Web 3.0 Deep-Dive: The Problem with Questing Platforms

Web 3.0 projects continue to spawn, and the fight for users’ attention and engagement is fierce. Questing platforms have become a common tool to garner this attention, promising community growth and boosted metrics… for cheap.

The offer is simple: reward early participation in your project with tokens and NFTs. Participation is just a matter of connecting a wallet, following the project’s Twitter account, joining the Discord server, and perhaps even testing a transaction. These are all free for the user, but the time taken to do it boosts the project’s metrics. But, is this real engagement, and might there be a hidden cost to questing?

In this article, we’ll answer your FAQs in full, including:

• Understanding the quest platform ecosystem

• The rampant illusion of engagement

• The business costs of fake engagement

• Why standard quest design often fuels the problem

• Focusing on mitigation

• Looking beyond the numbers

Let’s start from the top. 

Understanding the quest platform ecosystem

The Web 3.0 questing platforms are pretty much just gamified marketing tools. They’re designed to incentivise specific user actions to give the project some legs. For example, attract investors or get the ball rolling on social media in building a community.

Businesses flock to platforms like Zealy Galxe and QuestN because of the perception that it’s a path to quick visibility. But of course, nothing in life is free. These platforms tap into the basic human desire for rewards and achievement, which somewhat aligns conceptually with Web 3.0's community-centric ethos (at least in the eyes of some). Users complete tasks to earn points and climb leaderboards. In the end, they hope to receive digital assets that may be worth something one day.

The rampant illusion of engagement

The fundamental flaw here is the pervasive presence of bots and quest farmers. These aren't genuine potential users, they’re automated scripts designed to complete tasks en masse. Quest farmers might be individuals, or more likely organised groups, who exploit numerous campaigns across different projects solely to accumulate rewards. Therefore, this engagement is fake, and the community building is a mirage. Once the rewards die down, so will the attention, because there is no loyalty, either.

This happens so frequently because of a lack of robust user verification systems on many popular questing platforms (this is perhaps intentional negligence, because they also benefit from inflated metrics). Basic CAPTCHAS or simple wallet connections often prove insufficient deterrents against sophisticated actors, particularly with the rise of AI and computer vision. 

In theory, Know Your Customer procedures should prevent single users from creating multiple fake identities, but these are often absent or poorly implemented in Web 3.0, where anonymity and privacy are highly valued.

The result is a dangerous reliance on vanity metrics. Follower counts and task completion rates soar, creating a misleading picture of success. These numbers look impressive on reports, but they rarely translate into meaningful engagement or actual product adoption. And, although this may have once created a “fake it ‘till you make it” snowball effect, this is increasingly the case as investors and real enthusiasts can now spot it a mile off.

The business costs of fake engagement

The illusion created by quest platforms can cause some problems for projects. First and foremost is the muddy picture it’s painting for the marketing team, who may be misled into overestimating the return they’re getting on their efforts. Instead of going after long-lasting community building, they’re getting more fleeting results. And this has a direct cost, as well as an opportunity cost.

What’s also a concern is that, because investors and enthusiasts are more aware than ever of quest farming, they’re going to be naturally sceptical and distrust any claims you’re making. This can deter investment and erode credibility among partners and users. For many, it may be a red flag that they’re determined to avoid at all costs.

Why standard quest design often fuels the problem

The very design of many standard quest campaigns inherently contributes to the fake engagement problem. The issue is that the tasks themselves tend to be incredibly basic and, therefore, easy to automate. "Follow us on X" and "Like this post" require minimal effort to create bots for. Of course, if your quests are uniquely bespoke, this level of effort could recoup some trust among partners (the ones that don’t simply rule questing out as a red flag). However, the more bespoke and curated the questing, the more effort and investment required from your end, and this defeats the main attraction to questing, which is easy “engagement”.

The focus on low-value tasks is directly linked to misaligned incentives. Even without the bots, the easier the task is, the more it attracts participants who simply want NFTs or points for little effort. In other words, you get out what you put in. If you want to avoid a mercenary user base, you’re going to have to focus on community-building principles, and much of this doesn’t revolve around questing. 

Focusing on mitigation

We’ve touched on how questing isn’t always bad when done in a certain way. So, if you’re going down this route, the key will be in your due diligence in selecting quest platforms. Of course, don’t accept their marketing claims at face value; always dig deeper and look at the specific verification methods used.

Do they have robust KYC? Check reviews to be sure.

Can the proof of humanity be easily bypassed?

And how lazily can the tasks be ticked off?

Look for tools that focus on interaction quality, not quantity. Rewarding real engagement can be done, but it needs to strike a balance. You don’t want your entire user base to only be there for the rewards, even if they’re real people. It may be forgiven at first, but a balance is needed, and perhaps a slow transition towards involving users deeply in the project once you have their attention. So, while it could be a useful tool, it’s a means to an end, not the end itself.

Example tasks might include thoughtful product feedback, unique content creation or perhaps meaningful on-chain actions that are relevant to your project. Consider tiered rewards, too, which encourage deeper and more sustained involvement.

Ultimately, we should try to integrate these activities into a long-term community strategy that is not just isolated promotional bursts. Prioritise getting the attention of the right kind of users, then work with them to become loyal, which means not solely relying on rewards.

Looking beyond the numbers

Quest platforms do offer a tantalising shortcut to Web 3.0 growth, but businesses must recognise that shallow engagement isn’t just deceiving; it can be an existential threat to the entire project’s credibility. 

Used sparingly and carefully, curated tasks can help drive a baseline of sustained engagement, but additional efforts of community building are needed alongside them. 

For help with FCA-approved promotions, please get in touch with our experts at Englebert.