RFP Request: Comprehensive Data Dashboard

Service Provider RFP
1

Introduction

This proposal outlines a request for service providers to share proposals with the DAO regarding a new data dashboard for the Stargate Protocol. Service providers should share their proposals in the service provider RFP category on discourse. Ultimately, the Stargate community will decide their preference through a Snapshot ballot.

Motivation

Data is incredibly important to understanding how protocols are functioning. Having data at hand helps to push informed decision making, focus efforts and assess the success of initiatives. Whilst effectively all data for the Stargate Protocol is onchain most people don’t have the experience with onchain analytics that would allow them to access said data. Furthermore, if one is able to get the data, putting that data in context is another challenge in itself so it’s rarely actionable information.

Therefore, the intention of this proposal is to fund the build out of a comprehensive data dashboard for the Stargate Protocol which covers areas of intense importance for the success of the protocol and the DAOs treasury.

Proposal

Each teams proposal should include:

  1. Cost to the DAO.

  2. Proposed timeline with milestones (over the timeline teams should provide updates to the DAO).

  3. What will be covered by the dashboard.

  4. Examples of previous work.

These proposals should be in the Service Provider RFP category, separate from this post so users can comment directly on your proposals.

Final submissions must be submitted by November 1.

The following information is requested to be included in any dashboard:

  • Growth of Hydra assets and Protocol Locked Liquidity.
    • With Stargate V2 Hydra was introduced. With Hydra, users’ assets get locked in the protocol on the source chain and a representation of the token is minted on the destination chain. We would like to see a visualization of the growth of Hydra.
      • This could look like the netting of volume from Pool-based chains to Hydra-based chains, or generally pool balance vs TVL of each pool
  • Bridging routes and demand.
    • You can be creative here, but it would be great to visualize usage of pathways and volume.
  • Fee distribution.
    • Revenue share with veSTG holders.
  • Incentives.
    • How much is Stargate spending on incentives and in which pools.
    • How much in STG tokens versus non-STG incentives
  • Treasury breakdown.
    • Revenue.
    • DAO positions (LP etc).
      • For DAO positions, ideally there would be an indication of profit and loss.

We also definitely encourage you to be creative. This is by all means not an exhaustive list and we encourage community members to express their desire for any other data points that they think would be useful and help to inform decision making.

Examples of comprehensive dashboards that we think are good examples of what could be done.

Here are links to existing Stargate dashboards/data if it’s helpful:

Links on Stargate Protocol Transparency page

New links to DeFILlama

Dune Dashboards

https://dune.com/sandman2797/across-vs-stargate-bus-vs-stargate-taxi

https://dune.com/sandman2797/across-vs-stargate-taxi-vs-bus-usdc

https://dune.com/sandman2797/across-vs-stargate-taxi-vs-bus-eth

https://dune.com/holmberg15a/stargate-stablecoins-and-dollareth

It is also requested that this dashboard can be updated over time if necessary.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this proposal outlines an RFP for a comprehensive data dashboard for the Stargate DAO. We look forward to seeing submissions.

If you are applying and you don’t already have a group chat with the foundation reach out to @stgHarry on Telegram

[EDITED: Edited to include links to existing dashboards and to extend the timeframe for proposals.]

3 Likes
2

Great Idea!! I am looking forward to this!

1 Like
3

I am unable to post all the information I want to using Discourse. Only two links per post are allowed.

I was hoping to add links to all relevant dashboards

4

The original RFP has been edited to include these links! Thanks for the comment.

5
  • Average Transaction Size
  • Protocol Owned Liquidity (POL) / Total STG
  • POL / Circulating STG
  • POL / Staked STG
  • Total Stakers
  • Total Stakers by veSTG
  • Fees paid to individual stakers by veSTGs
  • Bus vs Taxi vs other bridges (inc. Across)
  • More to come
4 Likes
6

Hey Exahash,

We’d love to hear if you have any more thoughts under “more to come” - we’re going to be submitting a bid shortly and value any further input you may have.

Thank you!

LlamaRisk (a nonprofit, multifaceted risk management service provider for DAOs and DeFi protocol teams)

7

Again, not a comprehensive list or particularly robust set of requirements, but I’ve added a few metrics I think would be useful for DAO performance, transparency and community tracking while I have a few spare moments.

I want to go through and see what the latest Aave dashboards look as part of the latest UI and UX enhancements.

I hope this list helps.

  • Average revenue per user
  • Active users
  • Net treasury
  • Fees / Earnings
  • Token incentives / issuance
  • Foundation accounting metrics
  • Token unlock schedules
  • Price / Fees
  • Price / Book
  • Average STG holding by Account
  • Top 100 STG Holders (including STG holdings, % of circulating supply, locked or unlocked, % staked, has ever staked)
  • Top 100 veSTG stakers accounts
  • Top 100 veSTG stakers accounts (showing remaining staking period, STG holdings, % of circulating supply, last voted, last change to stake duration or holdings, recipient of ZRO drop)
  • Whale report (# and % of accounts holding various STG
  • Traffic light report - changes to Top 100 since last month
  • Fees paid to accounts
  • Transparency of major institutional and VC holdings and unlocks.
  • Transaction volume by chain and/or channel
  • Transaction volumes by time of day
2 Likes
8

As mentioned in this proposal November 1 was the deadline for submissions.

Now that submissions are closed there will be a final week for comments lasting until Friday 8 November. Following this, voting for the chosen provider will begin on November 11.

There will be two Snapshot votes. The first to choose a provider and a second, once a provider is chosen, to pick a pricing option within their proposal.

Thankyou to the community for your engagement thus far and please feel free to comment here if you have any thoughts on process!

9

Hi @Hazbobo, upon further consideration, the Stargate V2 design involves numerous nuances that require more detailed attention to ensure we gather accurate insights.

Therefore, I recommend finalizing the proposal after we select a provider, as significant effort will be needed from our data provider to fully understand these aspects.

I noticed that most of the provided proposals were lacking in these areas. Here are a few examples:

  • Analytics around bus size and dispatch time, to determine effective bus size for each pathways.
  • Dynamic fees
    • can sometimes be negative (as a reward), so differentiation is necessary. It’s a completely different scenario if Stargate is the one compensating users to bridge.
    • Insights on arbitrageurs may require distinguishing the volume associated with different fee ranges (e.g., 6 to 5 bps, 5 to 4 bps, 4 to 3 bps).
  • Incentives
    • Amount of liquidity and average APY for each LP, assessing whether we are offering a reasonable APY (for instance, ETH typically has an APY of 3-4%, while Stargate is incentivizing with an 8% APY)
    • Breakdown of incentives by token type
  • POL & PLL
    • Breakdown of POL allocation by chain, bridge LP, and DEX LP, and will it accurately reflect if we mint to Hydra chains?
    • Regarding Hydra chains, supporting all future chains is essential to gather meaningful insights. Without this, the data will be insufficient for analysis. This requires further planning on how our data provider will implement it.
  • Competitor analysis should not rely solely on total volume comparisons, as there are many nuances involved (incentives, rebates, specific pathways). To obtain valuable insights, the analysis needs to be more complex. I suggest we forgo this entirely at this stage.
10

Hey Sendok!

This is useful feedback.

Appreciate the recommendation on finalizing the proposal after we select a provider. Although, I don’t see why teams can’t update their proposal based on this feedback over this final week of comments before the initial vote. I would lean into this option, as otherwise a team will be elected without a finalized proposal, which could otherwise have changed the outcome of the vote.

1 Like
11

I see, if the teams don’t mind then that would work as well

1 Like
12

Thank you for these suggestions @SendokGarpu. First of all, I just want to say that the most important thing to Artemis is not only serving our protocol clients to the fullest initially but also remaining a continuous service provider and partner so that we can work in step with Stargate DAO on further improvements and additions to the dashboard. This is why we propose a continuous relationship. We are sure we can and will provide for all that Stargate needs today, but also be flexible as things change down the road.

To address a few of your suggestions:

Dynamic fees: We understand your concerns. We have adjusted our proposal to reflect our ability to distinguish “incentive driven” and “organic” metrics as it relates to volume, transactions, and fees. This will hopefully give an understanding as to which fees are “compensated”.
Incentives: We adjusted our proposal to reflect active liquidity and APY for each token being that Stargate uses different tokens based on circumstances.
POL and PLL: We have adjusted our proposal to include breakdowns of POL allocation by chain, bridge LP and DEX LP. In regards to Hydra chains, though additional chains are additional pay, every Hydra chain that is paid for will be included. We are flexible to be able to accept further payments for new Hydra chains as they launch.

We are looking forward to working with the Stargate DAO.

2 Likes
13

Hi @SendokGarpu,

Thank you for the additional context around the specific analytics requirements for Stargate.

Below are 2 features that (i) set us apart from the other service providers, and (ii) ensure an effective delivery of the requested metrics:

1. Custom metrics creation: At Token Terminal, we operate an in-house data pipeline that gives us access to transaction-level data across all the chains that we support. Since we have access to the data at the most granular level, our research team is fully equipped to create custom metrics for Stargate, based on the requests from the DAO.

image
image1920Ă—1034 91.5 KB

2. Custom metrics visualization: Our new custom dashboard creator enables us to visualize all metrics according to the DAO’s requirements. We’ve built the custom dashboard creator to specifically meet the needs of DAOs that require max. customizability in the frontend to power internal business development & external stakeholder communication. The custom dashboard creator also includes text-based analysis that can be used to enhance the quantitative onchain data with qualitative context to ensure that all viewers get the most out of the data.

image
image1920Ă—1496 197 KB

Finally, we place a strong emphasis on long-term collaboration and customer success, which means that the Stargate DAO can rely on us for an effective delivery of the requested metrics, as well as ongoing customer support as the DAO’s data needs evolve.

Looking forward to collaborating further.

1 Like
14

Are you able to provide full Token Terminal licences to a number of us who have substantial investments in the DAO?

16

Yes, if we get the mandate, we’re happy to work with the biggest tokenholders to ensure the best possible outcome (incl. granting major holders access to the Token Terminal product suite).

17

Congratulations to all teams who took part in this RFP. The range and depth of each proposal was incredibly impressive. As shown by this Snapshot the DAO ultimately chose Artemis as the dashboard provider of choice.

Now, a final Snapshot will take place to decide which pricing option is preferred by the DAO. So far engagement from the DAO has been incredible with over 1.2 million votes made throughout the process. We are excited to see this engagement continue for the final phase of this process!