S7 Grants Council Impact Analysis

[GFXlabs]

@Gonna.eth

Quick clarification request. The report notes that SuperStacks has brought in $73.4M in net TVL inflows per OP. I wanted to confirm whether any part of that reported TVL includes Morpho deployments on Unichain.

No contracts were deployed for SuperStacks.
The contract being tracked by SuperStacks is the same one funded by the GC grant. All SuperStacks does in this case is track the contract and assign points to users who interact with it.

If Morpho’s TVL is included in the SuperStacks impact figure, I’d appreciate clarification on how that attribution is being handled.

Is any of that TVL being attributed to SuperStacks in the $73.4M figure mentioned in the report?

If so, it seems like we’re misattributing TVL that only exists because of a GC grant. @thbialek

Additional items to make sure the TVL is being attributed correctly. SuperStacks overlaps with a number of other incentives programs

• Unichain’s own incentives
• World’s own incentives
• Soneium’s own incentives
• World received a GC grant
• Moonwell received a GC grant
• Velodrome received a GC grant
• Sake Finance received a GC grant

In general, SuperStacks largely incentivized project-chain combinations that the GC selected or were already running major incentives campaigns. So let’s just make sure TVL growth is attributed by a standardized formula, like pro-rate contributions. We believe that a methodology was mentioned, so it would be great to see it worked through in an example.

It would also be useful to know if SuperStacks selected a project-chain combination to support before or after other incentives were announced. Identifying what to incentivize is a major use of time for the GC, so if SuperStacks will in the future continue to operate as a kind of follow-on matching pool of funds, for GC and chain incentives, that’s very useful for GC in S8 to be aware of to size grants appropriately.