@RSivakov, @Billion, @cedricoo. Agree that now is a good time to continue the token utility discussion. Fwiw, going through the proposals in the submission thread, I took a stab at mapping and categorizing the stakeholders that have been mentioned in the proposals submitted so far.
Taking a step back helped me to get a clearer conceptual view of which groups we need to consider to bring more innovative token utility ideas to the table.
Consolidated Categories of Stakeholders:
- Development and Infrastructure:
- Module Developers, Dapp Builders, Registry Maintainers and Managers, Auditors:
Focused on developing, securing, and enhancing the Safe infrastructure. According to submitted proposals they might be engaged in activities like registry management, fee taking, revenue swaps, escrow fee taking and registry staking.
- Module Developers, Dapp Builders, Registry Maintainers and Managers, Auditors:
- Ecosystem Management and Governance:
- Councilors, Treasury/Governance, Working Groups:
Responsible for the overall governance, policy-making, grant distribution, and ecosystem oversight.
- Councilors, Treasury/Governance, Working Groups:
- Users and Community Engagement:
- Retail End-Users, New and Existing Community Members, Token Holders: Might be engaged with the ecosystem through using modules, purchasing them, token swaps, fee taking, participating in staking, and benefiting from mutual insurance and audit systems.
- Research, Education, and Talent Development:
- Researchers, Educators, Top Web3 Talent, Grant DAOs:
Involved in research and development, educational initiatives, and talent development through grants, bounties, and fellowship programs.
- Researchers, Educators, Top Web3 Talent, Grant DAOs:
- Commercial, Financial, and Investment Interests:
- Investors, Token Holders, Enterprises, Accelerators:
Focused on financial aspects like staking, token swaps, collateralized debt positions, and accelerating commercial projects within the ecosystem.
- Investors, Token Holders, Enterprises, Accelerators: