[Temp Check] Saga Uniswap v3 Liquidity Incentives
While we very much appreciate Saga’s various commitments related to this proposal, including what we believe is the highest incentive contribution relative to the ask the DAO has seen, we voted against this proposal, mainly for the following reasons:
- The questionable ROI/effectiveness of these types of incentive programs in the past
- The tech seems cool but Cosmos chains have generally struggled to gain traction
Uniswap Unleashed
We voted for this proposal to show our support for the Uniswap Foundation. We sympathise with both the delegates asking for more accountability, control, and transparency; as well as the UF on the constraints and challenges this would introduce in executing to the highest standard.
At the end of the day, we see no alternative way forward than to support the UF, who we believe has been very proactive and constantly available to engage with delegates to find other middle-ground solutions. While we may not have the accountability mechanisms that some delegates wanted, like a claw back function (which we believe is unrealistic anyway), there is strong alignment through UNI salaries, for example. We will trust and work with the UF for the duration of this mandate, and if in the end these 2-years are deemed unsuccessful, we’ll cross that bridge when and if we get there.
Unichain and Uniswap v4 Liquidity Incentives
We voted in support of this proposal as incentives will play an important role in facilitating the v4 migration and boost Unichain early on. Gauntlet are well aware of the shortcomings in some of the general incentive programs we’ve seen across various ecosystem chains, and is well-positioned to take on this challenge, with Aera being particularly suitable for the task. We’ve been assured that tighter monitoring and management of this program will, if not avoid, at the very least improve on the performance and result compared to the “basic”, general incentive programs.