Impression Mining

TL;DR Impression mining allows anyone to become a publisher brand / micro-influencer, paid by Index Coop


Index Coop sells product by engaging prospective customers and leading them down the acquisition funnel. In order to do so effectively, we attempt to distill our core values into messaging that resonates with our target customers—and then meet them where they congregate.

Despite the ability to effectively message our value–unless we have cost-effective, high-volume channels to acquire target customers–we will not grow.

Index Coop is limited in traditional large-volume paid channels such as Facebook, Google (Youtube), and Twitter advertising platforms. The GWG is testing niche, crypto-friendly paid channels (Coingecko, Brave Browser, Decrypt, etc) and at the newsletter level, however it Is unlikely these will effectively scale with the Coop’s needs. Because of this, Index Coop must lean heavily on the few channels that have potential for cost effective, high-volume acquisition.

Index Coop has seen its greatest success marketing at the social level, with organic Twitter marketing and with viral content—often leveraging a distribution partner such as Bankless. Announcing and trumpeting Index Coop and product achievements, use-cases, promotions, et al generates several hundred-thousand impressions per week across official and supplementary accounts. To date, these activities have produced astounding ROI as the costs are generally comprised solely of labor.

The motivation behind impression mining is to try and incentivize a widening of the number of accounts participating in Index Coop promotion. The aim is to determine if volume can scale without diluting cost-efficiency too much.

No cost // Small funnel (x00,000 Impressions/wk) → Small cost // Wide funnel (xx,000,000 Impressions/wk)


The program would seek to treat any and every account as if they were a certified Index Coop influencer/publisher, and to ascribe an open ended CPM (cost per 1000 impressions) for certain media types:

Social Impressions (e.g. Twitter) - $10 / 1k impressions

Editorial Content (e.g. Blog posts) - $25 / 1k reads

Video Content (e.g. Youtube, Twitter Video, Tik-Tok) - $50 / 1k views

EXAMPLE: @DCinvestor brings receipts from 11 tweets about IC or its products from March 2021 totaling 240k impressions; he is rewarded with $2.4k worth of INDEX.

Participants will simply snap a screenshot of their impression counts and submit to the portal for a monthly stipend (paid in $INDEX). Judging submissions is at the sole discretion of GWG. The reviewers reserve the right to cap a payment or deem an account ineligible for current or future rewards.

The program will not tolerate/reward:

  • Spamming followers
  • Paid impressions
  • General trickery
  • Inauthentic content
  • Misleading content
  • Saturation of themes


  • Unless you have built up an audience beforehand, consistent success with this program will not generally come swiftly.

  • Any Coop member receiving a pre-determined stipend by the Coop or on a vesting program is not eligible for rewards

  • Guidelines and workshops for effective posting/publishing and brand-building will be held and shared. In general, content should aim to be:

    • Shareable
    • Aesthetically pleasing
    • Distribution-minded
    • Uniquely Insightful (Use-Case, how-to, history, stat/metric, story, testimonial, infographic, video)

Next Steps:

  • Feedback on parameters
  • Kick off program internally
  • Content workshop
  • Post guidelines to Gitbook
  • Impressions Submission portal
  • External participants

Hey @LemonadeAlpha, I think this is an awesome idea.

Quick question, do you think we should be trying to link this to quantitative product outcomes like TVL, unit holders, etc.?

Basically, what I’m wondering is, let’s say there is a lot of engagement and we do pay for it. But if we are not seeing growth in TVL or unit holders, is it still worth paying for? And then also if we do see growth, can we attribute it in any way?

Would love to hear your thoughts.


This is an amazing strategy! I looking forward to seeing the results.

Just some considerations I wanted to highlight:

  1. How will you regulate this?

My suggestion would be to create parameters for each content type and also limit the amount of influencers per content channel.

  1. We should limit the amount of rewards an influencer can earn per month and create sub-budgets for each content channel. According to Proposing a Growth Working Group (Pt. II) we only have $20-$50K to spend on this strategy for about 3 months so about $6.6K-$16.6K per month.

  2. I also share @verto0912 concerns with how we can track correlation with impressions spend.

I believe this will provide a lot of valuable insight on how we should structure the Impressions Submission Portal.

1 Like

I like that this can help reach more people and introduce Index products.

My two thoughts are:

  1. that the next steps go well, they’ll be key.
  2. would the content need to flag that it is impression mining in any way? It seems close to sponsored content which platforms are very careful with marking, and social platforms have rules around. The mechanism may not fall within the definition but public perception of Coop related info could be affected. Done well, I don’t really see any trouble but does anyone have any further info or thoughts?

Great idea with one question re ability to implement. Seems this implies a pretty heavy editorial monitoring and approval process happening after the fact (as I’m not sure we can act as editor before people independently post on their Twitter account)

Would you propose scanning submitters content portfolio at month end before divvying out rewards @LemonadeAlpha ? Seems that’s about the only scalable way to do it - and even then it’s quite manual.

Other than that, I guess we use our BD CRM to reach out to influencers on Twitter who’d be interested in using such a program.

1 Like

I think at this stage we’d need to be focused on impressions until we’ve built out that level of tracking infrastructure @verto0912.

Hopefully we can get that built out soon, to enable this sort of tracking and the referral program too.

1 Like

Hmm. I know that DC likes the Coop for sure. But one of his last post about index was missing his critical thoughts he always has even on very good things. But I hadn’t any deeper thoughts on it because because he was absolutely right about the coop. So. Okay.
But in my opinion something like this should be flagged. Maybe I see it a little bit differently because laws over here in Germany are more strict.
And for a practical critique, maybe this has to go a step further. More direct into dark social. Like Adidas is doing it now for years. Keep in mind, most trusted information are still provided via private communication.

1 Like

Thanks Verto this is a great point and something I’m thinking deeply about.

Programs like your Zerion proposal and the og referral program are awesome because they allow for directly attributable, contingency-based sales to be rewarded. The problem with them comes down to scaling, given participant preference and the trouble of absolute attribution.

My hypothesis is the pool for people who want to participate in a program that only pays if there is an attributable sale is much smaller because direct attribution is not fully inclusive (If I see your ad and find my way to DPI somewhere other than your link, no reward) and because the aesthetics of promoting a referral link are suboptimal relative to the flexibility of posting in a purely promotional manner.

The other problem is, iiuc, we can only attribute purchases that come through one of our known venues ( / TokenSets) and the vast majority of trading activity happens on Uniswap’s UI.

Like advertising before attribution-tech, we’re going to have to blindly trust our funnel to some extent. At a high level, we know that if we find our target audience and relay targetted messaging, there is a way to find DPI/TTI/MVI etc (Uni, Sushi, aggregators) and to buy it (is liquid).

This program seeks to trust that the funnel is sufficiently optimized (but of course can get better) and that if we can feed more input into the top, it should trickle down. Of course, we must monitor this to see if effective. If we see a huge increase in impressions, but that is translating to anemic growth, we’ll need to do further analysis. Effectively, if we open up this program to 8-digit impressions weekly, I’d expect to see tangible uAUM/uSupply growth relative to before the program.

@Mringz and @DevOnDeFi Hear you guys on the regulation front. That is the piece that gives me the most anxiety. Ultimately, my hope is that decisions will be common sense. Would be open to hearing any thoughts on how to harden this.

Devon you are correct in identifying this as manual and after the fact. Ideally this is a day for me and/or someone else to go through and make judgements.

On limits, I think it could make sense to limit in the short run but the goal is that this program can scale pretty widely. One thing I forgot to mention which would be communicated on the public memo would be a minimum amount of impressions for eligibility (e.g. 1k per submitted post & 50k per month).

@mrvls_brkfst I think we could figure out a way to flag it, but the goal would be to try and balance the idea that we do this to support those who might organically or with a light push be willing to promote something they already like and/or use AND that it is paid. The consideration being, we want the participants to feel organic and not feel like they’re paid shills, and we want the audiences to feel that sentiment to. Identifying ways to tease this out is important and ongoing.

1 Like

Great post and I am excited for this program! Couple questions:

  • How will we handle threads? For example, I’ve had success with threads in the past, but impressions vary on each of the individual tweets. Would threads be analyzed based solely on the top tweet’s impressions or would each tweet be eligible?

  • Could you provide some guidance on what you mean by saturation of themes?

1 Like

Thank you!

How will we handle threads?

  • Each tweet in a thread would be eligible (and would count towards one single minimum of 1k impressions)

Could you provide some guidance on what you mean by saturation of themes?

I wish I had a better example but honestly I haven’t seen it too much and just getting ahead of it. This would mean that if certain data points were becoming exhausted (purely subjective), we’d want to taper down on them.

Something I’ve been thinking about which is potentially better than just a warning is that we could apply multipliers for certain content (e.g. for April MVI gets +20% impression multiplier, or for May TTI gets -10% multiplier)


Thanks @LemonadeAlpha agree with you. I think at $20-$50k for this program, the budget is low enough for us to experiment with. Then analyse & iterate :+1:


Absolutely! A tight-rope worth crossing.


Really excited to see this experiment play out! Let me know if there is anything I can do do help

1 Like

This is great. I think we can worry about content issues as they come up, no reason to make perfect the enemy of the good here


Great concept. Excited for this to move forward.

1 Like

One of the rare but absolutely game changing ideas if it works. True innovation here!


Great Idea. I am on board! Time to write some blog posts. :slight_smile:

1 Like

lolol… just found this 1 funny :speak_no_evil: