Four levels of progression
Paid badges marked progression through the program. Wallet-based eligibility and separate holding checks connected the levels to recorded on-chain participation.
Customer story · Web3 / iGaming
3,300 members made an on-chain commitment
An iGaming operator co-designed a badge season with Claimr to turn sign-ups into visible participation. Campaign records show around 3,300 participants completing nominal-fee mint tasks, with 43% completing at least three different paid-mint tasks.
The program at a glance
A small commitment at every step
- Mint the entry badge
Start progression with a nominal on-chain fee
- Unlock the next level
Complete quests and meet the wallet-score requirement
- Invite others to take part
Earn referral credit when an invitee mints
Reported campaign outcomes
Participation that went beyond sign-up
About 12,200 participant accounts joined and 8,200 completed a task. Mint figures are recorded completions of nominal-fee tasks, not independently audited payments, gambling deposits or wagering value.
- Participants completing paid-mint tasks
- ~3,300
Participants who completed at least one nominal-fee badge or cross-season NFT mint.
- Paid-mint task completions
- ~9,700
Completed badge and cross-season NFT mint tasks, about three per minting member.
- Minted three or more
- 43%
Share of paid-mint participants who completed at least three different paid mint tasks.
- Active participants minted
- 40%
Share of participants with a completed task who made at least one paid mint.
- Credited referrals
- ~2,750
Referral credits recorded by the program, which required the invitee to mint the entry badge.
- Active on 15+ days
- ~1,200
Participants with completed-task activity on at least fifteen distinct UTC calendar days.
Anonymous iGaming operator · Ten-week badge season and later recorded activity
The challenge
Find the participants willing to take the next step
The operator wanted to understand which sign-ups would become active community members. A points total alone gave limited context about a participant’s on-chain experience or willingness to continue through the program.
Claimr’s role
Make participation visible on-chain
Claimr co-designed the season and connected custom badge-mint, wallet-score and cross-season identity tasks through its quest engine. The operator could connect those actions to progression, point multipliers and referral eligibility in one program.
The Claimr setup
A badge ladder with reasons to keep going
A nominal mint fee made each step an explicit action. Wallet scoring, referrals and recurring activities connected those steps across the season.
Wallet scores with a role to play
Wallet scores informed eligibility for later progression. The operator could use this context alongside completed tasks and referrals in one participant journey.
Referrals tied to a mint
The invitee had to mint the entry badge before the referrer received credit. Milestones and a separate referral leaderboard recognized continued contribution.
A reason to return
Daily check-ins and recurring community activities gave participants next steps alongside the badge journey.
An identity for the next season
A separate cross-season NFT let participants carry their status forward. About 1,000 participants completed that mint.
From entry badge to continued participation
Nearly half of entry-badge holders reached level two
About 40% of task-active participants completed a paid-mint task. Of the roughly 3,300 entry-badge holders, 49% reached level two and 15% reached the fourth level. Every higher-level holder had also completed the entry mint.
Minted three or more
Share of paid-mint participants who completed at least three different paid mint tasks.
Cross-season identity mints
Participants who minted an NFT designed to carry their status into the next season.
The ~9,700 total includes optional badge mints and the identity NFT as well as the four-level ladder. Mint figures are recorded task completions; payments were not independently audited on-chain and are not presented as revenue.
Wallet context
Wallet history was associated with deeper participation
Among active participants with a matched wallet, 57% of the 100+ transaction group minted the entry badge, compared with 7% of the no-history group. The ratio between those mint rates is 8.6x using unrounded figures.
The comparison covers about 4,200 active participants matched to a mid-season snapshot. History can include campaign activity. It does not establish a predictive score, a causal lift, unique people or future customer value.
Referrals with a qualifying action
An invitation earned credit when it led to a mint
73% of participants joined through a participant referral link. The program recorded about 2,750 credited referrals from roughly 310 inviters, with the entry-badge mint as the qualifying action.
Among those who activated, 42% of the referred group minted the entry badge, compared with 30% of the other group.
Attribution includes primary and additional participant referral links, expanding the supplied report’s primary-link comparison. These are observed groups; the difference does not establish that referrals caused higher activation.
Reasons to return
A core group stayed active across the season
About 1,200 participants completed tasks on at least fifteen separate days. Roughly 2,700 used the daily check-in alongside the badge journey.
Active on 15+ days
Participants with completed-task activity on at least fifteen distinct UTC calendar days.
Daily check-in participants
Accounts with recorded participation in the recurring check-in task.
Activity days need not be consecutive. These are engagement measures, not gambling-spend or post-season retention measures.
Lessons for the next program
Use the evidence to shape the next step
Test wallet context earlier
Wallet context informed eligibility during the season. Test new onboarding paths before treating an observed association as a prediction.
Make the second day easier to reach
Give participants a clear next action after their first badge, then measure whether that path supports later participation.
Measure referrals through the qualifying action
Track referred sign-ups, activation and credited mints as separate steps. This shows which invitations lead to participation and where the journey loses people.
Methodology
How to read the results
View sources and measurement details
The program description and rounded results draw on the campaign report, configuration and participant export. Wallet comparisons use a mid-season snapshot and describe observed associations.
- Scope and completion records
- The export covers a ten-week badge season and later recorded activity. Participant accounts are not independently verified unique people. Completed-task records and repeat activity are different measures.
- Nominal-fee mints
- About 3,300 accounts completed roughly 9,700 badge or cross-season NFT mint tasks. Configuration and the campaign report identify the tasks as nominal-fee mints; payments were not independently audited on-chain. No revenue, gambling deposits or wagering value is inferred.
- Progression
- The 43% figure measures paid-mint participants completing at least three different paid-mint tasks, including optional badges and the cross-season NFT. Ladder percentages separately use entry-badge participants as their denominator.
- Wallet-history comparison
- The comparison covers about 4,200 active participants matched to a mid-season wallet snapshot. Entry-badge mint rates were about 57% for wallets with 100+ recorded transactions and 7% for those with none; the 8.6x ratio uses unrounded rates. History can include activity during the season. This is an association, not a prediction of future value, identity verification or a causal effect of wallet scoring.
- Referrals
- Attribution matches primary and additional participant referral links. Referral-sourced signups, task activation and credited referrals are separate measures. The program required an entry-badge mint for referral credit. Differences between referral groups do not establish incremental acquisition or a causal activation lift.
- Repeat activity and limits
- Activity days count UTC dates with recorded completed tasks and need not be consecutive. They do not establish post-season retention. No additional bot filtering was applied beyond campaign rules, and the export does not establish acquisition cost or future lifetime value.
Give participation a clear next step
Talk to Claimr about the actions, progression and referral rules that would make a useful program for your community.