Unichain and Uniswap v4 Liquidity Incentives
Vote: For
Type: Onchain
Unichain and v4 will require incentives due to the competitive nature of DEXs and L2s alike. Uniswap is losing market share in the DEX space, and migrating liquidity to a new platform won’t be easy. We like the clawback present in the proposal so funds can be halted or recouped if the first handful of months are not executed in a desired manner. All the other reasons behind our support are substantiated in the above rationale regarding the Snapshot vote.
Uniswap Unleashed
Vote: Abstain
Type: Onchain
As per our above rationale, we abstained on this proposal because amendments around the tranched setup for funding were not included. Nor was there an addition of a clawback setup, like there is for the liquidity incentives proposal. We still believe that funding the UF is important, but there should be more concrete implementations around upholding proper execution of the stated programs. Directionally in support.
[Temp Check] Saga Uniswap v3 Liquidity Incentives
Vote: For
Type: Snapshot
This incentives deal has been the most favorable one for the DAO to take on a purely cost ratio basis. The Saga team offered around $700k per month (given constant token price), while UNI would only have to commit $250k. Some have argued that there is risk related to Saga itself, which are fair concerns. However, Saga has promised to make the Uniswap deployment the canonical DEX on their chain/chainlets, allowing for us to attain direct support of the Saga Foundation. The same cannot be said for most alternative L1s/L2s. There aren’t native DEXs to compete with since Uniswap has been one of the first deployed dapps. From the perspective of monopolizing the DEX market on Saga, this is a smart move.