I truly appreciate your response, it’s quite short but as detailed as it can get.
Then again, I see your approach is based off of common concerns and strategic alignment and that quite makes a lot of sense. I’ve quite a few questions moving forward;
Given that polls can provide valuable insight, how will you encourage broad participation in them? Will you offer incentives for users to engage in the polling process, or do you plan to rely on organic participation?
Interesting suggestions within your questions…
While organic participation may yield the least quantitative results on this forum, the quality could be a bit more accurate. For instance, if we were to provide incentives to engage in polls, how would we be sure the chosen poll answers aren’t arbitrary where the focus was really just to gain the incentives? the results could be skewed. However, it could be a hybrid of the two, where some polls we could choose 1-2 respondents to reward for participation, after the fact but not specifically mentioned there will be such beforehand for every poll. Either way this kind of stuff will be taken into consideration. 
Thank you for your responding, I do not really know what ancillary systems is that you are talking about and I am not shamed to ask, is it crypto term, thank you
No worries. Its not a crypto term. Its another way of saying, (“support” or “additional” -systems for alerts etc…)
We are really learning everyday, thank you for making it clear for me
It’s great that you’re thinking through the balance between incentivizing participation and maintaining the integrity of the poll results. And also, incentives can be a powerful tool for engagement, but as you pointed out, they can sometimes lead to less thoughtful responses if users are primarily focused on rewards. I’ve a few questions moving forward;
How do you plan to assess whether the poll results are providing genuinely helpful insights? Would you look for patterns like consistency with previous feedback, or perhaps conduct follow-up polls to confirm certain conclusions?
@manfred_jr We can simply post polls occasionally and gauge feedback from there without overthinking it beforehand…
///
Based on the docs link above, MintDeals plans to have a set fee for the creation of clubs. Should we charge a fair fee (USDT/USDD) for club creation?
A portion of this fee is planned to be used to increase the Credit Facility’s borrowing capacity with the rest going towards ongoing platform growth and development. What would you suggest as a suitable split ratio:
Please let us know your thoughts and any suggestions you may have on this.
Thanks for the feedback and support! 
the earning part drives more people to projects
Glad you grabbed the matters, people go where there is some 
to suck
Hmm 
on a second thought, while the method you’re using is efficient, I see some areas where you could improve engagement and ensure the feedback you receive is actionable and aligned with your strategic goals.
I think you should consider the option of a tiered club creation fee structure. For instance, clubs with higher membership limits or premium features could have a higher fee, while smaller or basic clubs might have a lower entry fee, this could cater to different types of users and businesses.
100% let it be a motivating factor
Appreciating the feedback thus far!
It’s true, the ability to earn drives more people to projects sometimes- I’d also include that the ability to save and/or gain non-earnable benefits could also be compelling factors.
The tiered club fee structure is an interesting option. Currently, there’s only one club type - one-time payment clubs. Later on, it could be possible to support a new club type such as subscription based payment clubs - via a new contract to support such mechanics with a % based fee. This can be a feature post hackathon.
Great to hear that you’re considering expanding the platform’s features with options like a subscription-based payment structure. I have some thoughts and questions on how you might approach this, the thoughts can wait for later.
For subscription-based clubs, a percentage-based fee makes sense, have you considered making this fee dynamic based on factors like club size, transaction volume, or the types of deals offered?
Thanks for the suggestion! While we’re currently leaning towards a simple percentage-based fee, we’re open to exploring dynamic fees. However, it’s important to note that adding computational complexity to the contract to support dynamic fees could significantly increase on-chain transaction costs.
For example, take Sunswap—while their smart router for token swaps introduces more complexity, it now costs around $25 worth of TRX per transaction. What happens when the price of TRX increases in the future?
The simple percentage-based fee ensures that club owners contribute to the shared credit facility without incurring steep costs, where every club owner benefits. This approach also keeps interaction costs lower for smaller clubs and their members, ensuring wider accessibility.
In a traditional, non-blockchain-based system, dynamic fees may be more feasible, but in blockchain environments, we must weigh these factors carefully.
We’ll keep it in mind though as there are some pathways we can introduce dynamism on offchain elements but requires further thought.
This is undisputably correct to say the least, you’re absolutely right that computational complexity can significantly increase on-chain transaction costs, especially in a blockchain environment like TRON. And also, it’s wise to consider the trade-offs between adding more features and maintaining cost efficiency, with this in mind, I have some additional thoughts and questions that may help guide your decision-making process. The thoughts can wait for lady as the questions comes first;
You mentioned the potential for introducing dynamism off-chain. Could you elaborate on how you might implement these off-chain elements?
Right now, our focus is on delivering a simple, user-friendly MVP. We want to ensure it’s easy for businesses to get started and see value quickly.
For the future, there are some high level paths for adding more value, where your suggestion of dynamic fees could maybe be used, but we want to base these on real usage and needs feedback:
Our goal is to refine things based on what users find most valuable, while keeping things simple and relevant.
Quite frankly, your approach to focusing on simplicity while delivering value in the MVP phase makes a lot of sense, especially since user feedback will help guide more advanced features down the line.
Have you considered segmenting your users early on to identify different types of club owners or businesses
Yes, refer to our slide deck in OP above:
This can be focused down into these segments:
Small Businesses: Local shops, restaurants, cafes, or niche services looking for innovative ways to enhance customer loyalty and cash flow.
Targeted Benefits: Easy onboarding, single club with deals and simplified credit access.
Medium-Sized Enterprises: Businesses with established customer bases seeking to offer larger, more customized deals.
Targeted Benefits: Multiple clubs for tiered customer deals/rewards and enabling higher credit limits.
Entrepreneurs & Innovators: Those who see clubs as an opportunity to create communities or special membership programs.
Targeted Benefits: Flexibility in deal creation, and innovative ways to engage with users, creative ways to build credit access.
Oh wow, I see! Each segment would likely benefit from distinct tools and support, which can guide your feature development over time. But have you considered tailoring the onboarding experience for each segment? For example, a small local café might benefit from a simple, guided setup, while medium-sized enterprises could be offered more detailed customization options. Entrepreneurs might require more flexibility from the start. Would segmented onboarding paths make sense for your platform?
Yes it would, but for the purpose of the hackathon and being in integration track, we likely won’t be segmenting the UI/UX in this way for now, there’s other facets we need to prioritize towards before the deadline. For instance, the credit access capabilities that integrates with JustLend.
