review · stage 2 · alignment date 2026-06-29 · document tier
Draft Stonk JTBD Positioning
Framework findings review for the first selected `$positioning` framework. This page renders the non-canonical working packet at research/_working/preliminary-jtbd-positioning-research.md and asks for approval before the parent writes research/positioning-jtbd-positioning.md.
Loop Status
Parent State
The approved framework-selection YAML has been consumed into research/_working/positioning-run.yaml. The selected frameworks are JTBD Positioning, Strategic Canvas, and Moore Positioning.
This Framework
current jtbd-positioning is the first pending framework. Its canonical intermediate is still absent.
Gated Output
The proposed canonical intermediate is research/positioning-jtbd-positioning.md. Unified research/positioning.md is not in scope for this page.
Boundary
No GitHub Actions workflows are created, changed, or suggested. This work is research-only.
Executive Finding
Draft Stonk should position around the job of turning a market take into a quick, fair, social contest. The user is not primarily hiring the product to become a better trader, manage a portfolio, or receive stock advice. They are hiring it when a market story, friend-group argument, or fantasy-sports-like challenge creates a desire to say "my pick was better" without risking money, handling brokerage workflows, or creating advice/gambling confusion.
Social Lead
Make market instincts visible, comparable, and brag-worthy.
Functional Proof
A compact snake draft plus equal-dollar standings creates fair comparison faster than group chat, spreadsheets, watchlists, or portfolio simulators.
Emotional Guardrail
No real-money trading, no cash prizes, no pooled entry fees, no brokerage links, and no investment advice make the contest feel safe enough for casual players and clubs.
Confidence
moderate Evidence aligns, but Draft Stonk remains pre-product without interviews, analytics, retention data, or launched-user language.
Source Basis
| Source | Observation Used | Role In JTBD Positioning |
|---|---|---|
README.md and concept.md | First loop: understand the game, make a first stock pick, complete a compact snake draft, see equal-dollar standings, and want to replay, share, or invite. | Defines the product-side proof for the job. |
research/icp.md | Primary ICP is U.S. finance-curious social retail players, with friend groups, fantasy-sports-adjacent players, and college finance clubs as wedges. | Defines who hires the product and why. |
research/competitive-analysis.md | Alternatives cluster around simulators, education games, fantasy sports, publisher contests, spreadsheets, group chats, watchlists, and doing nothing. | Clarifies the alternatives the job must beat. |
research/journey-map.md | Critical moments are concept recognition, trust resolution, first pick, scoreboard proof, and social payoff. | Defines where the job succeeds or fails. |
research/_working/interrogation-positioning-handoff.md | Confirms no money, no prize, no brokerage, no advice, and "market instincts" language. | Sets the positioning boundary. |
| FT Stock Picking Game | Current stock-picking contest evidence: virtual portfolios, real market movements, competition, a GBP 1,000 prize, and an investment-recommendation disclaimer. | Validates legibility of stock-picking games while warning against prize/portfolio framing. |
| Wall Street Survivor and Investopedia Simulator | Simulator language centers paper trading, virtual money, trading mechanics, portfolios, and games. | Shows what Draft Stonk should not anchor to. |
| Sleeper fantasy football | Fantasy sports mental model includes chat, drafts, snake draft mode, scoring, and friends. | Supports the social draft metaphor. |
Primary Job Statement
When a market story or stock argument sparks a take, I want to turn that take into a quick, fair game with friends or peers, so I can see whose market instincts were right without risking money, trading, or giving/receiving investment advice.
| Rejected Job Framing | Why It Is Too Weak Or Risky |
|---|---|
| Learn how to trade stocks | Pulls Draft Stonk toward education and trading simulators. |
| Manage a virtual stock portfolio | Pulls the product toward portfolio allocation rather than a fast social draft. |
| Win money by picking stocks | Violates the approved no-cash-prize and no-pooled-entry boundary. |
| Get investment recommendations | Violates the no-advice boundary and changes the trust burden. |
| Follow stock news with friends | Too broad; group chats, social feeds, watchlists, and news products already satisfy much of it. |
Job Dimensions
Functional
| Job Step | Current Solution | Pain Point | Draft Stonk Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Notice a market spark | News, TikTok, Reddit, Discord, group chat, creator take, earnings headline | The spark creates opinions but no durable way to compare them. | Attach the spark to a lightweight draft challenge. |
| Start a safe challenge | Group chat, spreadsheet, informal bet, watchlist, simulator | The organizer must explain rules and avoid money/advice ambiguity. | Use explicit no-money/no-prize/no-advice framing and predefined draft structure. |
| Make a first pick | Brokerage watchlist, simulator trade ticket, spreadsheet entry | Trading surfaces feel serious; ticker/company knowledge varies. | Support a quick first pick as a game action, not a trading action. |
| Complete fair selection | Manual snake draft, spreadsheet, chat thread | Manual rules and pick order create friction and trust issues. | Compact snake draft makes order and selection legible. |
| Compare performance | Manual return calculation, screenshots, portfolio simulator leaderboard | Nominal share price and portfolio weighting confuse casual players. | Equal-dollar standings make comparison about pick performance, not account size. |
| Create social payoff | Screenshots, messages, memory, manual scoreboard | The claim fades and is hard to replay. | Shareable standings and draft history create bragging rights and repeat prompts. |
Social
The player wants to look sharp, competitive, informed, playful, and early to a market story without acting like a financial adviser. The organizer wants to create a fair, low-friction group activity without exposing the group to money, prize, or advice risk.
Emotional
The user wants competitive excitement, safety, control, belonging, relief from risk cues, and a sense of progress. Trust copy reduces anxiety enough for the user to enjoy the social contest.
Outcome Metrics
| Metric | Customer Need | Alternative Performance | Draft Stonk Hypothesis |
|---|---|---|---|
| Time to first visible market call | Make a pick before the spark fades. | Group chat is instant but unstructured; simulators and spreadsheets require setup. | Strong if first pick happens in a short activation path. |
| Fairness of comparison | Know whose pick performed better under shared rules. | Chat is ambiguous; spreadsheets need a maintainer; portfolios introduce weighting complexity. | Strong if equal-dollar standings are clear. |
| Social payoff | Generate bragging rights, replay, or invite. | Watchlists and simulators are individual; fantasy sports is social but not about stocks. | Potentially strong if standings are shareable and challengeable. |
| Trust and safety | Avoid money, prize, brokerage, gambling, and advice confusion. | Brokerage and contest products can blur the frame. | Strong if boundary copy is visible and plain-language. |
| Cognitive effort | Participate without deep market knowledge. | Trading simulators can feel expert-oriented. | Moderate-to-strong if company search, ticker support, and simple rules work. |
| Replay trigger | Return for another market event or group argument. | Doing nothing and group chat are always available. | Moderate until retention evidence exists. |
Positioning Angle
Lead dimension: Social. Supporting dimensions: functional proof through fair draft mechanics and emotional safety through risk-free, non-advisory entertainment posture.
Job outcome framing: Draft Stonk is the social fantasy stock draft for finance-curious players who want to settle market takes with friends, compare instincts fairly, and keep the whole thing safely outside real-money trading, prizes, brokerage workflows, or investment advice.
Competitive Alternatives By Job
| Alternative | Which Job It Serves | Where It Fails For The Primary Job |
|---|---|---|
| Group chat or Discord | Share takes and talk with friends. | No fair rules, durable record, pick order, equal-dollar scoring, or replayable standings. |
| Spreadsheet | Manually track a contest. | Requires organizer effort, trust, formulas, reminders, and rule enforcement. |
| Brokerage watchlist or screenshots | Track real or hypothetical interests. | Feels like investing behavior and does not create a fair social draft. |
| Paper-trading simulator | Practice trading and manage a virtual portfolio. | Too trading-like, portfolio-heavy, and individual for a fast social draft. |
| FT Stock Picking Game | Test stock-picking skill in a virtual portfolio contest. | Portfolio and prize/subscriber structure diverge from no-prize, no-entry, draft-first posture. |
| Wall Street Survivor / Investopedia Simulator | Learn and practice trading with virtual money. | Education/trading mechanics dominate the experience. |
| Sleeper / fantasy sports apps | Draft, chat, score, and compete socially. | Teaches the interaction model but does not address stock takes. |
| Doing nothing | Avoid effort after a market spark. | Easiest default, but leaves no fair comparison or social proof. |
Evidence Matrix
| Claim | Evidence | Inference | Decision Impact | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The primary job starts from social market chatter, not serious portfolio management. | ICP and journey map name market stories, friend claims, fantasy analogy, group arguments, Reddit, TikTok, Discord, and campus communities. | Draft Stonk should enter where opinions already exist. | Lead with market-instinct and challenge language. | Medium-high |
| Equal-dollar standings are the functional proof for fairness. | README and journey map both center equal-dollar return standings as the aha moment. | The product must explain why different-price stocks can be compared fairly. | Position the scoreboard as the proof. | Medium-high |
| Social payoff is stronger than education as the positioning lead. | ICP value drivers emphasize "I picked better than you"; journey map says retention depends on replay/share/invite. | Education can be a byproduct, but the job is social comparison. | Avoid "learn investing" as the top-line position. | Medium |
| Trust boundaries must be visible in the position. | README, concept, competitive analysis, and interrogation handoff repeat no money, no cash prizes, no brokerage links, and no advice. | The safety frame permits casual play. | Include boundary language in the positioning statement. | High |
| Portfolio simulators are adjacent but not the right anchor category. | Competitive analysis and web check show simulator language around paper trading, virtual money, portfolios, and learning mechanics. | Simulator language makes Draft Stonk compete on breadth and realism. | Contrast against portfolio and trading simulators. | High |
| Current stock-picking games validate demand but show risk cues to avoid. | FT's current game page frames virtual portfolios, competition, a prize, and no investment recommendations. | Stock-picking competition is legible, but prize/portfolio structures should not define Draft Stonk's first loop. | Treat FT as validation and boundary contrast. | Medium |
| Fantasy sports provides the clearest social interaction model. | Sleeper foregrounds chat, drafts, mock drafts, snake draft mode, scoring, and friends. | Draft Stonk can borrow the social mechanics while changing the object from athletes to stocks. | Preserve "fantasy football for stocks" as the instant metaphor. | Medium-high |
Assumptions & Gaps
Key Assumptions
- Finance-curious social retail players will understand the stock-draft metaphor quickly.
- Social bragging rights create more pull than education language for the primary ICP.
- Equal-dollar standings are legible enough to carry fairness.
- No-money/no-prize/no-advice language reduces anxiety without killing fun.
- College clubs remain an acquisition wedge, not the primary ICP.
Source Gaps
- No active
research/customer-feedback.md. - No interviews with target players or club organizers.
- No analytics around first pick, draft completion, standings comprehension, replay, share, or invite.
- No copy test for "market instincts" versus "stock picking" versus "fantasy football for stocks."
- No legal review; this packet preserves the approved boundary but is not legal advice.
Build-In-Public Checkpoint
Status: not applicable for this framework-specific intermediate. The active project config enables build-in-public handling, but this page is not the unified public positioning artifact. Public-safe posts should be derived only after all selected positioning frameworks are approved and the parent `$positioning --synthesize` artifact is reviewed.
Approval Gates
Required Gate: Primary Job Statement
Required Gate: Lead Dimension
Required Gate: Evidence Completeness
Required Gate: Canonical Intermediate Write
Compile Responses
Compile partial feedback or final framework-findings approval YAML. The YAML routes back to the parent `$positioning` command; do not invoke the child framework directly.
Required questions remaining: 4