Inspired by this tweet:
Linear roadmaps are misleading without a crystal ball for seeing the future. A roadmap that recognizes the existence of risk as time goes on is more honest. But an effective PM needs to anticipate possible branches, too - and create clear criteria for following each path.
In fact, for crypto projects, the "progressive decentralization" roadmap is quite linear. It's always: build product market fit --> rapid iterations --> managed go-to-market and eventually --> community ownership.
For the APIS project, we've identified the pain point of developing for Ethereum and other blockchains (product market fit) and started to execute the "rapid iterations" on the roadmap. The decision is relatively simple. We always weight the feature that has the highest score of
complexity x popularity. For example, transaction management is frequently used and has quite a bit of complexity, so it is prioritized over multi-chain support.
The last diagram--the strategic roadmap--is a classical game theory decision tree. When resources are limited and there are multiple possible outcomes, applying game theory with real data will make an abstract problem concrete. Then we can study the nash equilibrium and apply optimization techniques.