They can compete with Lichess or Chess.com; they should have something that these two popular chess platforms don't.
They can compete if, like you said there (they are committed with their roadmap). The other two brands there looks like they are non-crypto. So, the project we have here, do literally has the advantage on this regard. I'm not sure if the two also has the ability for us to earn something but we know most crypto projects, this is where their business model at.
Both of you are converging on the same point from different angles, and it's the right one. Direct competition with Lichess on the chess product alone is a losing pitch - they've had ten years and millions of users to compound that lead. The actual competitive position is exactly what you're both describing: there's a category of platforms where the player is a user (Lichess, Chess.com - non-crypto, ad-supported, subscription-supported), and we're trying to build a category where the player is a stakeholder. The two categories aren't really competing for the same outcome - we're not trying to make Lichess users switch, we're trying to make a chess platform that has a layer Lichess can't structurally have.
henmark's read on this is exact: the earning capability isn't a marketing gimmick, it's the structural difference. Lichess can't add it without changing what they are (a free, open-source, donation-funded project). Chess.com could, in theory, but their business model is built on the opposite flow - extracting value through ads and subscriptions, not distributing value to players. The architecture of how they make money would have to change fundamentally, which is unlikely.
Many new project have done that. It is like, this is the only thing they can do, for them to get noticed because they are weak on other aspect. It is effective no doubt. It is just that one may need a higher capital at first to be able to do that. If they don't have it or are still scared to fail, then they can go on a much organic route. This also gives a better impression if pulled well.
This is a better strategic frame than the one I gave in my previous reply. I was treating Binance as a milestone to build toward, but you're right that the "buy your way onto a tier-1 exchange" path is what projects do when the product alone isn't enough to drive listing interest. The version where the product is real, the on-chain activity is real, and the holder base is real - that path means the listings come because exchanges want the volume, not because we paid for the slot. That's slower, but the "better impression if pulled well" is correct - a project that lists because it earned the right tells a different story than one that lists because it bought a marketing campaign.
Realistically, the path is probably hybrid: build organically to a point where there's something demonstrably worth listing (volume, holders, real chess activity), then approach tier-2 CEXs (MEXC, Gate, BitMart range) on the strength of those metrics rather than on the strength of a check. Tier-1 comes later, if at all - and only when the project's existence on that exchange would be obviously valuable for the exchange, not just for us. Going to Binance directly as the opening move would be exactly the "scared to fail, so spend money to look successful" pattern you're describing.
Thank you both - this is the kind of strategic input that actually shapes how the project gets positioned, not just how it gets marketed.
Daniel
