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:
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
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Is it possible to resume discussion on this topic please ? I have the impression that the discussion was put on hold due to market conditions, but it seems appropriate to resume now.
@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.
Ecosystem Management and Governance:
Councilors, Treasury/Governance, Working Groups:
Responsible for the overall governance, policy-making, grant distribution, and ecosystem oversight.
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.
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.
