Optimism SuperStacks Campaign Analysis: Pioneering Cross-Chain DeFi Incentives

In April 2025, Optimism – a leading Ethereum Layer-2 network – launched an experimental campaign called SuperStacks. This program was a pilot points-based rewards campaign aimed at showcasing the power of the emerging Optimism Superchain, a vision of a unified network of multiple blockchains built on Optimism’s technology. For newcomers, Optimism is a blockchain that makes Ethereum transactions cheaper and faster, and the “Superchain” refers to an interconnected family of Optimism-based chains (such as Optimism Mainnet, Coinbase’s Base network, and others that use the OP Stack software). SuperStacks was designed to encourage users to interact across these chains in a seamless way. Instead of traditional airdrops that reward past behavior, SuperStacks rewarded ongoing behavior with points (XP) for participating in DeFi activities that span multiple chains.

This article will break down what SuperStacks is and how it worked, review how the community participated and responded to the campaign, analyze the outcomes in terms of opportunities and risks for similar multi-chain incentive programs, and explore potential synergies with Mitosis’s Ecosystem-Owned Liquidity (EOL) strategies – a concept at the heart of the Mitosis project that also emphasizes collective liquidity across networks. By the end, you’ll have a clear understanding of why SuperStacks was an important experiment in the multi-chain DeFi world and what it might mean for future incentive designs.

What Is SuperStacks and How Did It Work?

SuperStacks was essentially a cross-chain DeFi rewards program running from April 16 to June 30, 2025. During this period, users could earn experience points (XP) by performing certain DeFi actions that leveraged multiple chains in the Optimism ecosystem. The Optimism Foundation introduced SuperStacks as a way to test “Superchain-wide” incentives – moving beyond the typical approach of each blockchain or app doing isolated liquidity mining. Instead, SuperStacks would reward users for contributing to the collective health of the broader Superchain.

Here’s how it worked in practice:

• Designated Pools and Tasks: Optimism’s team curated a set of liquidity pools and DeFi protocols across various OP Stack chains (for example, liquidity pools on Optimism Mainnet’s Uniswap for tokens that also exist on Base or other OP chains). These were “interoperable asset” pools – meaning assets that can move between chains (like bridged USDC that’s present on multiple chains). Users could provide liquidity to these pools or engage in related DeFi actions (like bridging assets, etc., depending on the campaign specifics). The list of eligible pools and actions was provided on the official SuperStacks webpage.
• Earning Points (XP): When users participated in those pools, they would earn XP points. The amount of points often depended on factors like how much liquidity they provided and for how long. In other words, a user staking more funds for a longer duration in a qualifying pool would accumulate more points. This was to encourage sustained engagement rather than quick in-and-out trades. Optimism deliberately emphasized continuous behavior.
• Cross-Chain Emphasis: The key novelty was that activities across chains were counted in one unified leaderboard. Normally, providing liquidity on, say, Optimism and on Base are separate things with separate rewards on each chain. But SuperStacks treated the Superchain as one arena – users had a SuperStacks profile that tracked their combined actions everywhere. So you might add liquidity on Optimism, bridge some tokens to Base, lend on an app on Base, etc., and all those would grant you XP in one cumulative score. This showcases the idea of the Superchain: that from the user’s perspective, it shouldn’t matter which chain you’re on, it all furthers the ecosystem.
• No Immediate Token Rewards – Points Only: Importantly, SuperStacks did not pay out any tokens like OP directly. Instead, users accumulated points (often shown as XP) which had no monetary value by themselves. The Optimism team explicitly stated that XP is not a token and not redeemable or transferable. Points were a form of gamified reputation or a record of participation. This was a cautious approach to avoid creating legal issues (it was not a securities offering or a promise of profit) and to prevent mercenary farming purely for a quick dump. That said, many in the community speculated (perhaps hoped) that high XP might later be recognized or rewarded in some fashion (for example, through future airdrops of OP or other tokens, or special NFTs, etc.). But there was no guarantee of that – the ethos was “participation does not guarantee future rewards.”
• Iterative and Flexible: The campaign was labeled a pilot and came with the caveat that rules might change along the way. Optimism wanted to gather data and feedback, and reserved the right to tweak which pools are incentivized, how points are calculated, or even introduce surprise bonus challenges. This flexible approach was part of the experiment – to learn what behaviors they actually get and adjust accordingly.

For users, the experience was like joining a DeFi quest or loyalty program. You could visit the SuperStacks web dashboard, connect your wallet, and see a leaderboard and your own points across the different tasks. This added a social/competitive element: some users aimed to climb the ranks by maximizing their cross-chain DeFi activities. Others participated more casually, treating it as a learning opportunity to try out bridging and liquidity providing on chains they hadn’t used before.

Participation Metrics and Community Response

The SuperStacks campaign saw a strong turnout from the community, indicating significant interest in multi-chain incentives. According to data shared by the Optimism team one week into the program, the campaign had achieved approximately $96.6 million Total Value Locked (TVL) in the participating pools, and about 27,200 unique wallets earned XP. Furthermore, within that first week, these users generated over $1.09 billion in 7-day volume across the pools – an impressive figure that suggests users were not just parking funds but actively trading or moving capital to accumulate points.

Such metrics point to a highly engaged community:

• Large Liquidity Mobilization: Nearly $100M liquidity dedicated to the campaign pools shows that users were willing to allocate real capital for the sake of the program. Some of this may have come from existing liquidity that moved into eligible pools (for instance, moving stablecoins into a cross-chain pool to earn points), and some could be new liquidity bridging over from other ecosystems once word spread about SuperStacks.
• User Participation: 27k wallets earning XP implies a broad base of participants. For comparison, many DeFi farms have far fewer active participants (often a few hundred to a few thousand). SuperStacks, by virtue of being beginner-friendly and well-publicized, attracted tens of thousands – including likely many “airdrop hunters” who specialize in chasing such opportunities. For Optimism, this was a success in onboarding users to try out multi-chain DeFi.
• High Volume: The $1B+ weekly volume is notable – it suggests that beyond just depositing liquidity, users were possibly rebalancing, swapping, and moving funds frequently (some might have been trying to game the system by generating volume if that yielded more points, or simply moving between pools for optimization).

The community response was mixed in tone but generally positive about the concept:

• Excitement and Engagement: On social media (Twitter/X, Discord), many users expressed excitement that this could lead to a future Optimism airdrop. Optimism had previously done surprise airdrops to active users, so many saw SuperStacks points as a potential ticket to the next big OP token drop (even though officially not promised). This speculation undoubtedly fueled participation – a kind of gamified yield with a lottery-like hope. Users shared strategies on how to maximize points, such as which pools had the best point accumulation rate or how long to lock liquidity.
• Learning and Onboarding: Some community members praised SuperStacks for encouraging them to try new things. Because the program spanned multiple chains, a user who had only ever used Optimism mainnet might now try out Base or another OP Stack chain to earn points. This aligns with Optimism’s goal of demonstrating the Superchain experience – users reported that bridging assets and using apps on the different chains was relatively smooth, which validated the idea that these networks can feel unified. In essence, SuperStacks functioned as a hands-on tutorial for cross-chain DeFi, with the incentive of points to make it fun.
• Feedback and Criticisms: There were also constructive criticisms. One concern was that whales and multi-wallet farmers could dominate the leaderboard. If a single entity provided, say, $5M liquidity, they’d rack up points much faster than someone providing $500. Some proposed that Optimism should weight points in a way to favor smaller participants or offer tiers, so that it’s not purely proportional to capital (to keep it fair and not discourage the little guys). Another critique was the uncertainty of rewards – a few community members felt uneasy committing funds for just “points” that might amount to nothing tangible. While many were willing to gamble on a future reward, others would have preferred more immediate compensation (like OP token drip or NFTs).
• No Financial Advice and Caution: The Optimism team and community mods frequently reminded participants that there’s no guarantee points will become tokens. This was to temper expectations and ensure people were participating for the experiment/experience, not just speculative greed. By and large, the community seemed to accept this; however, one can assume that if nothing ever comes of the points (no retrospective reward or recognition), some users might feel “burned” or less inclined to join similar campaigns in the future. This is the delicate balance Optimism tried to strike: encouraging useful activity without creating an entitlement.

By the end of the campaign (June 30, 2025), the community was eagerly awaiting what’s next. Optimism had gathered a trove of data on cross-chain user behavior. Anecdotally, community members noted that liquidity did increase across Optimism and Base, and even other chains signaled interest. The campaign even sparked conversations in other ecosystems – e.g., “Should Arbitrum do something like this with its Orbit chains?” – highlighting Optimism’s role as an innovator in incentive design.

Future Opportunities and Risks for Similar Campaigns

SuperStacks, as a pioneer, sheds light on both the opportunities and challenges of similar multi-chain incentive campaigns:

Opportunities:

• Unified Ecosystem Growth: A major benefit is the ability to grow an entire ecosystem collectively. Instead of fragmented efforts (each dApp or chain doing separate liquidity mining), a coordinated campaign can lift the ecosystem’s baseline. In Optimism’s case, it strengthened the narrative of the Superchain and got users to see value in multiple networks working together. For other projects or ecosystems, this could be a template to keep liquidity within a family of chains rather than competing separately.
• Behavioral Data Collection: Because SuperStacks was structured as an experiment, Optimism could observe what users actually do when given cross-chain freedom. They can see, for instance, which assets were most popular, how many users actually bridged vs. stayed on one chain, how long liquidity stuck around, etc. These insights are gold for designing future incentive programs or even core protocol features. For example, if data showed that users rapidly withdrew liquidity after a short period just to claim points, one might design future rewards to vest over time or reward longevity even more.
• Community Building and Education: Campaigns like this double as outreach. Many new users likely learned about Optimism or Base because of SuperStacks being talked about in crypto forums and airdrop communities. It’s an opportunity to convert airdrop hunters into longer-term community members. By the end, participants are more knowledgeable about how to use cross-chain bridges, how liquidity pools work, and so on. This raises the overall DeFi literacy of the user base, which can only help the ecosystem in the long run.
• Synergistic Incentives: Optimism allowed other protocols and chains to add their own rewards on top of SuperStacks for the same pools. For instance, if a certain pool was part of SuperStacks, the protocol that runs that pool (say a DEX) could choose to add extra token rewards for that pool to further entice users. This stacking of incentives (hence “SuperStacks” perhaps) multiplies the benefits for users and encourages collaboration. Future campaigns could expand on this, creating a coalition of projects that co-sponsor a big multi-chain event, sharing the cost of incentives and benefitting together.

Risks and Challenges:

• Short-Term “Mercenary” Behavior: One risk is that participants might treat the campaign purely as a short-term game, and once it’s over, they withdraw all liquidity, possibly even harming the ecosystem if liquidity drops sharply. There’s some evidence this happens after typical liquidity mining – liquidity can be fickle. If SuperStacks points are not followed by some recognition (e.g., an airdrop or at least a leaderboard NFT), some users could feel there’s no further reason to stick around. Optimism tried to mitigate this by focusing on behaviors (not promising future rewards), but human nature in crypto often expects something for efforts. Similar campaigns need to plan how to transition from the campaign period to “normal times” without a crash in engagement.
• Whale Dominance and Sybil Attacks: As mentioned, whales could capture a large share of the points, and sybil attackers (one entity using many addresses) could also game certain aspects. While points aren’t directly redeemable, if the assumption is points might translate to airdrop, one could split funds across multiple wallets to try to get multiple rewards. Optimism is experienced with this (they’ve dealt with airdrop farming in past airdrops) and likely had monitoring in place. Nonetheless, a future risk is if points do translate to something, any loopholes in anti-sybil measures might be exploited. Designing the points formula to account for diminishing returns at high volumes, or only counting one wallet per person (hard on-chain), are potential mitigations.
• Complexity and User Experience: Multi-chain campaigns are inherently more complex than single-chain ones. Some users might have found it confusing – e.g., needing to bridge assets, manage different transaction fees on each chain (Optimism and Base both use ETH for gas, but other OP chains could use their own tokens). If not carefully managed, this complexity could deter less advanced users or lead to mistakes (like sending funds to wrong addresses, etc.). Over the campaign, community support was crucial to help newcomers. Any similar future campaign should ensure robust guides, possibly integration with wallets that simplify cross-chain actions (for example, a feature where a user can move funds across chains in one click).
• No Immediate ROI for Sponsors: Optimism essentially gave out “points” which cost them nothing upfront (aside from operational and potential future OP allocations). If a project were to do a similar campaign but felt pressure to give actual tokens as rewards, it becomes a costly affair (and could be seen as just a bigger multi-chain liquidity mining, which might not be sustainable). There’s a risk that without a tangible carrot, users might not show up; but with too big a carrot, you attract only mercenaries. Optimism’s experiment was to find a middle ground. If it turns out that lots of users leave after not getting an airdrop, others might say “See, you should have just given small rewards or NFTs along the way.” It’s a fine line in incentive design.
• Security Across Chains: Involving multiple chains means relying on bridges for interoperability. Bridges in crypto have historically been points of vulnerability. Although in the OP Superchain context, these are not arbitrary bridges but more tightly integrated mechanisms, any multi-chain activity has a larger surface area. If one chain had a security issue or one bridging mechanism failed, participants could suffer losses or the campaign could be disrupted. Thankfully, nothing of that sort happened during SuperStacks, but future campaigns must ensure all cross-chain tech is robust.

Synergies with Mitosis EOL Strategies

Mitosis is built around the concept of Ecosystem-Owned Liquidity (EOL) – essentially, collectively owned liquidity that can move across chains to wherever it’s most effective. The SuperStacks campaign aligns in spirit with EOL, as both promote cross-chain liquidity provisioning for mutual benefit. There are a few clear synergies and lessons:

• Cross-Chain Liquidity Mobility: One of Mitosis EOL’s goals is to allow liquidity providers to seamlessly earn yield across multiple networks, without being siloed in one place. SuperStacks demonstrated a practical use-case of liquidity moving to where incentives and opportunities are, across a multi-chain environment. Mitosis could integrate similar incentive models in its platform – for instance, rewarding Mitosis liquidity providers for supplying capital to partner ecosystems or across different modules of Mitosis. The key is that Mitosis could use a points or reward system to direct community liquidity to strategic opportunities (just as Optimism directed liquidity to OP chains and pools).
• Data-Driven Optimization: Mitosis EOL involves optimizing yields by reallocating liquidity to where it’s needed (akin to an automated yield aggregator across chains). The data from SuperStacks about how users behave with cross-chain incentives can inform Mitosis’s models. For example, if it turns out users respond well to time-weighted rewards (staying longer in a pool), Mitosis vaults could incorporate mechanisms to favor more stable, long-term liquidity deployment which aligns with that insight.
• Community Engagement and Education: Mitosis, being a new L1 focused on liquidity, will need to educate its community about moving assets across chains and participating in various yield opportunities. A SuperStacks-like campaign run by Mitosis (perhaps in collaboration with other ecosystems) could serve as a bootstrapping tool – it would both deploy Mitosis’s EOL liquidity to productive use and get users familiar with how the Mitosis system works. For instance, Mitosis might partner with an Optimism or Polkadot campaign to provide Mitosis-managed liquidity and earn some form of credit or reputation in return.
• EOL as Infrastructure for Multi-Chain Rewards: Mitosis could position itself as the infrastructure that makes running a SuperStacks campaign easier. Imagine if projects didn’t have to ask individual users to bridge funds around, but instead tapped into an EOL pool that auto-distributes liquidity. In the future, Optimism or others could say, “We’ll collaborate with Mitosis – Mitosis’s protocol will allocate X amount of capital to our Superchain pools, and in return Mitosis vault depositors earn the points/rewards.” This way, users who may not want the hassle of manual participation could just deposit in a Mitosis vault and indirectly take part in multi-chain campaigns. It’s a synergy where Mitosis acts as a meta-participant, optimizing across campaigns.
• Preventing Liquidity Fragmentation: Both SuperStacks and Mitosis EOL aim to solve liquidity fragmentation – SuperStacks by uniting incentives, Mitosis by pooling ecosystem liquidity. Together, they align on creating a more cohesive liquidity layer. One concrete idea: Mitosis’s miAssets (yield-bearing tokens users get when they deposit into EOL pools) could potentially be supported in future SuperStacks-like programs as eligible assets. If Mitosis has, say, a miUSDC that is gaining yield from multiple chains, an Optimism campaign could include miUSDC as an interoperable asset to provide liquidity with. This would showcase Mitosis’s power and give Optimism users more options, a win-win.
• Risk Mitigation Synergy: Mitosis’s model presumably has risk management for moving liquidity (ensuring no single strategy exposes all funds, etc.). In a campaign scenario, the EOL approach could mitigate users chasing risky yields themselves. For example, if some SuperStacks pool was extremely popular but high-risk, Mitosis could throttle exposure or diversify across pools, protecting its users while still participating. Thus, Mitosis EOL strategies could make multi-chain campaigns safer and more stable by acting as a smart liquidity manager, rather than many individuals apeing in without insight.

In summary, the Optimism SuperStacks campaign provided a blueprint for how to incentivize collaborative, cross-network DeFi activity – a concept at the heart of what Mitosis is building with EOL. Future Mitosis strategies could incorporate a similar points-based incentive layer, or plug into such campaigns, to accelerate adoption. Both aim to reward users not just for sitting on liquidity, but for placing it where it’s most useful for the ecosystem as a whole.

Conclusion

Optimism’s SuperStacks campaign was a bold experiment in rethinking how we reward user participation in a multi-chain world. It shifted from the conventional model of isolated, short-term liquidity mining toward a more holistic, behavior-driven approach. By rewarding users with points for providing liquidity across the Superchain, Optimism gathered momentum for its vision of chains working together rather than competing. The campaign saw robust engagement – tens of thousands of users and significant capital – indicating that the community is ready and willing to explore cross-chain DeFi when given the right nudge.

We learned that while users can be motivated by the possibility of future rewards, they also value the journey – many discovered new platforms and grew more comfortable moving between networks. The campaign’s success is not measured only in TVL or points, but in proving out a concept: that an aligned incentive program can turn fragmented liquidity into a unified force.

Looking ahead, the SuperStacks pilot offers valuable lessons. Similar campaigns can be powerful for bootstrapping ecosystems, but they must balance inclusivity with preventing exploitation, and hype with realistic outcomes. The data and feedback from SuperStacks will likely influence Optimism’s next steps (perhaps a refined “Season 2” of SuperStacks or even a token reward phase based on the XP as a retroactive surprise).

For Mitosis University readers and Mitosis project followers, SuperStacks is especially interesting because it resonates strongly with Mitosis’s EOL ethos. It reinforces that the future of DeFi lies in cooperation across chains and communities – precisely what Mitosis is championing. By applying these insights, Mitosis can enhance its strategies to ensure that when it launches its campaigns or liquidity programs, they are as effective and innovative as SuperStacks, if not more.

In conclusion, Optimism SuperStacks was more than a points program; it was a glimpse into the future of incentive design for Web3 communities. It demonstrated how to encourage useful activity (not just speculative trading) and how to think bigger than one chain at a time. As the crypto space continues to evolve toward interconnected networks, the lessons from SuperStacks – and the potential collaborations with liquidity frameworks like Mitosis EOL – will be invaluable in building a sustainable, richly liquid, and user-friendly decentralized finance ecosystem for all.