Memo: Planet of the Apes

We are living in a brave new world, a planet of the apes.

This week, decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) took another step into the mainstream with the airdrop of Bored Ape Yacht Club-licensed ApeCoins to BAYC’s existing community of crypto-wealthy ape owners. Andreessen Horowitz was heavily involved in this DAO, accruing nearly 14% of the available coins along with Animoca. The DAO drop follows Bored Ape parent Yuga Labs’ recently-announced $450 million round led by Andreessen Horowitz, according to the Financial Times:

The four founders of Yuga — until recently known only by their online pseudonyms such as Gargamel and Emperor Tomato Ketchup — were allocated 8 per cent. A group of “launch partners”, including Andreessen and Hong Kong-based NFT and crypto investor Animoca Brands, were together given a 14 per cent allocation, in exchange for helping prepare for the issuance.

This isn’t A16Z’s first rodeo. In December 2021, it was announced that Andreessen Horowitz made an investment into PleasrDAO, a blockchain-aligned group of crypto investors who partnered to acquire high-priced NFTs to fractionalize. One was the $4 million purchase of the Doge image, sold as 17 billion pieces that once amassed an implied market cap of $100 million. Just three years ago, the idea of this was unfathomable. The deal was highly visible to the crypto power users.

But unlike the intent behind many DAOs, ApeCoin ownership does not give you a governance interest in Yuga Labs, A16Z’s recent investment. Casey Newton explained:

ApeCoin DAO is not Yuga Labs, its PR firm took pains to explain to me in a press release Thursday. (This information was highlighted for me in a section of the release that was outlined in a box and headlined “Important facts.”) Rather: Yuga Labs gifted ApeCoin DAO a one-of-one NFT featuring a blue version of the Bored Ape Yacht Club logo. This NFT conveys along with it all rights and privileges of the logo’s intellectual property to the ApeCoin DAO. The ApeCoin DAO will decide how the IP is used.

This may not always be so easy to do from a regulations perspective. This week, I sat with an official at the Securities and Exchange Commission; she and I riffed on the next generation of securitization. I began researching the Howey Test in the context of the increasing popularity of DAOs. According to the Howey Test, a transaction is only an investment contract if:

  • An investment that requires money
  • There is an expected profit associated with the investment
  • The investment is a common enterprise
  • Profit comes by way of the third-party or promoter’s efforts

Oh yes, the SEC will certainly regulate investments like these. It was easy to see that most web3 consumers are unaware of what they are purchasing. In a recent academic paper published in the Boston University Law Review, it explains the potential for market failure due to information asymmetry or “the lack of understanding about what investors are buying.” It goes on to suggest that:

The relatively high perceived value of the interests in non-cash-flow monetizations suggests that some investors, possibly influenced by the recent history of rapidly rising prices, are looking to resale value.

Casey Newton’s recent essay mirrors this concern with respect to information asymmetry:

My guess is that it falls into the category of “legal for now,” a time-tested way for Silicon Valley startups to make money. But perhaps the Securities and Exchange Commission will have other ideas.

Regardless of the web iteration we’re operating in, consumer startups live and die by how well they live up to the promises they’ve made. It’s typical for investors to help founders fulfill those promises. In some cases, they can end up getting in between the vision of the founders and the reality for consumers.

The original direct-to-consumer retail boom was fueled by the same funds interested in Web3 today. In the worst case scenarios, failed startup autopsies reported stories of pressures to maximize investor interest, potentially clouding product decisions and roadmaps. They became cautionary tales. Web3 businesses are now pooling money from investors who view it as the next big opportunity. In The New Class System, 2PM laid out this opportunity in relation to how much time is now spent in online spaces:

Density precedes agglomeration, which influences consumer behaviors. Agglomeration economies are the benefits that come when firms and people locate near one another together in cities and industrial clusters. In short, agglomeration, once a physical phenomena, has digitized.

Consider the year-over-year growth in use for services like Slack, Microsoft Teams, Zoom, Instacart, Amazon, or Jokr. Consider the distance learning boom, the shift to home school, and the rising American ideal of remote work. And if you’re the type that is intensely into the internet, notice what seems like a sudden Web3 boom: NFTs, DAOs, and the normalization of cryptocurrencies as stores of value. We do more on the internet than ever before.

As early Web3 startups grow, how they handle the demands of their investors with the wants of their end users will play a role in shaping the future of Web3. I’d argue that the launch of ApeCoin is an example.

Understanding the Power of DAO

Bored Ape Yacht Club (BAYC) and its owner Yuga Labs is now the most powerful player – and among the most recognizable – in the Web3 space. Their decisions set the groundwork for others. The token associated with BAYC can be used to buy virtual goods and land in the Yuga Labs’ metaverse, according to the company. But the ApeCoin DAO is being held at arms’ length by Yuga Labs.

So far, ApeCoin DAO has decided to use the IP to reward all of Yuga Labs’ earliest backers. On Thursday, just a few days before today’s announcement, the DAO gifted a healthy chunk of the 1 billion total ApeCoin tokens to Yuga Labs, Yuga Labs’ founders, and the VCs who backed the project. Bored Apes owners got tokens as well. The coins hit a high of $40 per coin on trading markets before settling down to $12.20 today. At that price, VCs’ tokens are worth around $1.7 billion — far more than they have invested in the project to date. And that’s in addition to their equity stake.

DAOs are core to Web3’s promised land in that they are meant to decentralize control: they put the power in the hands of a community, which can mean everyday customers, fans and loyalists have the opportunity to buy into an organization they care about. With their tokens, they receive voting rights and other privileges that separate Web3 companies from Web2, in which only goods and services can be bought. In Web3, tokens are traded for control – or at least, a piece of it. With the majority of ApeCoin’s allotted tokens going to Yuga Lab’s major investors, can it still be considered decentralized?

ApeCoin risks diminishing the trust of its community by leaning into pleasing its investors and conventionally wealthy NFT owners. But there’s the potential of a favorable outcome for ApeCoin holders. By giving investors a return on investment long before the typical investment horizon, Yuga could be freed up to prioritize the consumer and the promises it made to its community. People will be watching. Whatever Yuga Labs does next will shape Web3’s next steps and, more than likely, the Security Exchange Commission’s.

Decentralized organizations were a key tenant of the Web3 promise. It may require one of our nation’s centralized organizations to determine which was the dominant species: the intelligent apes or regulators. The outcome may mean fewer airdrops for preferred guests, friends, family, and venture capitalists.

Member Brief: Amazon Owns Hollywood

By making the MGM acquisition final, Amazon widened its moat and strengthening its customer acquisition flywheel. No retailer invests in content like Amazon. This deal puts the power of linear commerce on full display.

This member brief is designed exclusively for Executive Members, to make membership easy, you can click below and gain access to hundreds of reports, our DTC Power List, and other tools to help you make high level decisions.

Join Here

Memo: Instant Needs Industry

Whether we are post-pandemic or not, some behaviors are beginning to return to the way things were. Of them, quick delivery grocery appears to be one of the pandemic practices that may not reach the zenith that was once predicted. And now, the fall out. On the heels of a recent report by the New York Post, Petition published a deep dive on a struggling sector. From the NY Post:

Investors in Gopuff — a Philly-based delivery service that’s backed by Softbank — were eyeing a valuation of up to $40 billion in January as the company enlisted Goldman Sachs to help prepare for an IPO. But investors have lately been scrambling to unload their stakes at valuations as low as $15 billion — and have still been unable to find buyers, The Post has learned.

Petition places GoPuff in the same category as the 15 minute competitors that are competing in a crowded market. In addition to GoPuff, Petition rattles off Getir, Jokr, Gorillas, Just Eat, Fridge No More, Buyk and Food Rocket in the lengthy list of upstarts wanting to compete alongside DoorDash, Uber Eats and GrubHub.

The category has seen massive growth padded by venture funding, but the smoke is starting to clear, and market capitalizations have plunged as investors look to cut their losses. The problem, at its core, is that grocery retail is an industry built atop of stubborn customer habits – people fall back to their old ways, especially when prices rise. But larger competitors are not faring much better. Instacart has been marked down and Amazon has yet to find profitability in grocery delivery, according to sources. If Amazon can’t figure it out, it’s bad news for the VC-backed category. Petition sees the entire category “going puff.” Investors are turning their backs, legislative forces are cracking down, and customers may be realizing that hefty delivery fees and tips aren’t worth paying for in exchange for quick service.

Petition’s insights are rarely wrong. But as we discussed in Consumer Trends 2022, there is potential for GoPuff to separate itself from the likes of Gorillas, UberEats, DoorDash, Getir, and Jokr. The quick delivery service recently launched its own private label and has begun the process of verticalizing its business (with one critical fault that may hinder margins for the foreseeable future). In Consumer Trends, we explained:

Most notable on the list is Gopuff, which has turned some of its micro-fulfillment sites into customer outlets after building up a business based on ultra-fast delivery. Gopuff is expected to IPO this year, after Reuters reported it has hired banks to help it go public, with a valuation of close to $15 billion. The physical locations could make Gopuff even faster by bringing customers to the delivery point, cutting down on time workers take to get items to customers at home. The stores are not typical convenience stores, but ordering hubs, where customers use digital kiosks to place orders that are then fulfilled from the warehouse. To facilitate this omnichannel strategy, GoPuff acquired companies in a land grab, with 161 BevMo stores and 23 Liquor Barns now acquired.

This is a timely separator between GoPuff and the other brands that rely on the storefronts of convenience stores and small retailers. To further circumvent any potential legislation, GoPuff will have to further invest in its physical real estate. This is a recent point on regulatory scrutiny made in a recent report by Vice:

Ultrafast delivery companies like Gorillas, Jokr, and GoPuff are facing increasing government scrutiny at the same time as profits for their services are failing to materialize. The Information reported Jokr is looking to sell its New York operations to a competitor in the face of losses of some $150 per order, which Jokr denies. And GoPuff, in an attempt to prove its storefronts are not warehouses and avoid regulatory scrutiny, have claimed its New York locations will also sell directly to walk-in customers, although the New York Post found even such “retail” locations are unmanned and have no prices listed on items.

GoPuff wants to be less reliant on third-party vendors by using its warehouses like retail stores, but it will likely find that operating retail stores is by no means an easy fix to future-proofing its business in an unstable market for pureplay delivery services. By layering delivery on top of the stores, GoPuff wants to do both. But does that really put it in a position to compete with the likes of Amazon? Or by splitting its attention, is GoPuff undermining both sides of its business without successfully pulling in customers to its stores? As Seeking Alpha reported:

The goal is to make GoPuff more like Amazon than like Uber. That was the elevator pitch captured in a recent Axios profile, with vertical integration that hasn’t even occurred to its competitors. Whereas the aforementioned companies rely on someone else to provide the goods, Gopuff has almost 600 micro-fulfillment centers, up from 380 in 2020, filled with the staples of daily life. Cutting out the third-party vendor, Gopuff ships directly to its customers who are saved a trip to 7-11 or the corner grocery store.

So what we are beginning to see is that the service side of the quick delivery business may not make it with a solid vertical operation attached. As Amazon has learned, this gives the advantage to the grocery retailers whose foundations are built atop physical retail penetration.

Whether it is for margin protection or product availability (after publishing Consumer Trends 2022, it was noted that GoPuff sources some products through Instacart to maintain stock), big grocery’s eCommerce pioneers will be the traditional companies who’ve built the technology atop their existing storefronts. This mirrors the world’s of GPG and digitally native brands. Though eCommerce began as a digitally-native sport, its accelerated adoption means that the old guard is employing many of the tactics pioneered by modern brands. In this respect, the grocery industry is no different.

Petition was correct in a number of its statements. The funding and the IPO markets for such services seems to be drying up for now. But if there is one exception to the quick delivery rule – it may end up being GoPuff. They are steps ahead of impending legislation in New York, its biggest market. But in the longer term, they will have to contend with the same reality that Instacart and others are now contending with – the advantage goes to the delivery company with the inventory on hand. Refer to the graph above. True digitally native vertical brands don’t always begin online. In grocery, it appears quite the opposite.

By Web Smith | Edited by Hilary Milnes with art by Christina Williams