1. Introduction

Since its inception, Hydration has undergone various milestones, including LBP public fundraising, token model adjustments, the launch of the Omnipool, POL diversification, brand revamp, and the release of its Borrowing feature. This growth journey has traversed a full bull-to-bear cycle. During this time, the team and community have worked hand-in-hand, embracing both challenges and successes. Four years have passed, and as we re-enter a bull market, reflect on our progress: Are we moving closer to or farther from our mission “Make DeFi efficient, simple, and unstoppable"? The community seems uncertain, as evidenced by the price trends of HDX and fluctuations in the English community membership.

Over the past four years, HDX has mostly hovered around the $0.008 price range. At the early stages of the current bull market, the price surged to $0.039, only to drop back to $0.008 and rebound to $0.017, before recently falling below $0.007 again. Meanwhile, the number of members in the English Tg group has steadily declined, from over 5,000 at the end of the LBP to around 3,900, fluctuating between 3,800 and 4,000 for an extended period. Recently, the English Tg group has begun to decline rapidly, and the number of members is now less than 3,700. Several long-term whale investors in Hydration have chosen to leave.

Why is this happening? Hydration was once seen as a trailblazer with its innovative AMM model, perceived as having a core competitive advantage. Why, then, is it not favored by the market? What has led to the current state?

Under such circumstances, identifying the key factors behind the current situation and providing a clear direction for future development becomes imperative. During discussions with other Hydration communities, there was broad agreement on initiating a comprehensive survey. The CEO of Hydration's product team, Jakub Gregus, endorsed this survey effort.

------------------------------------------------

2. Basic Information

2.1 Survey Objectives

To evaluate Hydration's performance within the DeFi ecosystem and gather user feedback on the product, team, community engagement, and marketing. The goal is to identify weaknesses and key user concerns to provide directional and actionable recommendations for Hydration's future development.

2.2 Survey Participants

Participants included HDX holders and users of Hydration, sourced from the Hydration community and other related communities. Specifically: the English, Chinese, and Russian Hydration communities, as well as closely associated communities and KOLs such as Bifrost, AiWeb3, PolkaWorld, @GldnCalf (X), and @Zou_Block (X).

2.3 Survey Methodology

The survey was conducted using Google Forms, covering topics such as product, team, community, and key concerns. It consisted of 21 questions, all single-choice, to focus and identify critical factors.

2.4 Survey Initiation

The survey was led by the Chinese community, with the questionnaire design incorporating input from various communities and key individuals.

2.5 Survey Execution

The survey was disseminated via enthusiastic individuals sharing the Google Forms link in the English, Chinese, and Russian Hydration communities, as well as AiWeb3 and Bifrost communities. Special thanks to KOLs like @GldnCalf (X) and @Zou_Block (X) for sharing the survey.

2.6 Sample Collection

Over 10 days, the survey received 60 valid responses. Without incentives, people generally lack enthusiasm for participating in surveys, even if they are stakeholders, unless they take care of Hydration really. Thus, it is reasonable to infer that survey participants are loyal or former HDX users, providing valid and analyzable samples.

------------------------------------------------

3. Results Analysis and Recommendations

3.1 Basis of Analysis

This report analyzes the survey results based on the 60 collected samples. While the sample size is small, the response trends have been stable throughout the survey process. Therefore, the results derived from this data are valuable for reference.

All bar and pie charts included in this report were automatically generated by Google Forms based on the collected responses.

Prior to the survey's formal release, two loyal HDX users were invited to participate in a trial run. They identified some grammatical errors, which were corrected. Corrected options may appear as additional choices in some charts, leading to charts with six or more options. This report has consolidated such duplicate entries.

------------------------------------------------

3.2 User Evaluation of the Product

Users are generally satisfied with Hydration, but there is still room for improvement. The detailed analysis of the survey results is as follows:

3.2.1 Satisfaction with Meeting DeFi Needs

Result Analysis:

The majority of respondents believe that Hydration basically meets their DeFi needs. Users who rated 4 and 5 accounted for 40% and 26.7%, respectively, totaling 66.7%, indicating a high level of recognition for Hydration's ability to meet comprehensive DeFi needs. Users who rated 3 accounted for 26.7%, reflecting a neutral attitude or slight dissatisfaction. Only 6.7% of users rated 1 or 2, representing a very small number of users dissatisfied with Hydration's performance.

Improvement Suggestions:

The team should investigate the specific needs and dissatisfaction points of neutral and low-rating users. Since everyone focuses on different aspects of DeFi, the survey should prioritize frequently mentioned functional modules for in-depth analysis and improvements. Introducing new DeFi features promptly could meet the ever-growing expectations of users.

------------------------------------------------

3.2.2 Product Usability

Result Analysis:

Users who rated 4 and 5 accounted for a total of 81.7% (40% and 41.7%, respectively), indicating that most users believe Hydration performs well in terms of usability. Notably, the 41.7% of users giving a 5 rating reflects that Hydration's operation experience and interface design have met most users' expectations. Users who rated 3 accounted for 16.7%, suggesting some room for improvement in usability. Only 1.7% of users gave a rating of 1, with no users selecting 2, highlighting that the vast majority of users hold a positive view of Hydration's usability.

Improvement Suggestions:

For users who rated 3, conducting follow-up interviews to understand their specific feedback on usability would be beneficial. Even though most users are satisfied, further simplifying operation processes and enhancing the smoothness of key functions could improve user satisfaction even more.

------------------------------------------------

3.2.3 New User Friendliness

Result Analysis:

The ratings are polarized, likely due to differences in individual DeFi experience. Nearly half of the users believe Hydration is friendly to new users (45% rated 4 or 5). 26.7% of users gave a neutral rating of 3, indicating some deficiencies in new user guidance. Nearly one-third of users believe Hydration is not friendly to new users (28.3% rated 1 or 2), with 23.7% specifically rating 2. This suggests certain functional modules may be challenging for new users, with critical steps needing optimization.

Improvement Suggestions:

Focus on users who rated 1 or 2 (and extend to neutral users) for targeted research to identify specific usage barriers. Optimize user pathways based on feedback to ensure operational logic is more accessible for new users. Since new users often have little familiarity with DEX operations and are influenced by CEX habits, prioritize research on high-frequency actions such as "deposit-cross-chain-trade-cross-chain-withdraw" and aim for "one-click operations" where possible. Adding multi-language UI versions could also significantly improve new user friendliness.

------------------------------------------------

3.2.4 User Preferences for Features

(This question received fewer than 60 responses because it was mistakenly set as optional.)

Result Analysis:

According to the results, the Swap & DCA functions are the most popular, with 38.3% of users stating this as their favorite feature. On the other hand, the staking feature received negative feedback, with 41.8% of users expressing a dislike for this functionality.

Improvement Suggestions:

The staking mechanism should be revisited, particularly the reward release mechanism after adding staking. Many users have complained about the reward curve resetting to the starting point after adding staking, which warrants serious investigation and improvement by the team. Can the release of rewards be calculated separately?

------------------------------------------------

3.2.5 Documentation Effectiveness

Result Analysis:

48.3% of users gave a neutral rating (3), while only 31.6% expressed satisfaction (ratings of 4 or 5). Meanwhile, 20% of users clearly expressed dissatisfaction (ratings of 1 or 2), indicating that the documentation's effectiveness is limited and requires significant optimization.

Improvement Suggestions:

For ordinary users, it is best to operate correctly without relying on documents. Many incorrect operations are also caused by language barriers or complex UI. It is recommended to provide multi-language versions of the UI to minimize the complexity of the UI interface and reduce users' dependence on documents. As for the document itself, it is recommended to provide multi-language versions. If there is an animated demonstration, that would be great!

------------------------------------------------

3.3 User Evaluation of the Team

3.3.1 Overall Work Effort

Result Analysis:

83.4% of users rated the team’s effort as 4 or 5. Only 10% of users gave a rating of 3, and 6.7% rated 1 or 2, indicating that the vast majority of users recognize the team's dedication and effort.

Improvement Suggestions:

Although most users are satisfied, some hold reservations about the team’s effort, possibly due to shortcomings in certain areas or higher user expectations. Strengthening the regular publication of Hydration’s monthly reports, hosting regular online Q&A or AMA sessions, and providing frequent updates to Hydration’s roadmap would help users stay informed about the team's work and progress.

------------------------------------------------

3.3.2 Responsiveness to Product Improvements

Result Analysis:

Over 60% of users rated the team’s responsiveness as 4 (31.7%) or 5 (30%), indicating general satisfaction. However, 33.3% of users rated 3, suggesting that some users find the responsiveness “average” and expect further improvement. Only 3 users gave ratings of 1 or 2, indicating that very few users believe the team’s responsiveness is slow.

Improvement Suggestions:

It is recommended to conduct a secondary survey for users who rated 3 to identify key improvement areas. The team should also pay attention to user demands for multi-language versions and prioritize improvements accordingly.

------------------------------------------------

3.3.3 Efforts to Increase Project Visibility

Result Analysis:

Mid-to-low ratings dominate: 36.7% of users gave a neutral rating, 25% gave a lower rating, and 16.7% gave very low ratings, with only 15% giving the highest score. This indicates that the team has made some progress in increasing project visibility but still has significant room for improvement.

Improvement Suggestions:

It is suggested to bring in talented marketing professionals to lead the formulation and implementation of visibility improvement strategies and conduct periodic evaluations.

------------------------------------------------

3.3.4 Users’ Greatest Expectations for the Team

(Marketing 58.3% + 1.7% = 60%)

Result Analysis:

Marketing is the primary concern: 60% of respondents expressed dissatisfaction with the team’s performance in marketing, indicating that this area falls short of user expectations.

Improvement Suggestions:

Strengthening marketing efforts is the community's biggest expectation. The current team structure can only sustain the project’s technical and community management needs. Therefore, it is recommended to hire skilled marketing professionals.

------------------------------------------------

3.4 Community Communication

3.4.1 Extent and Ability to Incorporate Community Feedback

Result Analysis:

The overall evaluation is positive but polarized. Users who rated 4 or 5 accounted for 50-55%, but neutral users accounted for the highest proportion (28.3-30%), and negative users (rating 1 or 2) made up 15-21.6%, indicating significant room for improvement in this area.

Improvement Suggestions:

Incorporating community feedback is an effective way to avoid missteps. For example, changes to the farm mining reward release mechanism caused a sharp drop in TVL, which was a significant product upgrade failure. Recommendations:

Fully solicit community opinions before making major changes.
Conduct broad public testing for every major upgrade to ensure wide participation.

------------------------------------------------

3.4.2 Willingness of Users to Propose Suggestions

(No 13.3% + 1.7% = 15%)

Result Analysis:

Overall, the community shows a low willingness to propose rational suggestions. A significant 55% of users selected “Maybe” (uncertain), while 30% expressed willingness to make proposals.

Improvement Suggestions:

To ensure protocol security, simplify the proposal submission process as much as possible, lowering technical and collateral barriers. Additionally, advice provide HDX rewards for high-quality proposals.

------------------------------------------------

3.4.3 User Trust in the Team

(No 58.3% + 1.7% = 60%)

Result Analysis:

The majority (60%) of the community does not believe the team manipulates proposal outcomes, but 30% of users are uncertain. Another 10% believe the team does manipulate outcomes.

Improvement Suggestions:

Investigate the reasons behind 40% of users expressing distrust in governance results. For community-initiated referendums, key team members should avoid making statements that could guide voting outcomes.

Building trust is crucial to project success. It is recommended that external-facing team members increase their exposure to establish personal influence. The official X (formerly Twitter) account should frequently share posts from local communities or key KOLs about Hydration to enhance the community's sense of belonging. Responses in the English community should use standard language and minimize self-created abbreviations/phrases. Due to cultural differences, casual jokes can be misunderstood as insults by non-native English speakers. Complaints about the English community's perceived arrogance or narcissism have been ongoing. It is hoped that in 2025, the team will make visible improvements in building trust.

------------------------------------------------

3.4.4 The Necessity of Centralized Communication

(Yes 80% + 1.7% = 81.7%)

The vast majority of users (81.7%) advocate for regular community Q&A sessions.

------------------------------------------------

3.5 User Concerns

3.5.1 What New Users Care About Most

(HDX price growth 45% + 1.7% = 46.7%)

Price increases are the most important factor for new users. It is suggested to use buyback and market-making strategies to maintain a certain level of price growth to attract new users’ attention.

------------------------------------------------

3.5.2 What New Users Worry About Most

(Strategic misderection, poor prospects 11.7% + 1.7% =13.4%)

Most new users (55%) are concerned about the lack of activity in the Polkadot ecosystem.

------------------------------------------------

3.5.3 Team Priorities for Improvement

(Strengthening marketing efforts 50% + 1.7% = 51.7%)

A total of 51.7% of users believe the team should prioritize marketing. The next priority is feature richness and improved user experience (30%).

------------------------------------------------

3.5.4 Suggestions to Improve Project Visibility

(Listing on more ... 36.7% + 1.7% = 38.4%)

38.4% of users believe listing on more DEXs/CEXs will improve project visibility. The next popular option is key event marketing (23.3%). Regarding the buyback strategy, users seem to favor “buyback + burn” slightly more than “buyback + distribute to stakers.” Additionally, 10% of users support market-making by the team, hoping it would boost HDX’s price to increase Hydration’s visibility.

3.5.5 Allocation of Marketing Resources

As many as 60% of users advocate allocating 10-20% of resources to marketing. A median value of 15% is recommended.

------------------------------------------------

3.5.6 Listing on Centralized Exchanges

(Binance and other ... 26.7% + 1.7% + 1.7% = 30% (18 users))

Result Analysis:

User opinions are highly divided:

30% support starting with smaller CEXs before advancing to top-tier CEXs.
30.1% believe the team should wait for top-tier CEXs to change their views.
21.7% favor high-investment strategies to directly list on top-tier CEXs.

Concerns:

13.3% worry about the financial burden of high investment.
5% feel the best opportunity for listing has already passed.

Overall, users lean towards a cautious development strategy, but some support direct high investment to secure long-term value.

Improvement Suggestions:

Phased Strategy: Start with smaller CEXs in the short term to build brand influence and create conditions for top-tier CEX listings in the medium to long term.
Optimized Fund Allocation: Provide cost-benefit analyses for listing on top-tier CEXs to reduce user concerns about high investment.
Flexible Strategy Adjustments: Dynamically plan based on market changes to ensure the development pace matches actual needs.

Regarding listing on CEX, we can listen to the voice of an investor from the non-Chinese community:

(Seeked the other party’s opinion, he agreed to make it public)

------------------------------------------------

4. Follow-up

This survey remains open for participation. If you are interested, you may continue to vote via this link: https://forms.gle/j6dfuGfG9VaaNvGH6.

We will periodically share updates on the survey results in the form of discussion threads on Hydration Subsqure or through special articles on our WeChat public account（水合网络）.

Hydration Chinese Community

Written by: @PDMCnode @xupanweb3

January 25, 2025

#227 Hydration User Survey Analysis Report（20250125）