September Voting Update
[Temp Check] - Ethereum Foundation Attackathon Sponsorship
Vote: Abstain
Type: Snapshot
We voted to abstain from this proposal partly because we wanted to see if other DAOs would be moving forward with Attackathon grants. It feels more appropriate if various DAO committed smaller chunks of capital as opposed to a few committing large amounts. The Arbitrum onchain vote, for instance, has yet to conclude. Our hesitancy in supporting this proposal largely comes from the current allocation that the DAO has made to donations.
More UNI has been issued towards donations that protocols incentives, WG comp, and delegate incentives combined. This ratio should ideally decrease over time, and donations should be carefully considered prior to the DAO loosely committing to public goods funding. The DEF expenditure of $10M from earlier this year, in our eyes, should be the only donation we give out. If the commitment for the Attackathon were smaller, we’d be more inclined. Plus, if more Eth dapps were on board, the proposal would truly feel like a collective effort, as opposed to asking a small number of DAOs for hundreds of thousands of dollars.
UAC Renewal S3
Vote: Renew UAC
Type: Snapshot
The UAC has played a critical role in ensuring a structured process for the deployment of v3 on various EVM environments. It also helps deploy and custody assets for various working groups and programs. This operational function is important for any DAO to have, so we are voting For this renewal.
Approved Budgets Rebalancing
Vote: Approved Rebalance
Type: Snapshot
In order to effectively cover the liabilities of the DAO, it is important to denominate program and working group accounts in terms of dollars—not the native token. The risk here is a spiral where the sell pressure from the issued UNI leads to more and more rebalancing. However, we believe that the allotment for rebalancing is negligible enough relative to the circulating supply to prevent any price spirals.
Uniswap Delegate Race Tiebreaker
Vote: (1st) Tane, (2nd) Both (create an extra 16th spot), (3rd) Argonaut
Type: Snapshot
The primary issue with this vote was the fact that two applicants went through two rounds of tie-breakers before Tane was finally selected. Argonaut claimed that the process was unclear—which it was to an extent. It will be important to reduce any subjectivity in future votes. This particular scenario was a rare instance where both candidates voted on the same proposal, but Argonaut did so earlier. However, it was a part of the same vote, therefore, Argonaut should not be favored over Tane. There’s no point in rewarding someone for voting earlier, in most cases. As a result, the forum activity was considered to be the third tie-breaker, which was not effectively communicated to the DAO. However, this method has been used before, so if we had to choose a candidate, it would be Tane here.
Proposal to active 2, 3, 4 bps fee-tiers on Base
Vote: For
Type: Onchain
As per our reasoning for the snapshot, we are voting For this proposal. The optionality for undercutting fees as a competitive measure seems like an interesting experiment. A primary concern is still the degree of incentives that Aerodrome has, which will eventually subside, and Uniswap will likely become more competitive again. Hence, we are viewing this more as an experiment.
Uniswap Accountability S3 Renewal and Rebalance
Vote: For
Type: Onchain
As per the above snapshot reasoning, we are in favor of this proposal. It is important for the DAO to cover its liabilities in dollar terms, and the continuation of the UAC is important for effective operational execution of incentives, multi-chain deployments, and escrow/accountability for DAO-led teams and programs.
Forse Analytics for Uniswap Revitalization and Growth Program
Vote: For
Type: Onchain
Someone has to conduct a retrospective analysis of the URGP. It is a critical step in moving forward with future incentive programs. We also elected to analyze protocols exclusively in the URGP and not the LTIPP:
Our team had some concerns about overlap between the retrospective analysis that would be completed by Gauntlet for the Arb LTIPP and the analysis that Forse would provide for the same protocol. StableLab communicated with Gauntlet to split the work around Arbitrum, so we are comfortable with supporting this analysis now.