Great proposal, @lakejynch! Your assumptions make logical sense, especially in light of @adamhurwitz.eth’s comments about similar monetization strategies in Web2. However, as @AccelXR-1kx suggested, it would be helpful to validate this proposal with quantitative data. We conducted some research a few months ago which may be relevant to this discussion.
Our research analyzed the transaction history of Safe apps and found that since the beginning of recorded Safe app transactions, less than 1 million transactions were executed through Safe apps.
Of these transactions, 73.6% had an unspecified origin, 10% came from Wallet Connect, and 3.6% came from the Safe web app transactions. This means that less than 13% or 110k transactions came from apps for which the origin was specified, such as Uniswap, Transaction builder, 1Inch, ApeSafe, or Aave.
While this data may have changed since we collected it in September, it suggests that Safe app usage is still relatively low.
This would mean where you feature in the platform isn’t all that valuable to an app builder. This is not to say that it can’t be in the future and that it could be a viable way to monetize SafeDAO. But the low transaction count suggests that the current selection of apps in the Safe interface do not sufficiently serve the needs of multi-sig users. So in order for us to capture value from the Safe app interface, we could focus first on making Safe apps valuable. We’ve written a post here which describes one way Autonolas is trying to do this.
Thanks for sharing your proposal and starting this discussion, it is an important one to have!
For the raw data on Safe app transactions please follow this link