I will first say that I am in the "Field of Dreams" school of thought when it comes to attracting a following: if you build it, they will come. Having a good compelling product is the absolute first step. Otherwise if they happen to come they just leave again thinking, whatever. So I think the idea of getting more added to the game and revisiting the growth issue thereafter is exactly correct.
That said, I like the idea of allowing new players to use a basic starter deck of cards that enables a certain amount of game play, but without producing any tradeable rewards. I would expect that this could work very well in EXODE to the extent that players need to produce different types of resources to advance in the game (food, energy, wood, metal, etc.) while it is easier to specialize and produce a limited number of resource types and use what you produce to trade for what you don't produce.
In the case of players using a starter deck, the produced resources won't be tradable, requiring the players to produce everything they need on their own. As long is it is made clear in the UI that for the cost of a origins pack the player could trade rather than needing to produce every type of resource, (perhaps even allowing a player to upgrade an existing starter deck game by buying the origins pack) there is a natural pathway to draw the players in after they have experienced enough of the game that they want to be able to progress in a more efficient manner.
This is a take on the "smaller playable game segment" idea, but it makes more of the game available, which I think has a better chance of converting players. Naturally, being able to trade within the game is only a draw if it is slow and difficult to go it alone. The missing game element doesn't need to be trade, it could be anything, but in a game with an economy it's an obvious choice.
As a side note, having the element of resources produced by players in game and trading them also helps achieve a workable economy as long as players have avenues to advance in the game without producing resources as well (perhaps using the time to develop proficiency producing a different resource.) In times where player activity is low, and resources are not being consumed, players need something to do other and continuously over producing unneeded resources and thus permanently crashing the market. Naturally, in times of high player activity when resources are in high demand players will want to produce them for their higher trade values. As a further aside, I think the biggest problem most P2E games have is that they keep producing tradable assets even when there is no demand for them... Big surprise when the market crashes. As a still further aside, I wonder if it is feasible to make the amount of a resource a player can produce inversely proportional to the the market value or current supply of that resource. So even if a player tries to produce unneeded resources they experience very low yields. I think this would really just be an anti-botting measure, as a real, thinking player will want to produce resources they can reasonably expect to be able to trade. Bots generally don't care and keep farming as long as there is something to farm.
I don't dislike the idea of minigames, but that approach does require other, different games to be developed in addition to the main game, so the approach clearly requires addition development effort.
I also think doing things on other blockchains is good as well. More exposure and being easier to find is always a good thing.
Finally, I also agree with @lifesavings that for blockchain games the general lack of blockchain knowledge in the larger game playing population is a real obstacle. The more gently a blockchain game can introduce players to dealing with blockchains, the more likely it can draw in the larger segment of gamers who are basically blockchain illiterate. I further agree that many game players just want something that immediately seems cool to them.