[DRAFT] Safe Ecosystem Fund Stage 1

Proposals Phase 1: Draft
1

Safe Ecosystem Fund – Stage 1 Proposal

Authors: LuukDAO
Created: 2025-07-14

Abstract

This proposal initiates Stage 1 of the Safe Ecosystem Fund to proactively recognize, reward, and highlight Safe Ecosystem initiatives during the temporary pause on resource allocation. It also lays the groundwork for establishing a larger Safe Ecosystem Fund capable of allocating resources to, and capturing upside from, the most promising Safe Ecosystem projects in a way that benefits the Safe Ecosystem Treasury.

Proposal types

State which proposal type this proposal belongs to.
SEP: Constitutional Proposals
SEP: Governance Proposals
Other SEPs

Proposal Details

Background

Currently, SafeDAO lacks both a process for continuous, small-scale allocations and the capacity to make large, strategic investments. As a result, it is deploying capital at an extremely slow pace, with 0% of its SAFE treasury spent to date. This limitation was acknowledged by the Safe Ecosystem Foundation in the Temporary Pause proposal, which introduced a six-month break from capital allocation until an improved framework is developed.

While we agree that revising the allocation strategy is necessary, we believe the ecosystem of solutions, interfaces, and products built around and on top of Safe has been—and should continue to be—one of its greatest strengths. A complete pause could disrupt this ecosystem, potentially causing Safe to lose its appeal as a hub for (early) innovation and proactive contribution.

Purpose

This proposal seeks to achieve the following goals for SafeDAO and the broader Safe Ecosystem:

  • Map and measure the impact of ecosystem projects and contributors on overall ecosystem health using quantitative tools (e.g., Safe Onchain Tracker, OSO, Divvi) and qualitative review by Safe experts.
  • Distribute SAFE periodically and efficiently to high-impact projects and contributors.
  • Complete the research and scoping for the next stage of the Safe Ecosystem Fund, enabling it to invest in promising ecosystem projects.

The primary focus will be on projects and contributions that are independent of the Safe Ecosystem Foundation team, as these enhance the network’s capacity and value without burdening the core teams.

If successful, the Safe Ecosystem Fund can serve as an accelerator—building upon both Core Team initiatives and third-party projects—to enhance the value of the entire ecosystem.

Effects and Impact Analysis

Stage 1 aims to establish the appropriate parameters to map, measure, and reward ecosystem impact effectively. The goal is to incentivize top teams and individuals to proactively build and contribute to Safe.

As more ecosystems shift toward automated, data-driven capital allocation, and demand grows for vehicles that provide upside in ecosystem-native projects, this initial stage will position SafeDAO accordingly.

Pros

  • Encourages discourse and experimentation with ecosystem impact metrics, strengthening SafeDAO’s strategic and operational capabilities.
  • Incentivizes a proactive contributor culture by linking rewards to measurable impact, reducing reliance on large-scale DAO approvals.
  • Lays the groundwork for a Fund vehicle that offers financial upside to the Safe Ecosystem Treasury through exposure to high-potential projects.
  • Distributing SAFE to proven contributors increases their skin in the game, potentially improving governance and innovation.

Cons

  • SAFE token distributions may increase sell pressure in the short term.

Risks

  • Past contributions may not always predict future impact, which could reduce the efficiency of resource allocations.

Alternative Solutions

1. Full Pause

SafeDAO could halt all SAFE distributions during the six-month pause. However, this risks stagnating ecosystem growth and delaying Fund development, potentially leading to lost opportunities and requiring renewed outreach to disaffected contributors.

2. Launch a Full Fund Immediately

SafeDAO could allocate a larger budget now and begin investing via convertible grants or other instruments. However, without a well-defined strategy, metrics, and structure, this approach is premature. The current pause is an ideal time to develop these components before launching a full-fledged Fund.

Implementation

Own implementation possible
Own implementation but with funding (about 15% for development and ops, with 85% as rewards)
Request for technical support through Safe matter experts

No new code is required for Stage 1; it will leverage existing infrastructure and resources.

Program Structure

The program will run in two rounds:

  1. Initial Round: 700,000 SAFE distributed to projects and contributors based on their impact over the past 18 months.
  2. Second Round: 300,000 SAFE distributed based on impact during H2 2025.

Timeline

  • Month 1: Establish and build data pipelines for impact metrics
  • Month 2: Launch first rewards round and Safe.eco platform
  • Month 3: Iterate and refine impact metrics
  • Month 4: Share draft proposal for Safe Ecosystem Fund vehicle
  • Month 5: Submit Stage 2 proposal
  • Month 6: Launch second rewards round and publish program impact report

Funding Request

Stage 1 Budget: 85,000 USDC + 1,000,000 SAFE

  • $50K USDC – Program design, execution, dashboard creation, communications, and reporting
  • $15K USDC – Relaunch Finops3.xyz as Safe.eco, a platform for ecosystem programs and insights. Built by the superchain.eco team.
  • $10K USDC – Research and drafting of the Safe Ecosystem Fund vehicle, with third-party input
  • $10K USDC – Onchain and data solutions supporting the rewards process
  • 1M SAFE – Fund two reward cycles for high-impact projects and contributors

Team

Core Team (3 Members)

  • Program Lead: Luuk
  • Analyst: Preferably an experienced SafeDAO member (e.g., Guardian or OBRA contributor)
  • Operations: Preferably an experienced SafeDAO member (e.g., Guardian or OBRA contributor)

Advisory Team (2 Members)

  • Safe Advisory: Ideally a member of the Safe Ecosystem or Research team
  • Ecosystem Advisory: Ideally from a Safe-aligned VC or service provider

Request for Input

We welcome feedback from stakeholders on the following:

  • Perspectives on launching the Safe Ecosystem Fund in parallel with the Temporary Pause
  • Input on key impact metrics and which contributors/projects should be rewarded
  • Interest from qualified individuals or teams to participate in Stage 1 execution

Copyright

Copyright and related rights waived via CC0.

3 Likes
2

Very happy to see this proposal! Agree especially with this point:

A complete pause could disrupt this ecosystem, potentially causing Safe to lose its appeal as a hub for (early) innovation and proactive contribution.

Whatever positive momentum Safe can sustain in ecosystem growth would be a huge help for the platform, since an extended break in funding means builders leaving the Safe ecosystem that’ll be hard to earn back.

The Safe Guardians of Gardens is happy to help, and can support this program with 70k $SAFE and 3 ETH allocated with milestone-based funding for Safe ecosystem growth on Gardens.

1 Like
3

how u can post a draft from next month

4

Woops, noted the wrong month - updated now.

5

Nice! I see some options already on how we could leverage the 70K $SAFE + 3 ETH to run small milestones-based grants in parallel to the Impact Rewards.

1 Like
6

This ia great proposal.

Milestones and impact metrics are tricky. Do you see funding only for technical projects who has supported onchain data or would you allow non-technical projects to also come up with their own metris tailored to their concept?

I’d suggest something like what we built at ENS https://builder.ensgrants.xyz/, it allows you to fund projects based on milestones and on cycles defined by the grant managers. It’s also open source in case you wanna fork it :smiley:

7

Appreciate the effort here and agree that momentum matters but this proposal feels premature.

The pause was introduced for a reason: to stop, reflect, and redesign how we allocate resources. Launching a new SAFE distribution program during the pause (even with good intent) feels like skipping over that critical design phase and reintroducing a system that we know has had mixed results.

Here’s what I’d propose instead:

Let’s redirect a smaller portion of this budget, eg. $25K USDC to fund 5 small research teams with $5K each to:

  • Analyze what has/hasn’t worked with OBRA and other SAFE programs
  • Look at capital allocation models from other DAOs (ENS, Optimism, Gitcoin, etc.)
  • Propose new pilot funding mechanisms we could test after the pause
  • Define clear success metrics and failure modes
  • Publish their cases for community review

This could easily be done using a ranked choice vote on snapshot for potential cantidates.

This would give us a rich pool of thoughtful, diverse experiments to choose and ample time to discuss and debate — before distributing another 1M SAFE and locking in a structure that may not be optimal.

Also: we really need to see the findings from OBRA Wave 2 Research published. That should be a key signpost in whatever comes next.

Without those learnings on the table, we’re flying blind.