Atiselsts.eth Delegate Platform

Delegation Pitch
10

  1. [TEMP CHECK] Uniswap Onboarding Package - OKX Chain
    Vote: Against. The vote is specifically for the incentives, not the deployment itself. Giving out incentives would be premature due to OKX chain’s low TVL, at the moment lower than any other chain that has received similar incentives. Even more importantly, the majority of liquidity will be contained in Uniswap’s pools with the OKB token, supporting such incentives effectively means the OKB token is promoted at the expense of UNI holders, which would set a very bad precedent.

  2. [TEMP CHECK]- Revised - Uniswap Onboarding Package - OKX Chain
    Vote: For. I support the official deployment of Uniswap on the OKX Chain. It’s a pity though that the frontend deployment & maintenance cost ($105k) is not explicitly stated in the proposal. It would be great to state it clearly, to keep Uniswap’s governance decisions legible to newbies and outsiders.

  3. Onboarding Package for Gnosis Chain
    Vote: For. I support $250k liquidity incentives on Gnosis Chain.

  4. [Temp Check] Forse Analytics for Uniswap Revitalization and Growth Program
    Vote: Do not proceed with the proposal.

The Uniswap Revitalization and Growth Program has been a significant expense for the DAO so far and, if positively evaluated, will continue to be so in the future as new chains continue to emerge. It should be carefully analyzed, and its results should be reported. This could create valuable knowledge not just for Uniswap’s community but for the entire web3 space, where liquidity mining campaigns remain a contentious topic.

In my opinion, this task is too important to be rushed. In its current state, the StableLabs proposal is not convincing enough, and it’s unclear whether the metrics it plans to evaluate (such as user retention) are the most relevant to the program’s objectives (gaining market share for Uniswap on newer chains). Additionally, it’s not clear why it proposes to analyze Arbitrum, where URGP funds were not deployed. The LM campaigns on Arbitrum have different objectives, a different operator, different distribution weights, and a different approach to pool selection, so bundling the analysis together doesn’t seem to be a good idea.

I would accept the proposal if it were improved, but a better approach might be for either the UF or the DAO to define the metrics to be evaluated, outline the expected outcomes, create a call for proposals, and allow service providers to submit competitive bids.

1 Like