[SCP-88] Shapeshift integration to Stakingrewards (+Verified provider program)

Thank you to all who participated in the Shapeshift X Stakingrewards AMA. Voting will end on 27th of June of 2022 (5 full days).

Link to the Incubation post: Shapeshift integration to Stakingreward (+Verified provider programme)

Successful integration would make Shapeshift Asset and Provider data accessible to Staking Rewards’ core data API service used by crypto banks, exchanges, blockchain institutions and from the community of 450k unique monthly users/stakers getting exposure to the Public profile. Apart from enjoying the best-in-industry SEO, this grants exposure to Shapeshift Earn Vaults and will reflect in improved Staked Value, Engaged balance, Number of unique Stakers metrics and benefits such as becoming a Verified Provider (more details below).

Staking Rewards is the core staking data info hub backed by DCG, Galaxy Digital and Coinshares and has approved Shapeshift as a quality project (based on industry traction and research) for the proposal.

New and existing Shapeshift stakers should be included in Tier 1 institutional stkaing API as well as have a consolidated view on a page with the best SEO that allows easy research on the $FOX asset, analyzed Shapeshift Earn Vaults, Shapeshift Wallet service to be able to decide which DAO community to join.

Detailed breakdown with the list of deliverables is structured in a) Asset integration, b) Provider integration, b+) Verified provider program.

a) $FOX Asset integration - Standard package ($FOX + validator list)
Public Profile
In-Depth FAQ’s
Real-time Metrics & Calculations
Integration Announcement on Twitter
Advanced Reward Calculator
Calculator Widget
Telegram Support
Maintenance & Updates
Validator On-chain Data, maintenance, updates

Price = 25.000€ in USDC
(alternatively $FOX tokens with a 15% premium)
(1st payment installment)

b) Provider integration includes:

  • Shapeshift Earn Vault integrations (existing and new)
  • Shapeshift Software Wallet integration
  • Public Provider Profiles
  • In-Depth FAQ’s
  • Real-time Metrics & Calculations
  • Integration Announcement
  • Advanced Reward Calculator
  • Calculator Widget
  • Telegram Support
  • Maintenance & Updates
  • Provider profile will display on-chain data for Vaults
  • Vault Maintenance & Updates
  • Eligibility for Verified provider Program

Price = 10.000€ in USDC
(alternatively $FOX tokens with a 15% premium)
(2nd payment installment)

Upon passing the program in the batch of June, together with prominent crypto banks and leading staking infrastructure providers, Shapeshift will enjoy the benefits described under the Benefits section below.

Apart from being included in the staking data API, getting exposure from 450k unique monthly stakers, the most interesting benefit is the inclusion to the Verified Provider program:

  • A verified rating on Staking Rewards
  • Prioritized ranking on Staking Rewards
  • Inclusion in the custom section for Verified Providers (filter) on the Staking Providers page
  • Direct Stake now button on the Provider overview page
  • Highlighted profiles
  • Verified Announcement across SR social channels
  • License to share the SR verified widget and certificate on the Provider’s website
  • Showcase of all supported assets (even those not integrated with SR)
  • Customer Reviews on their Staking Rewards profile
  • Moderation Access on the Staking Rewards Provider profile (later in 2022)

There is no risk of Staking Rewards not delivering the above proposal and this is clear based on industry traction, reputation, and client satisfaction. Staking Rewards has integrated hundreds of assets with great success and excellent client feedback since 2018.

The integration does include RESPONSIBILITIES from Shapeshift:

  • SHAPESHIFT must provide the required information in the questionnaire and accompanying docs issued by SR in a timely and accurate manner (ideally 1-2 weeks)
  • SHAPESHIFT must provide the necessary technical documentation, contacts and API endpoints (if not available) that are required to determine and integrate all the relevant metrics
  • SHAPESHIFT must add the SR Verified Provider Widget to your official website footer
  • In the case of failure of the verification program, SHAPESHIFT has a right to challenge and/or reapply for Verified provider program within 90 days of the failure date at no cost. No refund is available upon the second failure.

Amount Requested:

1st installment:
25.000€ in USDC (or $FOX +15% premium) due immediately after approval

2nd installment:
10.000€ in USDC (or $FOX +15% premium) on the 25th of August 2022

Payment must be made to an Ethereum wallet available upon request.


  1. For - The community supports the a) Asset integration, b) Provider integration including Earn vaults, Wallet, b+) Verified provider program based on the details outlined above and approves the payment of 25.000€ and 10.000€ in USDC (or $FOX token with +15% premium) in two installments.

  2. For with amendments

  3. Against - The community does not support the above proposal

    1. For
    1. For with changes/amendments
    1. Against

0 voters


Dear Community -

I ask that you vote against moving this proposal forward in its current form. The proponents of this proposal, mainly the marketing and growth workstream, have been asked multiple questions in governance calls and AMAs that have not to date been answered. Currently the DAO is in the place where we need to be very disciplined in our spending and while this may be a great opportunity I don’t believe the bar for spending the DAO’s resources should be low enough that we pass proposals without getting complete answers to the communities questions. There are 2 main open questions that we as a community should insist are answered before we move this to a vote.

  1. What are the success metrics of this proposal? Simply put, we as a DAO should have a very solid idea on what the ROI is going to be from this. We could model it very easily, IE we expect X increase in TVL, of which we receive Y revenue, so we should break even in Z days. If we don’t think TVL is the right KPI, we should know exactly what is the right KPI and make sure it’s measurable. This will help us the next time we are asked to approve expenditures like this to know if we are correct in how we are analyzing these opportunities.

  2. Why can this expenditure not come from the Marketing and Growth budget? Currently, the Marketing and Growth budget is the highest of any work-stream. We are spending more on Marketing and Growth than engineering. Let that sink in for a moment. In the last month, there have been 2 forum posts asking for additional expenditures for Marketing and Growth related items.

Once these questions are answered I think the community would have enough information to make an informed decisions, but for now would ask community members to insist on a higher bar for spending the DAOs resources in a market that will require a disciplined approach to spending for us to survive in.

Thank you all


1 Like

I am voting no on this proposal. To make this a reality not only requires spending this amount of money, it also requires engineering effort. I just talked to @0xdef1cafe and he has done no research into what the engineering effort would be.

Also, I would want to see success criteria defined in the proposal - and how we will measure those criteria. I did not attend the AMA this week, so maybe this was discussed. Even if it was, it needs to be included in the proposal for me to support it.


1 Like

Dear community,

I urge you to take this with a grain of salt. @0xean continues to urge a toxic and unnecessary culture of cuts - I believe this to be a continuance of such toxic urgency in pressure as a “leader” (which oxean isn’t for reference, he is not a DAO leader in any way in terms of being voted in). I further believe as a non-voted in DAO “leader” @0xean continues to fail in terms of not only business development recommendations for this brand and DAO as a whole. He continues to pressure “cuts” which really means firing real, and non-shapeshift AG contributors as foundation members stay at the same status in terms of human capital and contributor count. If a leader (like me) doesn’t fire someone, they’re fired eventually via ‘whale’ votes in “leadership”. It’s a culture of pain, pressure, and disgust.

I urge the community to consider @0xean’s continued presence and voice as a non-elected “leader” and influencer as influence is pushed upon REAL community moving forward. This is pure manipulation and I refuse to let it continue without vocalization on the matter.


Hi Hunt -

First off, thanks for all the legwork you’ve done on this so far. I know you’ve put a lot of work into trying to create the best deal/situation for ShapeShift. Your passion and dedication are deeply appreciated.

That said, I don’t think @0xean is being toxic by encouraging the DAO to be very selective with new expenses. The fact is, this entire industry is now embracing a “culture of cuts” in this bear market. Given our goal of extending our runway as long as possible, and especially against this backdrop of market weakness and huge macro uncertainty, this type of prudent, selective, and cautious approach is exactly what we should be doing IMO.

I think seeing clearly-stated success metrics would indeed be helpful here to help gauge whether this is worth doing. Also, it would be helpful to know exact expectations in terms of the expected engineering lift…as you know, their resources are very finite and we want to be careful about putting more on their plate.

Regarding @0xean’s presence in the community and in the leadership channel, I personally consider him an invaluable source of insights, wisdom, and experience. He’s a veteran DeFi builder who’s seen multiple crypto cycles and knows how nasty bear markets can be. As a member of the DAO community, he’s free to advocate for more budget austerity. There is no “real” vs “non-real” DAO community…we’re all in this together, despite any differences we may have in opinion.

The fact is, we’re not where we need to be in terms of our runway goal. Extending our runway means making tough decisions, even such as advocating against a proposal that DAO members have put real time and effort into.


Hunt -

When people ask tough questions, the answer is not to attack them and question that persons’s validity. I have seen this behavior from you time and time again and it’s something that you need to correct.

You are also speaking about things that you literally have no context or insight on. The foundation has cut its budget by over 40%. We have reduced some full time employees to part time and made other cuts to our project plans in order to continue the mission forward. Leaders have to make hard choices and those choices always need to align with what is best for token holders and the DAO.

My post above is not advocating any cuts. My post above is asking 2 questions about this proposal. I would love to understand why those two questions above are so difficult to answer and instead you chose to attack me personally and the foundation as well.

The culture you are creating with these attacks is the toxic one. Asking questions about the business of the DAO is not a culture of toxicity. The DAO is an open platform, expressing opinions publicly on an open forum is by no means manipulation.


I believe that this matter is something to be resolved by the leadership in the place dedicated to it. Bringing the culture of cuts to light because of a bear market is sensible and i guess isnt motivating some DAO members. We know the difficulties and how nasty a bear market can be, but we continue to build and want a clear leadership position. A cut culture may sound like an inquisition for some ppl IMO.

Coordination > cut culture
edit: we just received Hedgeys otcs and partial salaries in FOX and this is an example of creativity that has been adopted to coordinate our team members.

despite the regrets, I have been following closely the discussions here on the forum. I admire everyone’s resilience in approaching issues openly and hope to see progress in our DAO culture. Kent, you do a wonderful job and I admire and appreciate it. I just want to give my opinion on a specific line.

Let’s keep building and DAOing it.

Kind regards,

~~ @thesmith


I’m not attacking you, I’m telling the community the truth about you being a failure of a foundation member, and leadership re-centralizing the DAO behind the scenes. I will make a detailed post on this Sunday.

I have plenty of questions about the competence of you in sustainability planning, and furthermore sound business ethics practices. IDC what you try to say, you’re moving unethically, and I furthermore have serious questions about the DAOs “investment” in your project - 100k for that? Really? You guys have 1k twitter follows, what the hell sort of real traffic will we get from that?

and to continue the “I’m not sure I understand” and “don’t attack me” narratives only proves how manipulative you really are being in public conversation. You know exactly why I’m not happy with you and leadership, and I warned all of you that I thought you were failing weeks ago.

Sorry if this was a “tough conversation” but the community knows, for sure (Not talking ex-centralized FOX who are friends and hold personal loyalties that shine in times like this sadly in the worst ways) that I’m not attacking anyone and I’m telling them what I see as a leader, and as someone that has seen things that would make many investors sell immediately.

Do I think we can still DAO it, and cut all of this manipulation and theatre out of leadership? I certainly hope so.

1 Like

@hunt, I love you man, but wtf?

@0xean asked some very reasonable questions that have not been answered yet. Can you please just answer the questions? :pray: I am in favor of this proposal and would like to see it passed. The best way to do that is to respond to questions, not attack the questioner. That’s the unhealthy behavior that needs to be corrected imo, not asking questions nor asking the community to not vote a proposal forward until important questions have been answered. We should encourage and embrace healthy debate and diligence on every DAO expenditure.

Agree with @Josh that we need to confirm with @0xdef1cafe that engineering can commit to providing the necessary data before passing this proposal. I would ask that he be open to changing his vote to a yes if engineering does commit and the other questions are answered, but really this should have already been answered before this stage. This was the first thing I asked about this proposal and was under the impression this had already been answered.

Agree with @seven7hwave’s response too. Appreciate everything you’ve done for the DAO and all the work you put into negotiating this deal. Also appreciate everything @0xean has done for the DAO (and the Foundation) and am grateful to have you both in this community.

We are all foxes, whether you’re employed by the foundation, the DAO, or a community member. You two are some of the most influential foxes in the DAO; if you don’t agree on something, we should probably talk about it.

In order to ensure survival this bear, we need to be more diligent about spending. This is inevitably going to lead to questions from community members who care about the DAO’s longevity (hopefully everyone). I encourage every DAO member to be open to questions and to trust that the asker is well-intentioned. If you don’t do this, you’re hurting the DAO, yourself, and your fellow community members.


I stand by what I said willy, I love ya too man and I’m sorry I’m bringing up the real “tough conversation” - leadership has continuously refused to effectively protect this DAO, its holders, and the true DAO community that is extremely disappointed on a number of levels. I tried to warn all of leadership, that I saw failure, I talked to you all and I even told you all I was extremely upset about you all acting like children. You are all trying to figure out how to get rid of support right now, as well as @Toasty - I’m not going to sit here and let anyone lie to the community and say I wasn’t just asked to fire 5+ people (I fired a couple sadly Ill admit and I hate that I folded to the pressure before making a forum post asking for community input). Oh and fire another workstream leader? For being out for a few days while other “contributors” seriously shouldn’t be paid by the DAO whatsoever after the multiple month long vacations for that matter. Lets all get real here. I’m ready to let the community know what I see this weekend and until then I hope leadership and the foundation member that I see overstepping can step back and think about how YOU can all improve. Don’t attack me for speaking up, I’ll fall on this sword though knowing I stood tall, argued the lack of ethics, and called all of you that are acting like pompous bozos w/ inflated egos axing people from their jobs no real severance for their time.

also sorry for the disruption here @1screamplease <3


@hunt I think you care so much for the DAO, everyone in it, and the people that look to you for leadership. I appreciate that.

I don’t see any problem with @0xean’s initial post responding to this proposal. We all have the right, even the responsibility, to challenge proposals that we do not agree with. I also think he challenged the proposal with appropriate questions. Perhaps this was not the best context to bring up the fact that currently marketing spends more than engineering. But it did have some relevance to the question about why this spend couldn’t come from the existing budget.

I don’t see a problem if you @hunt don’t like either the questions or the way the questions were posed. That is also your right, even your reponsibility, to challenge thinking that you don’t agree with.

What I do see a problem with is how you have responded. I think you can respond to the questions, and make additional points if you choose, while maintaining a civility. It is hard for me to get past what I perceive as your resentment toward @0xean and hear anything that you are trying to say. As a result of this post and the ensuing conversation, I have less confidence in your ability to lead.

Regarding @0xean’s presence in our community and leadership, I mirror @seven7thwave’s and @willy’s thoughts. I think his experience and thinking on matters of organization, budget, and culture are extremely valuable to the DAO and I’m very glad he is here in the capacity he has.


I think you’re wrong, and you’re one of the major manipulators. Which is ok, If you want to try to use this to knock me off, why don’t you let the community know you were trying to do that for the last month privately with toasty, and further that you want me to get rid of @ETHan1Elohim completely?

Thank you ser - that means a lot coming from you!


These are the key success metrics I can see:

  • Increase delegation to the ShapeShift validators. Each increased delegation has direct revenue to the DAO treasury. In the year that TaxiStake has had up the validator, staked assets have fallen on the ATOM validator. The chart below is delegations over time. This is something we can, and already do, directly track. An increase of 5-10% in ATOM delegations would pay for this integration.

  • SEO benefits to shapeshift.com via backlinking from stakingrewards.com to the shapeshift websites. Key SEO keywords that this proposal has the chance to directly improve: cosmos staking, fox staking, staking rewards, etc. SEO rank is not being tracked currently but can and should be.

  • Exposure and credibility to ShapeShift’s validators and to FOX and FOXy to a highly correlated audience that is already looking for new staking opportunities.

I will add a disclaimer, I am not aware of what the internal engineering lift is to help complete this integration. My understanding was that it is mostly public blockchain data that stakignrewards needs. I think this engineering scope needs to be defined. If there are features that require too much engineering effort, they can be adjusted or cut from scope.


Regarding the SEO strategy … is 100% valid. Thank you, Marley. For bringing this very important insight. I am available to help and analyze viable KW strategies for all launches. This is really necessary when it comes to KPI/ROI. I was digging into ShapeShift.com SERP’s analytics (thank you for providing that access, @willy :purple_heart:) and found really interesting data.
Currently we don’t have any ranked KW about staking, validators, cosmos etc and yes, this can be marketable! With marketing campaigns around the topic, PRs, landing pages and even ads (although we have a good organic traffic scenario).

Just FYI some metrics from SearchConsole, by starting pointing the right keywords we’ll start to experience new queries in .com.

I did an analysis on shapeshift.com’s current traffic considering Google Analytics, Search Console and SemRush data. I’m still at the beginning, the data is fresh and the snapshots are in experimental phase but i would be glad if you join in this discussion if you want to cast your SEO insights :man_mage:



@hunt Please don’t turn this into an episode of Jerry Springer.

@0xean’s reply to the OP was critical, yes, but it was reasonable and civil. It was not toxic. You didn’t respond to the challenge posed. You resorted to insults and attacked the messenger. That kind of behavior is toxic and has no place here.

1 Like

Do you have experience with SEO? If so, I’d love to chat about shapeshift.com with you.


Sure! ty for reaching me.
dm’d :fox_face:


are you ready to deal with the DAO dying? You’ve done nothing but promote it @Beorn - keep trying to play backroom games like a complete manipulator. Way to go, you proved nothing.