Avantgarde Finance Delegate Platform

[Avantgarde]

[TEMP CHECK] Scaling V4 and Supporting Unichain

We voted for this temp check with a few caveats ahead of the onchain vote, which we expressed in the proposal thread:

@Avantgarde

Thanks to GFX Labs for putting this proposal forward. We really appreciate the work your team has already done for Uniswap in successfully expanding our reach across many chains, and believe Oku has proven to be a valuable piece of infrastructure for the ecosystem.

We’re generally supportive of what this proposal aims to achieve. Getting Uniswap V4 scaled up quickly and making sure there are good tools available from the get-go is important for its success and for keeping Uniswap at the forefront. Likewise, we do see the benefits of allowing GFX lead V4 rollouts from a streamlining perspective, and the requested funding appears fair for the amount of work involved.

We do agree that it would be nice to see some additional activity data beyond mere deployments, and also think other delegates have raised valid points with regards to “excessive” profiteering. We very much appreciate the added context from @AbdullahUmar which does provide reassurances. For now, we’ll support this proposal in the temp check but want to emphasise that the details around these concerns need to be hashed out and necessary assurances included in writing to avoid having to rely on “trust me bro” before we can fully support this proposal at the onchain vote.

UAC Renewal S4

We voted for this proposal in line with our Snapshot vote, see rationale here.

Approved Budgets Rebalancing (S4)

We voted for this proposal in line with our Snapshot vote, see rationale here.

Four Chains for Analytics Hub for Uniswap’s Revitalization and Growth Program & [Temp Check] Analytics Hub for Uniswap’s Revitalization and Growth Program

We choose to abstain on this proposal for the reasons outlined below. We very much appreciate the work of StableLab and their continued contributions to the DAO, and are as a whole supportive of these types of activities to inform better decision-making. A few question marks to be resolved before we can fully support this onchain.

@Avantgarde

Thank you @Doo_StableLab, we very much appreciate StableLab’s continued engagement and work delivered in the initial proposal and terminal. Admittedly, we have not dug deep into the numbers but recognise this has provided valuable initial insights into the incentive programs and their effectiveness. Extending this analysis to additional chains now that we have the terminal up and running makes sense to provide a broader dataset across different chain environments and to keep refining future strategies to optimise the use of DAO resources.

However, we do have a couple of points that we’d like further clarity on before we are comfortable backing the proposal fully onchain. For now, we’ll abstain on the temp check but remain open to support a revised proposal that addresses these points with greater clarity.

• Ideally, we think the DAO should first assess the utility of the initial output before funding more of the same. To what extent has the DAO used the terminal, i.e. have the recommendations started informing discussions or decisions?
• We’ve seen differing views on the value of analysing chains with lower DeFi TVL. Our perspective is that this depends heavily on the DAO’s specific strategic objectives – whether the goal is to maximise immediate TVL on large chains or understanding performance across a spectrum of ecosystem “maturities” and potential growth areas. Any thoughts here?

Thank you!

[Avantgarde]

Scaling V4 and Supporting Unichain

We voted for this proposal as we see the value both Oku and GFX keeps providing for Uniswap. In our initial comment on the temp check we echoed a few minor thoughts from delegates around user metrics and clarifying the scope of the license, and very much appreciate the GFX team for addressing these. These comments along with a more elaborative rationale can be found here.

[Avantgarde]

Uniswap Accountability Committee S4 Elections

Distributed our vote equally across Doo Wan Nam, Jordan Karstadt, Takeshi Ohishi, Sov, and Cole Schendl based on our observations of their previous work. We believe they all bring plenty of relevant experience and expertise to the UAC, a good mix of fresh blood and Uniswap history, and to some degree (albeit of less importance) also some different perspectives on governance. Based on this, we have no doubt they’d perform their roles to a satisfactory standard.

[Avantgarde]

Scaling V4 and Supporting Unichain

We supported the previous proposal that failed to reach quorum, and nothing has changed in our view to justify a different vote this time around; hence, we voted for this proposal.

@Avantgarde

We voted for this proposal as we see the value both Oku and GFX keeps providing for Uniswap. In our initial comment on the temp check we echoed a few minor thoughts from delegates around user metrics and clarifying the scope of the license, and very much appreciate the GFX team for addressing these. These comments along with a more elaborative rationale can be found here.

[Avantgarde]

Trial run a Technical Advisory Board (TAB)

We voted against this proposal as we believe it doesn’t make sense under the proposed scope. While we agree that it could be beneficial for the DAO to have more technical experts and developers amongst the delegate set and similar to improve discussions and decision making, the current lack of such proposals (as highlighted by @AbdullahUmar here) does not in our mind justify having a pretty costly committee on the payroll. This could probably be easier solved on an ad hoc basis for now. As many others, we also have reservations around doing more treasury delegations unless the value add is super clear. Having said that, we do think that Uniswap should always strive to improve incentive alignment and give builders more of a say in governance.