How to Audit a Web3 Funnel When Attribution Is Broken and Wallets ≠ Users (Discord → Wallet Connect → First On-Chain Action)

We ran into a similar “Web3 growth feels stuck” situation on a lending protocol, and what helped was treating it like a Web3 funnel audit where the real enemy is broken attribution.

Our simple 3-step flow was:

1. Map intent: where did the user come from (Discord/Telegram/partners), and what did they try to do right after landing? Even basic form metadata + referrer patterns can tell you if it’s real intent or drive-by traffic.

2. Track first action: then we looked at the gap between wallet connect → first meaningful on-chain action (not just “connected”). That’s where most leaks hide.

3. Validate retention: once someone does the first action, cohort them by “second action within X days” so you can separate curiosity from actual product value.

One thing that surprisingly worked: a super short guided onboarding checklist (3 steps, nothing fancy). It reduced confusion and nudged people from “connected” to “did the thing.” In our case, connect → first action improved noticeably after that.

In crypto, a real funnel audit usually needs both off-chain and on-chain stitching — otherwise you’ll keep chasing ghosts.

What worked for us:

• Use your product analytics (like UI events) to capture the off-chain story: click → connect attempt → connect success/fail reason → “intent action” click.

• Use on-chain queries to confirm what actually happened: tx hash, contract interaction, and whether they came back for a second meaningful action.

The big unlock was building a lightweight “cross-ID bridge” so attribution stops lying to you: wallet + session ID + a stable identifier only if it’s consented and privacy-safe. Once we did that, we discovered a bunch of cases where users looked like drop-offs in analytics but were actually completing on-chain actions (or the opposite).

Also: keep the funnel brutally simple. If you can’t explain it as connect → first on-chain action → repeat, you’ll drown in noise.

I agree with the idea that the real leak is usually wallet connect → first on-chain action, not “traffic”. In one product I worked on, a big chunk of drop-off was just people getting spooked at the moment they saw gas + signature prompts. We fixed more with clearer “what happens next” copy than with new campaigns.

Question: when you run a Web3 funnel audit, do you treat “signature success” as a separate step from “tx submitted”? That gap feels like where most confusion lives.

I keep seeing this pattern in Web3 growth: teams say “growth is stuck,” but what’s actually stuck is the audit. Vanity metrics look fine, attribution is noisy, and nobody can point to one “north-star” action that proves a user genuinely activated.

If you’re hiring (or pitching yourself for web3 growth roles), the strongest signal isn’t “I ran campaigns.” It’s: “I can debug a failing funnel end-to-end.” That means tightening one loop at a time: acquisition quality → activation event → retention proof. And being honest about where the data breaks (wallet drop-offs, cross-device tracking gaps, Discord-to-product leakage, on-chain vs off-chain mismatch).

If you want, share the exact step where it dies (signup, wallet connect, first transaction, week-2 return) and what you’re measuring today — we’ll turn it into a simple audit checklist you can reuse for web3 marketing jobs interviews too.

Related AOB (for deeper context):

https://artofblockchain.club/article/community-led-growth-in-web3-skills-tools-and-proof-metrics-redefining-marketing-careers

https://artofblockchain.club/discussion/post-airdrop-reality-how-to-measure-true-web3-retention-in-growth-reports

https://artofblockchain.club/quiz/what-ux-feature-reduces-wallet-drop-off-during-sign-in