aren’t the first to try to earn tokens for market liquidity. Rarible, an NFT marketplace launched in early 2020, also tried to attract traders with their $RARI token but largely suffered the same fate.
Case Study: Why Rarible Loses Out on Opensea
At the end of 2020, Rarible was tied with Opensea with a monthly transaction volume of over 4 million.
Subsequently, the gap between Opensea and Rarible widened, with the latter losing 75% of its volume by the end of Q1 2021. Contrary to Opensea’s proposed IPO route, which caused an uproar in the community, Rarible chose to make itself more decentralized by issuing their $RARI token. Following a similar strategy to X2Y2 and others, Rarible’s token rewards not only incentivized volume growth, but also allowed for a lot of wash sales in the initial stages. There were other reasons why Rarible developed into a disadvantage compared to Opensea, especially Rarible’s lack of cooperation with well-known IPs, resulting in low liquidity deployed in the market, and their inability to handle fake IP-type NFTs. On the other hand, Opensea was quicker to crack down on fraud, launched limited-time orders, and worked with multiple IPs to position itself as a trusted NFT market. The difference in popularity between the two markets can be seen in the data below, which shows that from December 2020 to November 2022, the blue chip NFT BAYC was traded 27,442 times on Opensea and 72 times on Rarible.
The latest markets Blur and Atomic0 are attracting new users with 0 transaction fees, optional royalties, and airdrops. It is worth noting that Blur is not only a direct local market, it is also an aggregator, which we will delve deeper into in the next section. Blur also attempts to incentivize users by using a list-to-earn strategy. Blur stipulates that those who try to cheat the system by listing certain "dead NFTs" at unrealistic prices or relisting them will not be eligible for airdrops. Other ways to get $BLUR airdrops include paying royalties and listing blue chip series collectibles. The actual airdrop will take place in January 2023, and only time will tell whether their strategy will suffer the same fate as the previous market. From a product perspective, the main difference of markets like Blur is the excellent user experience - NFT data such as quotes, sales and metadata appear in real time, scrolling and loading lists are much faster, users are able to view NFT series across multiple NFT markets and make informed decisions through advanced portfolio analysis, etc. Unlike previous competitors, Blur did not follow the Opensea model in terms of UI/UX.
Nonetheless, as of the time of writing, Opensea remains the leading platform with approximately 72%, 82.7%, and 75.7% share in terms of transaction volume, unique buyers, and number of transactions, respectively.
How can Opensea retain its users as new competitors emerge?
Although Opensea's market share has declined, it still holds the largest share of the market with more than two-thirds of the trading volume. Over the years, Opensea has undoubtedly built a strong brand moat in the NFT field. For example, we noticed that most NFT projects will always be officially listed on Opensea for legitimacy reasons, simply because people recognize and trust the brand. Whether on Twitter or Discord, most projects choose to direct their users to Opensea to purchase their NFTs. This leads to more projects being included, and more projects included will lead to more users using it, and then more projects will be listed here, thus stimulating a flywheel effect.
The battle is ultimately about liquidity — meaning the marketplace with the most projects wins. Even with a poor UX and lack of token incentives, people still choose to post and buy on Opensea because that’s where you can find the most projects and traders. We don’t believe token incentives are a long-term solution, as it’s a strategy that only attracts opportunistic traders and doesn’t build brand loyalty and product stickiness. Since users trade on these marketplaces simply because of the incentives and not because they believe it’s a good trading platform, they will leave once these incentives inevitably dry up. Token incentives can be a great way to get an initial lead, but ultimately only a good product and UX can truly incentivize users to stay for the long term. Historically, this narrative has been repeated many times before, as not only NFT marketplaces have chosen a liquidity mining strategy, but cryptocurrency exchanges have also adopted this strategy, only to fail miserably.
Case Study: First-mover advantage isn’t everything — Magic Eden
Given that Opensea was the first NFT marketplace, it begs the question if they are the market leader primarily because of their first-mover advantage. We can further appreciate the value of first-mover advantage by looking at Solana’s NFT marketplace ecosystem through a historical lens. Magic Eden is currently the leading NFT marketplace on Solana, but contrary to popular belief, it is actually the third marketplace to launch on Solana. The first two marketplaces were Solanart and Digital Eyes in 2021, which initially accounted for the majority of trading volume at the time. Ultimately, Solanart lost the trust of the community after incidents such as fake listings and stolen digital assets, prompting users to switch to Digital Eyes. Magic Eden was able to replace Digital Eyes because the former had a superior UI/UX and user experience. Magic Eden continues to build on its moat by releasing features such as launchpad, which incubates new NFT series and integrates with all wallets on Solana. This is how Magic Eden has been able to surpass its competitors to become the dominant player in the Solana ecosystem, with close to 98% of daily active users at the time of writing.
Product innovation drives growth
Drawing insights from the above case studies, we realized that product-led growth is a sustainable way to gain long-term market share. Common complaints about Opensea’s user experience include high gas and transaction fees, high latency, slow interface loading, and more. We believe that unless these issues are corrected and a better user experience is provided, Opensea’s brand equity will continue to be diluted as other platforms such as Blur innovate. As mentioned before - in addition to their own market liquidity, Blur also aggregates liquidity from other markets, which makes it more convenient for users. On the other hand, while competitors such as X2Y2 and Looksrare offer lower transaction fees, the general user experience is actually not much different from what Opensea offers. For example, the snapshot of the BAYC series on various markets below clearly shows which market has a differentiated user interface. Ultimately, the market that can provide the best user experience will attract the most listings and traders, and form a brand moat afterwards.
The following is a comparison of relevant service data of several NFT markets:
Opensea (First)
X2Y2
Looksrare
Magic Eden
Blur
Atomic0
Number of public chains supported
6
1
1
3
1
1
Customer acquisition methods
forerunner
Make money from NFT listing
Low handling fees
Making Money Trading NFT
airdrop
Innovative products and services
airdrop
airdrop
Transaction Fees
2.5%
0.5%
2%
2% -> 0%
Optional
Optional
Advantage
1. It is an NFT listing tool
2. iOS App
3. Deeper liquidity
3. Scam and Phishing Warning
4. Strong Brand
1. Powerful analytical dashboard
2. P2P lending
NFT collection has discounts
1.Launchpad
2. iOS App
3. Whitelist tracking
4. Scam and Phishing Warning
5. Tools tailored for creators
6. Strong Brand
1. NFT Status Filter
2. Gas Limit
3. Optional Royalties
4.Floor sweeping
5. Portfolio Tracking
Flexible/Optional Royalties
Disadvantages
High latency
Lack of analysis
Token Utility
Business Partnerships
Mispricing
Lack of analysis
Token Utility
Standardized listing
Not available for retail users
Not yet available
market share
(Ethereum)
42%
40%
18%
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Number of users (Ethereum)
89%
10%
1%
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Aggregator Analysis: Why the Aggregator Model Never Really Takes Off
With multiple direct markets, it only makes sense for aggregators to develop, as they provide consolidated information across all markets. Rather than manually combining Opensea, Looksrare, and X2Y2 to get the best price, it is easier to use an aggregator. But as we can see from the data below, the majority of transactions are still completed on Opensea. The data also shows that while aggregators such as Gem and Genie saw an initial surge in transaction volume, they have since declined compared to Opensea. We believe there may be several reasons for this. Before diving in, it is helpful to identify two large demand-side overviews
(1) NFT community users who know exactly what NFT collection they want and whose purchasing journey usually starts by clicking on an official link on Twitter or Discord.
(2) Speculators looking for good deals. For example, buying high-quality collectibles with low reserve prices or mispriced NFTs
First, considering that most NFT projects currently use Opensea links to gain legitimacy, we believe that the first stop for NFT community users is Opensea in more cases. Second, we believe that opportunistic traders are more likely to use aggregators because they usually do not consider NFT collections, but hope to find transactions with good value.
While Gem and Genie saw a drop in trading volume, another aggregator, Blur, saw a rebound in trading volume. Of course, it is too early to tell whether Blur has pioneered a successful aggregator model.
Case Study: How Gem replaced Genie and became the new leader
Genie is a pioneer in the aggregator market, but it has not solved some product optimization issues, such as UI/UX layout and high gas costs. Gem helps users save up to 40% of gas costs.
Currently, Gem has become the largest traffic window for direct markets such as Opensea, X2Y2, Looksrare, and Larva Labs.
Why hasn't Gem captured a larger market share yet?
The data below shows that approximately 33% of NFTs are purchased through aggregators, and before Blur launched, Gem transactions accounted for approximately 70-80% of all previous aggregator market share.
Although 33% of NFTs are traded through aggregators, the data below interestingly shows that 90% of the transaction value is conducted through the direct market. This means that most high-value transactions occur on the direct market rather than on aggregators. This may reflect users' trading preference for trading blue-chip high-priced NFTs on the direct market and trading low-value NFTs on aggregators.
The other data below highlights the user stratification of NFT markets. It shows that less than 5% of users visit other markets after visiting Opensea. On the other hand, 74.76% of Gem visitors visit Opensea afterwards, and the same is true for Blur and Genie (43.76% and 40.55%).
Next visit
First visit
Opensea
Gem
Blur
Genie
Opensea
4.01%
2.45%
0.24%
Gem
74.76%
7.53%
2.22%
Blur
43.76%
10.25%
N/A
Genie
40.55%
21.13%
N/A
Source: similarweb.com
Can Uniswap’s new market compete with other aggregators?
Genie was acquired by Uniswap in June 2022 and recently officially joined the Uniswap ecosystem. Users can now trade NFTs on various markets through it, including Opensea, X2Y2, Sudoswap, etc. Uniswap's NFT interface is completely open source, and claims that their aggregator can help users save up to 15% of gas costs compared to other NFT aggregators.
From a visual perspective, their user interface is simple and clean, adopting a similar look and feel to most markets. One notable difference is the ability for users to switch between ETH and USD pricing, which may be more friendly to non-crypto native users.
As an aggregator, Uniswap’s NFT market has fewer features than some of its competitors. Most notably, Uniswap lacks advanced analytics such as underlying depth, transactions, and price history. It is also believed that in today’s low gas fee environment, reducing gas fees may not be enough to attract users.
On the other hand, we believe that Uniswap’s moat lies in their Universal Router, which allows for the integration between FTs and NFTs. With the Universal Router, users can perform multiple token swaps on Uniswap V2 and V3 and purchase NFTs from multiple markets in a single transaction. For example - users must exchange their USDC, ETH, and DAI to WETH through multiple transactions before they can complete the NFT purchase. Uniswap can achieve the following functions with a single transaction, as shown in the figure below:
This is critical because Uniswap has the deepest FT liquidity in decentralized exchanges as well as a large amount of crypto user traffic. This natural conversion of FT and NFT can provide users with more convenience in the purchase process. This is truly a game changer as it greatly reduces user friction, especially in a multi-crypto asset environment. The inability to purchase NFTs using ERC-20 tokens remains a huge pain point for other users of NFT aggregators.
Based on their experience with AMMs and the breakthrough innovation of Universal Router, possible future developments include providing consumer-facing products independent of current NFT aggregators. Unlike Sudoswap's single-currency, single-pool transactions, Uniswap can provide mixed payments and AMM-like multi-currency transactions that rely on Universal Router. Uniswap can also deploy new AMM pools - providing NFT project owners with more liquidity options besides ETH. These products set Uniswap apart from other aggregators. Uniswap and NFTs are still in their early stages, and time will tell whether users will accept them.
Blur
Gem.xyz
Genie.xyz -> Uniswap
Supported Direct Markets
X2Y2, Looks Rare, Opensea
X2Y2, Looksrare, Opensea, XMarket, NFTx, Larva Labs, Sudoswap
X2Y2, Looksrare, Opensea, Larva Labs, Rarible, Coinbase, Sudoswap
Customer acquisition methods
airdrop
Extremely low gas fees
Potential Airdrop News
Product Innovation
forerunner
Features
Gas Priority
Optimize Scan
Portfolio Tracking
Listing Order
Depth Map
High Gas Utilization
Flashforge
Portfolio Tracking
Dune Analytics Integration
Ability to pay with various tokens
Flexible sales period
High Gas Utilization
Advantage
Analytical dashboard
Optional transaction fees
Gas Priority
User interface built for traders
Low latency
Lower gas costs (nearly 70% less than Genie)
Data dashboard
Multiple tokens available for payment
Flexible sales period
Universal Router
Disadvantages
Higher gas costs (if the user does not set a gas limit)
Slow price updates
Unfriendly user interface
Lack of analysis
supporter
Paradigm
Opensea
Uniswap
market share
76.4%
22.8%
0.8%
The gap between different models in the current NFT market
After taking an in-depth look at the current industry ecology of NFT direct markets and aggregators, in this section we will focus on users’ pain points and the gaps between projects.
Transaction Fees and Royalties
From the perspective of NFT projects, the market's 0.5-2% commission does not actually add any value to them. On top of that, because these markets are the ones that decide whether to charge royalties, NFT projects have recently been at the mercy of the market. The lack of decision-making autonomy for royalties is a long-standing problem for NFT projects. For transaction fees, NFT projects ideally want to keep them so that they have more resources to add value to the community. In addition, users may be more willing to give fees back to NFT projects in order to accumulate more value for their NFTs.
NFT Market Token Economics Needs Reconfiguration
As discussed multiple times above - we believe that while there is a need for a decentralized community owned market, there has not yet been one that effectively implements a token model to stimulate organic growth. Most existing token economics only serve to encourage behavior that is detrimental to the community, such as wash trading or listing of low quality collectibles. As Jhackworth details here - 85% of $LOOKS airdrop holders no longer hold those tokens. The market needs to implement a model that goes beyond "free money" governance and where users find more utility in holding them for the long term.
The market is too general
While most of the NFT industry is currently focused on PFP, we believe the market will continue to expand and include other categories such as gaming, art, fashion, utility, and brand-centric NFTs. If all of these NFTs were traded on a general marketplace like Opensea, that would create some additional issues. For example, brands like Starbucks and Nike want to provide customized experiences to their customers, and buying a gaming NFT should not be the same as buying a PFP. The experience of buying an NFT should not be like a homogeneous consumer product that can be traded on a general platform.
The recently popular Blur is a market for traders, and some of its services follow the trend of the NFT industry towards financialization: NFT loans, derivatives, indexes, and grading. This confirms that there is a demand for markets that treat NFTs as commodities or financial assets. For a multifaceted product like NFT, the current market lineup may be too general, and therefore has the potential to isolate different types of users/NFT projects.
Lack of social features
If you look back at the user journey: from discovering a new NFT project on Twitter to engaging and learning more about the community on Discord to finally making a purchase on Opensea, you’ll realize that the entire journey is highly social. However, if a user is trying to buy or sell an NFT, there is currently no easy way to communicate with counterparties on the marketplace. Understandably, there are reasons why marketplaces choose not to enable chat, as it makes them redundant since buyers and sellers can trade directly with each other. But it’s still a feature that could greatly enhance the user experience, and the industry has yet to find a balanced solution.
NFT infrastructure needs further development
The emergence of different types of markets, whether direct markets or trader markets, will mean more specific and targeted integration of all fragmented liquidity, orders, and on-chain information in the future. The lack of a complete API integration will have a negative impact on transaction speed, listing price accuracy, and order aggregation, resulting in a suboptimal user experience. For most users, a complete infrastructure will include user-friendly wallets that allow crypto and legal transactions (or a combination of both), the ability to use alternative payment methods such as BNPL, loans, and even renting NFTs, user-friendly security methods, and more. The existing infrastructure sets up entry barriers for new retail users who are accustomed to the intuitive and concise interfaces of e-commerce websites in web 2.
What will the future model of the NFT market look like?
Vertical markets and infrastructure
Verticalized marketplaces are not a new concept. Axie Infinity is the most well-known vertical marketplace, which has generated significant volume from the sale of axies. In fact, the industry has slowly been witnessing the emergence of community-owned marketplaces, such as the Apecoin DAO marketplace built specifically for the BAYC and Otherside communities. Apecoin’s marketplace not only charges lower fees than existing markets (0.5% for ETH transactions and 0.25% for ApeCoin transactions — and holds 0.25% of each transaction in a multi-signature wallet to fund future DAO initiatives) but also creates a profit cycle for ApeCoin holders.
Infrastructure and tools that allow projects to easily launch their own dedicated marketplaces are also slowly emerging. One example is Reservoir. Reservoir is a developer platform that aggregates NFT orders from across the Ethereum ecosystem and provides and populates this liquidity through APIs and SDKs. Similar to the strategy that Blur used to gain early traction, tools like Reservoir help solve the cold start problem for your own projects, as they are able to list items not only on their local marketplace, but also on other marketplaces.
As the Multicoin Capital article points out, “Markets should map to the unique characteristics of a community, not the other way around”. As more NFT categories begin to gain traction, we expect specialized marketplaces to emerge that will slowly gain market share at the expense of general-purpose marketplaces like Opensea. Additionally, there will likely be a long list of community-owned marketplaces that follow in Apecoin’s footsteps. The next relevant question is: what will help tie all of this together in the future NFT marketplace ecosystem? We believe the next iteration of an NFT aggregator will be one that effectively provides a unified experience without compromising the user experience.
Membership Exchange
Mooar is a new membership-based NFT exchange developed by the STEPN team, which is between community-centric vertical markets and direct markets such as Opensea. Mooar adopts a membership system with a transaction fee of 0% and a copyright fee of 2% (which can be adjusted by creators), allowing members to give back to creators while enjoying lower transaction costs. Mooar generates revenue by charging subscription fees. Members can vote for their favorite launchpad projects and gain access to exclusive NFT lists. For example, if members have a preference for high-value generative art projects, the market will list more similar projects accordingly. Despite skepticism about its feasibility and scalability, this market category undoubtedly provides more autonomy for users and creators on the platform.
A trader-centric exchange
As discussed in the increasing financialization of the NFT space, it is necessary to cater to the needs of these users as well. The next generation of trader-centric exchanges must prioritize liquidity, speed, and analytical tools. Examples of features could be instant buys and sells (AMM models or better liquidity), better pricing, enhanced pool sweeps, and more sophisticated analytics.
Features that are comparable to or even better than the current e-commerce shopping experience
In the next wave, we expect a large influx of regular consumers who are already accustomed to how web2 e-commerce works, such as Amazon and eBay. Outside of the NFT marketplace, user-side infrastructure (such as wallets) should be safer, easier, and more intuitive to use. Possible features include social and customer support chat boxes, multiple payments, P2P transactions, live streaming, push notifications, mobile apps, fraud detection, etc. We also expect further integration with existing web 2 applications and commerce, such as being able to seamlessly connect your wallet to applications such as Instagram, TikTok, Twitch, etc. to purchase NFTs directly from brands or creators.
Taking a further cue from web2 e-commerce, another possible development is to adopt the Shopback business model for aggregators. Shopback is essentially an e-commerce aggregator for major marketplaces - they take a commission whenever a transaction is made through their platform. Shopback returns part of the commission to the user through cashback. In a similar sense, NFT market aggregators could consider this business model to create more value proposition for their users.
Summary and Thoughts
We are still in the early stages of the entire development cycle of NFTs and the market, after all, the first wave of NFT craze actually started in 2021. As analyzed in this article, we discussed the various reasons why Opensea is still the dominant player in the market, as well as the shortcomings it has. Regardless of whether Opensea can maintain its moat, it is certain that there is a certain gap in the NFT user experience that needs further improvement to attract the next wave of user adoption. The winners in the future market will be driven by product-led growth, innovation in user experience, and the need to adapt to different categories of NFTs.
Ultimately, our main goal should be to build an NFT ecosystem that achieves perfect product-market fit. Whether it is NFT, market, wallet, community or project, the overall user experience should be seamlessly integrated to attract and expand the next million users.
If you find this discussion interesting and would like to participate, please feel free to chat with us. If you are an NFT infrastructure project looking to optimize for the next wave of users, please also contact us.