The customer acquisition cost of a single Wallet is closely related to market cycle, geographical region, and the effectiveness of marketing activities.
Author: Asaf Nadler, Chief Operating Officer of Addressable
Compiled by: Luffy, Foresight News
About a month ago, I published an article about the 'Cost Per Wallet' (CPW) growth quantification metric specific to the Web3 domain, which measures the cost of acquiring website visitors who have installed a Wallet on their browser.
This article has generated an extremely enthusiastic response. Marketers, advertising agencies, and project founders have joined the discussion one after another, sharing their thoughts, challenges encountered, and key data points. One thing is very clear: CPW has touched a nerve for everyone. Among the numerous private messages and replies, one question stands out:
"Tell me about the cost, what is the situation on a specific time, specific region, and specific platform? Will success change the way costs are calculated?"
This article will answer this question with detailed data. I analyzed more than 200 programmatic advertising campaigns launched by over 70 advertisers on the Addressable platform in 2024. These campaigns targeted over 1.5 million users worldwide, aiming to study CPW in different market cycles, regions, campaign executions, and segmented audiences.
2024 CPW Trends: How Does Market Cycle Affect Costs?
Bull and Bear Cycle: In 2024, two completely different market cycles were experienced. At the beginning of the year, the market showed strength, with the first quarter in a bull market, and the total market value of cryptocurrencies increased by 21% compared to the previous period, reaching $17 trillion. However, this momentum reversed in the second quarter, with a 12% decrease compared to the previous period, and the situation further deteriorated in the third quarter with a 27% decrease. However, in the fourth quarter, the market rebounded strongly, with a 109% increase compared to the previous period, entering another bull market phase. These market changes naturally affected CPW, but the impact was not uniform.
CPW fluctuations in different market cycles reveal not only the expected pattern of low cost in bull markets and high cost in bear markets. It also highlights the sensitivity of different regions to market fluctuations, the importance of timing, and the strategic advantages of targeting markets with strong resilience to declines.
Developed Markets: Developed markets such as the United States and Western Europe often provide more predictable CPW in bull markets, but the elasticity is also significant. In the first quarter, the CPW in the United States remained at the level of $5.87, but with the shift in market sentiment in the third quarter, costs soared nearly fourfold to reach $22.81. Western Europe shows a similar pattern, with even more dramatic fluctuations, soaring from $1.18 to $32.79. Although these markets can offer scale and quality during bull markets, when market sentiment turns bearish, costs will increase significantly, reducing their sustainability during market downturns.
Emerging markets: present different risk-return profiles. Under favorable conditions, their Wallet is extremely low, but cost fluctuations may be extremely volatile. For example, the CPW in the Latin American region was as low as nearly free at $0.56 in the first quarter, but by the third quarter, costs soared 60 times to $34.38, reflecting sudden liquidity constraints and demand changes in the region. The increase in the Eastern European region is even more astonishing, with CPW skyrocketing 99 times from $0.21 to $20.79, indicating that costs may rise sharply when market conditions deteriorate.
Southeast Asia: The most stable performance in various market cycles, CPW fluctuates within 5 times, from $3.73 in the first quarter to $16.61 in the third quarter. This stability indicates that local market factors, curve adoption, or advertiser demand may create a more predictable environment, making it a highly attractive region for brands that wish to maintain cost stability under different macro conditions, especially for projects that aim to test product usage without being affected by market cycles.
The key point is that the market cycle not only affects CPW, but also determines when and where attracting Wallet holders is feasible. Although developed regions are quite efficient in bull markets, they are costly in bear markets. Emerging markets have extremely low costs, but come with great volatility. Southeast Asia, with its relative stability, may have the best long-term potential for brands looking to reduce risks across different market cycles.
The CPW of the Best and Worst Performing Marketing Campaigns
Market cycles are not the only factor. The best performing marketing activities always maintain a relatively low CPW, even in a market downturn. In fact, the top 25% performing marketing activities, even in a bear market cycle, have a customer acquisition cost of only $6 to $8 per Wallet, which is amazing. Meanwhile, the poorly performing marketing activities have CPWs ranging from $4.68 to $44.79.
This performance gap can be attributed to Product-Market Fit (PMF), community strength, market heat, incentive measures, and creative execution. Marketing activities that are well-aligned with the audience, with optimized promotional messages, can maintain affordable CPW regardless of market conditions.
For those trapped in high CPW marketing campaigns, switching to low-cost areas is not the only solution. Optimizing target audience positioning, promotional messages, incentive measures, and creative strategies can all improve efficiency, keeping CPW stable in any market.
CPW segmented by audience
The cost-effectiveness of decentralized finance (DeFi)/ centralized finance (CeFi) marketing campaigns is the highest, with a median CPW of $2.79 and a lower quartile of only $0.10. L1/L2 projects closely follow, with a median CPW of $3.23, reflecting their higher adoption rates.
The highest cost of gaming and gambling marketing activities, with a median CPW of $8.74 and a lower quartile of $3.40, may be due to high user churn rates, frequent speculative behavior, and intense competition. If Web3 games are truly 'unstoppable', we need to find a more powerful user acquisition engine to make it sustainable like Web2 games.
Conclusion: Using CPW as a Web3 Growth Framework
CPW is not only determined by market cycles, but also affected by the effectiveness of marketing campaign execution. The top 25% performing marketing campaigns can maintain CPW between $6 and $8 throughout the year, even during market downturns, while the CPW of underperforming marketing campaigns fluctuates significantly from $4.68 to $44.79. This proves that market conditions are not an excuse. Marketing teams that track data, optimize target audience positioning, refine promotional messages, and incentive measures can outperform market cycles; regardless of macro trends, they can maintain cost-effectiveness.
This also prompts us to change our strategy when launching products. Targeting large investors in the United States during a bear market is an extremely costly gamble, and CPW will reach unsustainable levels. On the contrary, starting from regions like Southeast Asia, which are more stable and cost-effective, can allow the brand to optimize its product-market fit before expanding into developed markets. Teams that do not adopt this strategy may exhaust their budget prematurely before proving market demand and optimizing conversion rates.
Finally, these data from advertising-driven marketing campaigns challenge the notion that Web3 advertising is 'impossible'. In fact, these results indicate that advertising-driven Web3 growth is measurable and scalable, rather than a dead end.
View Original
The content is for reference only, not a solicitation or offer. No investment, tax, or legal advice provided. See Disclaimer for more risks disclosure.
Decryption of encryption products: How 'precious' are encryption users in terms of customer acquisition cost?
Author: Asaf Nadler, Chief Operating Officer of Addressable
Compiled by: Luffy, Foresight News
About a month ago, I published an article about the 'Cost Per Wallet' (CPW) growth quantification metric specific to the Web3 domain, which measures the cost of acquiring website visitors who have installed a Wallet on their browser.
This article has generated an extremely enthusiastic response. Marketers, advertising agencies, and project founders have joined the discussion one after another, sharing their thoughts, challenges encountered, and key data points. One thing is very clear: CPW has touched a nerve for everyone. Among the numerous private messages and replies, one question stands out:
"Tell me about the cost, what is the situation on a specific time, specific region, and specific platform? Will success change the way costs are calculated?"
This article will answer this question with detailed data. I analyzed more than 200 programmatic advertising campaigns launched by over 70 advertisers on the Addressable platform in 2024. These campaigns targeted over 1.5 million users worldwide, aiming to study CPW in different market cycles, regions, campaign executions, and segmented audiences.
2024 CPW Trends: How Does Market Cycle Affect Costs?
Bull and Bear Cycle: In 2024, two completely different market cycles were experienced. At the beginning of the year, the market showed strength, with the first quarter in a bull market, and the total market value of cryptocurrencies increased by 21% compared to the previous period, reaching $17 trillion. However, this momentum reversed in the second quarter, with a 12% decrease compared to the previous period, and the situation further deteriorated in the third quarter with a 27% decrease. However, in the fourth quarter, the market rebounded strongly, with a 109% increase compared to the previous period, entering another bull market phase. These market changes naturally affected CPW, but the impact was not uniform.
CPW fluctuations in different market cycles reveal not only the expected pattern of low cost in bull markets and high cost in bear markets. It also highlights the sensitivity of different regions to market fluctuations, the importance of timing, and the strategic advantages of targeting markets with strong resilience to declines.
Developed Markets: Developed markets such as the United States and Western Europe often provide more predictable CPW in bull markets, but the elasticity is also significant. In the first quarter, the CPW in the United States remained at the level of $5.87, but with the shift in market sentiment in the third quarter, costs soared nearly fourfold to reach $22.81. Western Europe shows a similar pattern, with even more dramatic fluctuations, soaring from $1.18 to $32.79. Although these markets can offer scale and quality during bull markets, when market sentiment turns bearish, costs will increase significantly, reducing their sustainability during market downturns.
Emerging markets: present different risk-return profiles. Under favorable conditions, their Wallet is extremely low, but cost fluctuations may be extremely volatile. For example, the CPW in the Latin American region was as low as nearly free at $0.56 in the first quarter, but by the third quarter, costs soared 60 times to $34.38, reflecting sudden liquidity constraints and demand changes in the region. The increase in the Eastern European region is even more astonishing, with CPW skyrocketing 99 times from $0.21 to $20.79, indicating that costs may rise sharply when market conditions deteriorate.
Southeast Asia: The most stable performance in various market cycles, CPW fluctuates within 5 times, from $3.73 in the first quarter to $16.61 in the third quarter. This stability indicates that local market factors, curve adoption, or advertiser demand may create a more predictable environment, making it a highly attractive region for brands that wish to maintain cost stability under different macro conditions, especially for projects that aim to test product usage without being affected by market cycles.
The key point is that the market cycle not only affects CPW, but also determines when and where attracting Wallet holders is feasible. Although developed regions are quite efficient in bull markets, they are costly in bear markets. Emerging markets have extremely low costs, but come with great volatility. Southeast Asia, with its relative stability, may have the best long-term potential for brands looking to reduce risks across different market cycles.
The CPW of the Best and Worst Performing Marketing Campaigns
Market cycles are not the only factor. The best performing marketing activities always maintain a relatively low CPW, even in a market downturn. In fact, the top 25% performing marketing activities, even in a bear market cycle, have a customer acquisition cost of only $6 to $8 per Wallet, which is amazing. Meanwhile, the poorly performing marketing activities have CPWs ranging from $4.68 to $44.79.
This performance gap can be attributed to Product-Market Fit (PMF), community strength, market heat, incentive measures, and creative execution. Marketing activities that are well-aligned with the audience, with optimized promotional messages, can maintain affordable CPW regardless of market conditions.
For those trapped in high CPW marketing campaigns, switching to low-cost areas is not the only solution. Optimizing target audience positioning, promotional messages, incentive measures, and creative strategies can all improve efficiency, keeping CPW stable in any market.
CPW segmented by audience
The cost-effectiveness of decentralized finance (DeFi)/ centralized finance (CeFi) marketing campaigns is the highest, with a median CPW of $2.79 and a lower quartile of only $0.10. L1/L2 projects closely follow, with a median CPW of $3.23, reflecting their higher adoption rates.
The highest cost of gaming and gambling marketing activities, with a median CPW of $8.74 and a lower quartile of $3.40, may be due to high user churn rates, frequent speculative behavior, and intense competition. If Web3 games are truly 'unstoppable', we need to find a more powerful user acquisition engine to make it sustainable like Web2 games.
Conclusion: Using CPW as a Web3 Growth Framework
CPW is not only determined by market cycles, but also affected by the effectiveness of marketing campaign execution. The top 25% performing marketing campaigns can maintain CPW between $6 and $8 throughout the year, even during market downturns, while the CPW of underperforming marketing campaigns fluctuates significantly from $4.68 to $44.79. This proves that market conditions are not an excuse. Marketing teams that track data, optimize target audience positioning, refine promotional messages, and incentive measures can outperform market cycles; regardless of macro trends, they can maintain cost-effectiveness.
This also prompts us to change our strategy when launching products. Targeting large investors in the United States during a bear market is an extremely costly gamble, and CPW will reach unsustainable levels. On the contrary, starting from regions like Southeast Asia, which are more stable and cost-effective, can allow the brand to optimize its product-market fit before expanding into developed markets. Teams that do not adopt this strategy may exhaust their budget prematurely before proving market demand and optimizing conversion rates.
Finally, these data from advertising-driven marketing campaigns challenge the notion that Web3 advertising is 'impossible'. In fact, these results indicate that advertising-driven Web3 growth is measurable and scalable, rather than a dead end.