[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. 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.

    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


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 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.


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 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 ’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,


, I love you man, but wtf?

asked some very reasonable questions that have not been answered yet. Can you please just answer the questions? 1f64f 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 that we need to confirm with 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 ’s response too. Appreciate everything you’ve done for the DAO and all the work you put into negotiating this deal. Also appreciate everything 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 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 ’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 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 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 ’s presence in our community and leadership, I mirror @seven7thwave’s and ’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.

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

discourse-post-upload20231125-65354-zsozg2.png 0xean:

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

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, 1f49c) 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:


discourse-post-upload20231125-65354-s0p1ot.png hunt:

I’m not attacking you, I’m telling the community the truth about you being a failure of a foundation member

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

’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.

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:

For what it’s worth I was surprised to learn this didn’t already happen. Seems like a very good idea. In shapeshifts case almost perfect in timing and market fit. I personally dont know about budgets obviously, but i’d buy it if I owned this company so I voted Yes.


Those are legitimate questions and I will do my best to answer them. We already went through the most relevant on the AMA with our Integrations and Engineering team and thanks again to those who dedicated their time and joined.

Question 1 (Engineering): We can reassure you that setting up the API is not going to be difficult and we are glad to assist you. After setting up the API and filling out the Verified Provider Questionnaire upon signing the Service Agreement, all the heavy lifting will be done by Staking Rewards. I am fully committed to getting Shapeshift integrated to Staking Rewards. We will revise the work together after the work has been done.

Question 2 (Conversions): The great thing about getting a Verified Provider profile is that you get the “Stake now” button as you can see currently from Blockdaemon, Stake DAO, Midas, Binance etc. It will be possible to track clicks that go through (CTR). We will have new functionalities after the new website launch in Q3/Q4 as already mentioned on the call.

The 2 biggest benefits:

a) Shapeshift will get sitewide exposure and make a serious presence with the $FOX asset page, Shapeshift Earn page, and Shapeshift Wallet apart from getting a Verified Provider Profile from Day 1 of getting integrated. I am convinced that this will result in new stakers, higher staked value and new business opportunities. It will increase brand awareness, trust, and industry attractiveness of Shapeshift overall.

b) Shapeshift will get exposure to the #1 SEO optimized page for “staking rewards”. Search engine optimization is a costly and especially lengthy process (cannot be done overnight, even with a huge budget). Many affluent investors are going to discover Shapeshift through “stake fox” on Stakingrewards - guaranteed. Besides getting in front of the staking community, the most impactful added value of getting the Shapeshift $FOX, Earn and Wallet integrated will be the network effect of our staking data API used by Tier 1 institutions (DeFi, CeFi, TradFi). This gives institutions a strong signal that you’re serious about institutional adoption.

It was great crafting the proposal with hunt, Marley, Willy, Toasty, and the DAO 1f604 It was great teamwork and some of our team members have noticed that and joined the AMA voluntarily. I am sure some of us are going to stick around because we enjoyed the good vibes of the Shapeshift community.

Thanks for this . Are you at liberty to share what kind of numbers other customers of your receive in regards to click through? Do you know, and can you share, any details on how much their staking increased after they were integrated on your site? Thanks.

The Staking participation from one of our trusted clients has increased from 7.8K to 136K in 2 years (17x) since the integration. Staked % increased from 36% to 55% and Engaged balance (“Staked value”) increased from 5.17M to 11.33M.

It is a top 100 by market capitalization.

More shit from the same quarters designed to boost power and control more of SSDAO.

Willy wont stand in the way. Best day ever. Push harder and dig your heals in. You always get your way.

I am really quite saddened by what I thought at one time was valiant attempt to keep the vision alive which Erik spoke of often at the start of this decade.

Now it is something else and no one will take responsibility for how it looks from out here.

Anyone want a T-Shirt and a Hat?

Sure, I don’t mind telling you why I am watching. The number of people being treated like shit gave me only one choice. If I hadn’t stood up for those were treated reprehensibly, no one else would have, and I did it knowing full well that I could not live with myself knowing others were going get the same treatment.

The Education Team were never supported by the braggart that took credit for thier existence. And when all was said an done, you had your tokens to take care of.

There are DAOs where people care about each other and work through thier differences.

I hope someone has the balls to turn Shapeshift around so I can feel good about the “Company” again.