[Temp Check] Unichain and Uniswap v4 Liquidity Incentives
We voted in support of this proposal, and appreciated the added comments and contextual clarity by the Gauntlet team to address questions on methodology and user retention. While we understand the criticism raised by others highlighting the ineffectiveness of some of these incentive programs in the past, we do recognise the more “general” nature of these, and still believe that there is probably no other entity/platform better suited to execute this program on behalf of Uniswap than Gauntlet and Aera. Given the magnitude of the two “Uniswap Unleashed” initiatives and based on their experience and track record, we trust the Gauntlet team to let data analysis guide the management of these incentives to increase the likelihood of success. We also recognise that tools like Forse from @Doo_StableLab and team can help to further support and optimise the execution of the program.
[Temp Check] Uniswap Unleashed
Since its inception the Uniswap Foundation has been instrumental in steering Uniswap’s development and growth initiatives, and this proposal presents an ambitious plan to push the protocol and brand to the next level on the back of the launch of Unichain. The core components of this proposal lines up in a logical way by emphasising onboarding developers/core contributors and capital-efficient liquidity with a view to activate revenue streams and create synergistic network effects. Great progress has already been made on the hook-front, and we’re very excited to see how this can provide a competitive edge and establish Uniswap as the liquidity layer of DeFi and Web3.
On the whole we are very much in favour of this proposal and want to underscore that the Foundation has our full support in executing on the outlined vision. After recognising that the communication around the Unichain launch could have been better, there’s been a clear effort from the UF to improve on this front and we have very much appreciated the added office hours and availability, as well as the open conversation format during the recent workshop here in Denver. Continuing on this path will serve all stakeholders well as we navigate the future of Uniswap together.
However, while it might be idealistic of delegates to expect detailed transparency on every organisational level, we do agree with those that have expressed a desire for more robust KPIs and accountability mechanisms. After spending many months shaping this proposal, we sympathise with the UF’s desire to move forward with this as quickly as possible. But we also think that a proposal of this magnitude deserves sufficient time for deliberation and incorporating feedback. The fact that many delegates have been busy attending ETH Denver has not helped this situation. Hence, we’d encourage the UF to engage with delegates to try and reach a satisfactory middle ground on the KPIs/accountability points before moving this on-chain, which would send the right signals for this partnership going forward. To express this viewpoint, we chose to Abstain for now.
Having said this, we don’t think voting this proposal down is the right way to go either. What would be the alternative, not push to drive momentum for Unichain?