Hey, @lakejynch! Thank you so much for putting together such a well-thought-out proposal - it’s clear that you’ve really put in the time and effort to think things through. I particularly love how your proposed goals tie in perfectly with SafeDAO’s own goals, which is all about building a vibrant ecosystem, promoting decentralization, and capturing value within the Safe ecosystem.
Front-end Integration Queue
Regarding the front-end integration queue, I think @AccelXR-1kx makes a good point about exploring simpler solutions before tying token utility to an issue like dev costs and increase in integration demand. The mechanism that requires protocols to stake a fixed percentage of the total SAFE token supply could make things a bit complicated.
That being said, I do think your idea for the Front-end Integration Proposal (FEIP) has a lot of potential in terms of creating more transparency around the integration process. However, we should definitely think about how we can design a framework that minimizes governance bloat within the DAO. I imagine somewhere along the line with the ongoing discussion about Outcomes-based resource allocation (‘OBRA’). Where we could let the “Adoption Initiatives” create a seasonal front-end integration committee to address these issues. Of course, we’d need to have checks and balances in place, and I think this could be a great way to streamline the process. I won’t go any further as this is probably a topic for another forum thread.
The first-come-first-serve process for the integration queue might not be the best approach, as it could prioritize early integrations over quality control and the most needed integrations. I like @adamhurwitz.eth idea of incorporating prioritization through a DAO vote per each time period “round” like Gitcoin Grants. This could allow us to ensure that we’re focusing on the integrations that are most important to the community.
App Market
Moving on to the App Market, I think it’s really interesting to explore the idea of developing a app marketplace around the Safe app front-end. It’s definitely a big opportunity, but I also believe we need to validate whether having better placement on Safe App would translate into increase in customer acquisition for these applications.
Thank you! @bradrian_0x for sharing your research from September on the transaction history of Safe apps, but it’s been almost half a year since then, which is a long time in the fast-paced world of Web3. I’m definitely curious and will dig deeper to see if there’s any recent additional data I can find to help us validate this.
Safe as Token-Curated Registry
One idea I have for the app market is to open up the option of staking for all holders and incorporate elements of ongoing conviction voting for the list of featured or curated apps. This would allow $SAFE token holders, including protocols, to signal and vouch their support for multiple applications ranked based on their allocation for each one. I can see this working along with FEIP in filtering out spam and malicious applications. Overall, this would essentially make $SAFE a token-curated registry with the voting power of all holders acting as a natural token sink tied to app placement or even integration demand. I think this would provide more transparency in the process of selecting trusted/curated lists and prioritization schemes maintained by Safe token holders. Let me know your thoughts!