Let safety have higher value, which is also what we hope. Very good!
1 Like
Today’s Safe{Core} launch sparked more ideas for SAFE token utility.
Along a similar theme of providing valuable services to app developers with the ideas above in terms of marketplace and listing integration, the SafeDAO can begin to learn and develop a list of tools that app developers would be willing to pay for in order to outsource and operate more efficiently. For example, one of the reasons Apple and Google’s mobile app marketplace duopolies have remained and can charge developers 30% is because there are some valuable services they provide.
Services
- App analytics: Safe must think about doing this in a privacy-first approach.
- E.g. Stake different levels of SAFE to receive increasing levels of analytics info.
- Developer access and permissions
- Payment management
- E.g. No or lower payment processing fees for paying with SAFE which allows app devs to pass on discounts to users who pay with SAFE.
- Review management
- E.g. Stake SAFE to earn a % of SAFE rewards for positive review milestones.
- Other developer tools…
There can be a healthy balance to offer a great experience for free to users for the core Safe app and independent developers building on the protocol. Then advanced tooling would be paid options. It’d be valuable to learn as a next step what tools teams like Den, Firm, Multis, and etc. need and would want to pay for to operate more effectively.
6 Likes
@0xAA brought up a good point to me.
I don’t think charging developers is good to expand safe ecosystem.
I agree that we should prioritize developer growth and not focus too heavily on short-term revenue.
I’m interested to learn more ideas on this.
- Is charging for tools that developers have communicated that are willing to pay for an exception to the above?
- Is there a difference between having most core developer tooling free, and charging at a certain scale, such as for large enterprises? This is similar to an open-core business model.
4 Likes
The use of safe token payment can return the user’s gasoline fee or all of it. At present, this is also a good utility, but safe utility is far more than the above three points. I hope community members can join in the discussion.
1 Like
The ideas presented by @lakejynch and further iterations are really cool. As an addon, would workflows for example that empower maker checker sort of flow for projects that do custody be interesting?
Related to what @adamhurwitz.eth mentions here - market I was imagining something sort of like JIRA marketplace, where entities that want to use an addon module (provided by safe) can pay for it in SAFE tokens. This can be a monthly subscription as long as the SAFE holds enough SAFE tokens or the SAFE has enough tokens staked?
So this then would be frictionless to the SAFE core offering and would not be construed as charging developers. These apps then can compete with others provided by different parties.
2 Likes
Over the weeks, I’ve been examining the recent transaction data (March 2, 2023) available from the Safe Transaction API. I noticed that the API allows for an optional field to specify the transaction’s origin. Transactions that occur through the Safe App interface are in default assigned a specified origin. Therefore, I categorized any origins with Safe-related URL origins as originating from the Safe App Interface. With help from @bradrian_0x (thanks alot man!) and one of my colleagues in gathering and interpreting the data, I wanted to share the information I obtained with everyone. Hopefully it can be used to support ongoing discussions around Safe Token utility, providing data to inform decision-making processes.
Based on our analysis of Safe transactions data, we found that the majority of Gnosis multisig transactions do not have a specified origin. This suggests that most Safe multisig users do not initiate their transactions from the integrated DApp from the Safe App interface. Furthermore, of all the transactions, only 6.8% are with Safe App origins.
-
Approximately 80.7% of Gnosis multi-sig transactions do not have an origin.
-
Of the approximately 19.3% of transactions that do have an origin
- 35.1% of transactions are with Safe App origins
- 64.3% of transactions are with other specified origins
- 0.7% of transactions are with specified numeric origins
Please note that there were several limitations on the data collection and some uncertainty on labeling origins, and therefore our findings may not be conclusive. Nonetheless, this information is a good starting point for further investigation on Safe user research/analysis, and it’s definitely helpful for getting a sense of how much volume is going through the Safe interface.
Additional comment:
Further research is necessary to understand why users are not using the Safe App interface. It is possible that Safe multisig users may not be aware of the benefits and ease of use that the Safe App interface provides, or that they prefer to use other interfaces for other reasons. To gain a better understanding of user behavior and preferences, conducting user surveys or focus groups could provide valuable insights, which can inform future development and marketing efforts.
Moreover, to capture more value for the Safe Token, it may be worthwhile to explore ways to incentivize or encourage Safe App usage (if we want to go towards app market direction). For instance, providing gas sponsorship for users who execute Safe multisig transactions through the Safe App interface could encourage more users to adopt the interface.
In conclusion, while the current usage of the Safe App interface is low, there is potential to increase adoption and capture more value. Further research into user behavior and preferences, as well as strategies to incentivize Safe App usage, can help achieve this goal.
10 Likes
Great insights @v3naru and thank you!
Is it possible to estimate which app UI’s are being used to initiate transactions if not from Safe?
1 Like
Safe can build its own layer2 network through cosmos or Optimism, and building an application chain can improve the application scenarios of Safe. It can act as gas, and can stimulate and prosper the safe ecology through the main network.
Since most of the tx data I got from the API does not have specified origin, it’s hard to tell where the majority of those tx are initiated from. However, for other specified origin there are some that do use their own specific dapp url which suggest that they are using the dapp’s UI. For instance:
{"url": "https://app.zerion.io", "name": "Zerion"}
{"url": "https://app.uniswap.org", "name": "Uniswap"}
suggest that they were initiated via Zerion and Uniswap’s dapp interface respectively. However, if we break it down into each individual dapps - The total tx is still relatively small
1 Like
@v3naru, Is it possible the origin of the transactions are not discernible if most of these transactions are being initiated on-chain by other smart contracts, and not initiated by other user facing frontend apps?
Yes, I think that could be the case as well, but since origin field is optional, which means that we are assuming that transaction creators are inputting the data truthfully.
1 Like
This is very helpful data.
I would consider it an invalidation for the concept of sorts, or at least, until there is a materially change in user demographics (towards more retail). We’re working on a new idea that relies less heavily on the UI/UX. In the meantime, would love to keep hearing these great ideas as they provide a lot of inspiration.
4 Likes
1 Like
Thank you so much for these ideas , In addition to the proposal outlined above, there are several other potential value propositions for the $SAFE token:
Governance: The $SAFE token can be used for governance purposes, allowing token holders to participate in decision-making processes related to the development and evolution of the Gnosis Safe application. This could include voting on proposals for new features or upgrades, as well as participating in discussions about the direction of the project.
Rewards: The $SAFE token can be used to incentivize users to take certain actions within the Gnosis Safe ecosystem. For example, users could be rewarded with $SAFE tokens for referring new users, or for using certain features of the platform.
Discounts and Benefits: The $SAFE token can be used to provide discounts or other benefits to users who hold a certain amount of the token. This could incentivize users to hold and use the token, as well as create a sense of loyalty to the Gnosis Safe ecosystem.
Network Fees: The $SAFE token could be used to pay for network fees associated with transactions within the Gnosis Safe application. This would create demand for the token, as users would need to acquire it in order to use the platform.
Overall, the $SAFE token has the potential to provide value to users and stakeholders in a variety of ways. The specific value proposition will depend on the goals and priorities of the Gnosis Safe team, as well as the needs and preferences of the broader community.
4 Likes
Excellent research ser! Well done 
Anecdotally, I have encountered a few people who were not aware of the safe app but had multisigs.
It would be incredibly advantageous to develop a way to encourage people to use the official app. I lean towards my comment from January. Integrations that drive legitimate Safe app usage could get rewards in some manner. Either via attention/overall usage, retroactive rewards, # of daily active users etc.
2 Likes
Hope to safe making something different in web3 era
1 Like
This would require transferability, no?
1 Like
Wondering if there is an update on the protocol designer position here, I saw it was removed from safe career.
2 Likes
Hi!
I think that now is a great time to resume this discussion and understand what the next steps necessary to solve
For a complete picture, need to take this discussion
1 Like
Definitely , this was submitted by @lakejynch almost 1 year ago and we should’ve been already set. Worth considering interesting points / suggestions have been made. Let’s get involved more and draft a valuable utility for $SAFE.
1 Like