Appreciate this post, I think it’s a really valuable one to get out ahead of the transferability conversation and start building some alignment.
I agree that a milestone based approach makes sense. Rather than trying to list out everything that might be relevant I wonder if we could prioritise a smaller set of the most important ones, the things that really need to be in place before transferability goes live. Some kind of prioritisation framework could be helpful here, even if informal, for example distinguishing between
- “must-haves” or things that if not in place could harm the token’s credibility or functionality post-transferability. e.g. minimum liquidity, updated staking
- “alignment” milestones, things that are important for decentralisation and credibility but not necessarily blocking. They affect legitimacy and long-term health. e.g governance participation or token distribution levels
- “nice-to-haves” or things that are helpful for optics or signalling strength, but aren’t necessarily essential to transferability. e.g. protocol treasury targets or TVL levels.
Using a framework like this might give us a clearer view on what should block transferability vs. what would be nice to have.
The other piece I’ve been thinking about is around liquidity and trading, specifically how we make sure the token can trade in a healthy, credible way from day one. Aerodrome makes sense as a venue, especially given it’s Base native, but I think it’s worth opening up the discussion to some other mechanisms and tools that could be layered in alongside that.
A few that come to mind: protocol-owned liquidity (maybe locked for 6–12 months), something like a Balancer-style LBP for early price discovery, or using Uniswap v3 / Arrakis-style vaults to concentrate liquidity around a target price range. There’s also perhaps the option of incentivised LP campaigns for the community.
I think a broader conversation around liquidity provision and market structure to explore additional options might be a valuable discussion.