Answering
The missing piece, in my view, is economic viability—who are we building this for, what value does it deliver?
We are building this for Status, to remove the risk of running own infrastructure.
It deliver the ability for a project like Status to only be a software provider, not an infrastructure one.
Shall we start with identifying potential consumers of such a marketplace?
Currently, Status is.
If a service provider can get 5–10% APY passively (in TradFi or DeFi), what kind of services justify forgoing that?
Running some modelling sounds good to understand what kind of numbers we are looking for a service provider, based on usage, numbers of users, etc.
Could we convince a DeFi protocol that avoiding centralized dependencies (e.g. WalletConnect) is worth it in terms of capital costs and switching costs to a decentralized marketplace instead?
We are not at a stage to try to convince projects that are contented with central infra to move.
The USP is no-infra. Logos/Status is not satisfied with centralized infra. It is our mandate to move them away from it.
A clearer picture of our target users and their needs.
Status app, application built with Waku Chat SDK need to be able to run without hosting any infra.
A sense of what trade-offs are acceptable and how strict our security model is.
do you have a A/B choice you can offer? you cannot expect users to tell you what trade-off they can accept if you don’t know the trade-offs yourselfs.
What are trade-offs are you explicitly referring to?
And ideally, some research on similar efforts—what’s been tried, what worked, what didn’t.