Delegate Address: gov.avantgardefi.eth (0xb49f8b8613be240213c1827e2e576044ffec7948)
Email: governance@avantgarde.finance
Website: https://avantgarde.finance/
Twitter: https://x.com/avantgardefi
Governance Lead: @justErik
About us
Avantgarde is a crypto native asset management, advisory and research firm, specialising in asset liability management, R&D, special situations, risk monitoring and on-chain diversification strategies. Avantgarde has conducted work for leading protocols including Uniswap, The Graph, Arbitrum, Nexus Mutual, Paraswap, Enzyme and others. DAOs leverage Avantgarde’s combined expertise in protocol development and asset management for developing strategies to improve treasury sustainability.
Why Avantgarde?
Avantgarde has been active in the Uniswap ecosystem for several years, participating in initiatives such as the Uniswap Bridge Assessment Committee and contributing with R&D to various proposals in line with our expertise.
The core team behind Avantgarde brings a wealth of experience from reputable TradFi firms such as Goldman Sachs, BlackRock, and Barclays; and have been involved in DeFi since as early as 2016, most notably building the on-chain asset management protocol Enzyme, which went live on mainnet in 2019 and boasts a very robust track record without a single major protocol incident since.
With this experience and expertise, we at Avantgarde aim to help steer the Uniswap DAO to financial sustainability and community-driven growth, cementing the Uniswap protocol as the leading DEX across DeFi.
Past contributions to Uniswap ecosystem and/or demonstrated protocol knowledge:
- Active delegate over the last 3 years
- Selected as part of the Uniswap cross-chain bridge committee providing research & advice to delegates: results
- Attended and participated in major governance meetings in NYC and Brussels
- Integrated Uniswap into other DeFi protocols and active Uniswap pool manager, see e.g. Enzyme
Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest:
Avantgarde is actively contributing to a number of chains across the wider Ethereum ecosystem, though none can be said to be a direct competitor to Uniswap.
1 Like
Proposal to active 2, 3, 4 bps fee-tiers on Base
We voted FOR to support the bps fee tiers as we don’t see the harm in experimenting with LP flexibility for sake of staying competitive and try to gain back market share from Aerodrome. If anything, the initiative could be seen as a seemingly relatively risk-free way to assess such a fee structure and its impact on important metrics like trading volume, market share, revenue etc and serve to inform similar initiatives in the future.
We’ve voted FOR the renewal and rebalance of the UAC, as we see the committee filling a critical function for the DAO’s operations and, as far as we can tell, the members have done a good job in both managing their responsibilities as well as shouldered extra, unanticipated work when needed.
After some thought, we’ve voted FOR the proposal. While we agree with some of the other delegates that a few minor specifics around the deliverables could’ve been clarified before this went to a vote, these can be ironed out by the time the Accountability Committee signs off on the initiative. StableLab have been active contributors to Uniswap governance and seems fit to carry this out. The idea itself makes sense: if we can better understand the effectiveness of the Uniswap Revitalization and Growth Program, the proposed analysis can provide valuable insights and help the DAO make more informed decisions going forward.
We voted FOR this proposal. Good incentive matching from Lisk, reasonable deal and opportunity to grow Uniswap’s presence across Optimism’s superchain ecosystem.
Avantgarde has voted FOR the Uniswap Growth Program Trial proposal. Given Uniswap’s integral presence and strong name across DeFi, it has clearly been a wasted opportunity in not having a dedicated team securing available incentives across the space and managing the marketing around it - thus we see a clear need that this proposal addresses.
While the proposal is strong overall, we do have some minor points to bring up: first, it would have been beneficial to see slightly more details on the plan, specific chains/ecosystems that will be prioritised and so on, to clarify the roadmap and align expectations. 20% success fee seems to be on the higher end tho provides strong alignment, and some further budget breakdown would’ve been good for transparency sake (slightly unclear how relevant the “15 full-time professionals” are given that focus is on lead sourcing and marketing), though we recognise the flexible, sort of ad-hoc work this involves.
But at the same time, these issues are largely what the proposed trial is for.
1 Like
Voted FOR: same rationale as the prior proposal, which can be found here.
Voted FOR supporting the temp check proposal as we see great value in deepening the relationship with Tally, which remains our go-to platform for voting and a great value-provider in the DAO space. Our interactions with Tally has always been very positive and their customer support likewise excellent.
Still, we do share some of the concerns expressed by other delegates, as articulated by SEEDGov here, that we’d like to see addressed before this proposal goes onchain.
1 Like
We voted FOR this proposal as we believe the benefits of supporting Tally outweigh the minor concerns we shared regarding KPIs, which we trust the Accountability Committee to oversee with diligence.
Voted for this proposal as the surplus is significant and we see no reason not to trust the team @alphagrowth @PGov @AranaDigital with some additional wiggle room if there are lucrative opportunities to be captured; as long as there is transparent reporting on how the funds are spent and the DAO is given a heads up on upcoming target chains/campaigns to also allow for potential feedback (which the team has committed to).
With more user activity and traction this could’ve be an interesting opportunity for Uniswap to expand into a regulated ecosystem that addresses an important area bridging TradFi and DeF. However, TVL is very low as is daily active accounts; and institutions “exploring” blockchain does not equal clear demand imo. While we appreciate the thoughtful planning that has gone into this proposal and see the potential in this area, it is too much of gamble for us to support it at this point.
We’ve signalled our support for this proposal. Watching Celo’s growth this year has been impressive, and really encouraging to see more “real-world” adoption of stables via MiniPay etc. Celo has carved out a unique focus among the L2s and a niche that is well positioned to see continued adoption and growth going forward.
Left a few questions in the forum thread for now, but overall keen to support this proposal, and looking forward to see how it develops before it goes onchain!
We voted yes on this proposal as it adds a valuable and complementary function to Uniswap’s security framework and current bug bounty program. The possibility of recovering funds from active exploits serves as a nice safeguard, and would arguably be highly appreciated by any affected users should such a scenario present itself. After all, security over user funds is imperative. Bounty structure also fair.
Voted for the proposal as a 250k match for Sonic’s 500k incentive commitment is both a reasonable and pretty standard sum to follow up the successful Uniswap deployment with, especially seeing how Sonic seemingly has gained some momentum lately.
Voted for - not much to add to our previous rationale for supporting the Snapshot vote. We had raised some questions which were answered.
Voted in favour following the earlier Temp Check. Having a set of principles anchors expectations within the DAO, to which delegates can hold each other accountable via collective monitoring.
Voted in favour of this following our previous support for the Temp Check, see rationale here.