CalBlockchain / Blockchain at Berkeley Delegate Platform

Delegation Pitch
1

Blockchain at Berkeley Delegate Thread

Key Info

Two wallet addresses:

https://www.tally.xyz/gov/uniswap/delegate/0x7ae109a63ff4dc852e063a673b40bed85d22e585

https://www.tally.xyz/gov/uniswap/delegate/0x458cEec48586a85fCFEb4A179706656eE321730E

The first wallet is the PRIMARY wallet to be used for security purposes. We will (rarely) use the second wallet to reach quorum, etc.

Introduction

Blockchain at Berkeley is a student-run organization at UC Berkeley founded in 2014 and focused on blockchain innovation.

The major departments in Blockchain at Berkeley are as follows:

  • Consulting: Building software and performing research to support companies, protocols, and other organizations. Previous clients include Arbitrum, Algorand, LayerZero, Avalanche, PayPal, UNICEF, etc.
  • Education: Providing blockchain education through student-run courses at UC Berkeley, to over 300,000 students worldwide through our EdX course, DeCal’s (student-taught courses at UC Berkeley), and within the org through white paper reviews and developer bootcamps.
  • Xcelerator: Launched what’s now the #1 university blockchain accelerator in the US, since 2019. 100+ alumni companies, 450M+ total of follow-on funding secured.
  • Research/Governance: Voting and building proposals for delegated protocols including Compound, Uniswap, Celo, and Obol. Also run whitepaper circles and initiatives to answer research questions in the space.

Governance Voting Methodology:

The governance department meets in person weekly to discuss updates. Members sign up to the protocols they want to be active on, with a lead being assigned to each. Throughout the week, members voice their opinions about proposals and governance changes in our internal Slack channel. After internal consensus is achieved, we vote on proposals and aim to explain our positioning on the forum.

Voting Priorities:

  • Active and Accountable Governance Participation

    • Informed Decision-Making: Base all voting decisions on thorough research and data analysis as well as forum sentiment to ensure well-founded outcomes.
    • Maintain Integrity and Responsibility: Ensure the integrity of the Protocol Council by responsibly using delegated tokens

  • Technical Contribution and Ecosystem Growth:

    • Support New Products: Contribute to technical discussions around new products
    • Data-Driven Initiatives: Utilize data and forum sentiment to justify and guide technical initiatives, targeting specific metrics to propel the ecosystem forward.
    • Provide Feedback and Updates: Offer constructive feedback to promote transparency and keep delegators informed about voting activities and decisions.

  • Community Engagement and Thought Diversity:

    • Active Participation: Engage in Governance forums and Discord channels to stay updated and contribute to community discussions.
    • Foster Collaboration and Diverse Perspectives: Encourage collaboration and a variety of viewpoints to foster innovation and creativity within the community. Facilitate respectful discussions and debates to explore different ideas and solutions to ecosystem challenges.

Waiver of Liability

By delegating to Blockchain at Berkeley, you acknowledge that we are not liable for any potential losses or adverse outcomes resulting from our involvement in the governance process.

2

[Temp Check] Saga Uniswap v3 Liquidity Incentives

As stated here:
https://gov.uniswap.org/t/rfc-saga-and-uniswap-v3-liquidity-incentives/25309/6?u=calblockchain

We voted YES with the following justification:

As this is a snapshot vote, we hope that the final proposal includes many of the disagreements DAO members have brought up. The following risks are valid:

  1. A relatively low TVL: Saga protocol activity is too low for incentive consideration
  2. Relatively new DEX,
  3. Pool selection: 3/5 of the pools are SAGA pools with an asymmetric reward distribution

However we believe that:

  1. Since “Saga Foundation will contribute 2mm SAGA tokens per month (~$1.0mm USD per month as of Feb 27, 2024) to the Uniswap V3 pools to bootstrap Uniswap liquidity on Saga” is significantly more than the Uni incentives,
  2. Saga is focused on setting Uniswap as the core canonical DEX

are good reasons to fund this project. While we understand the merit of not funding a low TVL project, as a new project that is prioritizing Uniswap, it would be a good idea to incentivize this early so that Uniswap is the main DEX. We believe to some degree, it is not up to the DAO to determine the legitimacy and future potential of a project like this, but to greedily aim to maximize market share and TVL.

3

Unichain and Uniswap v4 Liquidity Incentives
https://vote.uniswapfoundation.org/proposals/82
YES
Voting yes on the Unichain and Uniswap v4 Liquidity Incentives proposal means supporting a targeted strategy to rapidly bootstrap liquidity during a critical growth phase. Here are the key reasons:
• It kickstarts a migration of significant TVL and trading volume to Uniswap v4 across key chains by offering higher yields to LPs, which helps build a robust liquidity base at launch.
• It’s built on a dynamic, data-driven approach—deploying incentives in short 2‑week tranches that can be adjusted in real time based on market conditions. This minimizes risk and maximizes efficient fund use.
• The proposal leverages a trusted partner (Gauntlet) and uses transparent tools (like Aera vaults and public dashboards) so that Uniswap Governance retains control and oversight over the incentive funds at every step.
• By driving immediate liquidity, the proposal not only supports short‑term volume but also creates the network effects necessary for sustained growth, attracting developers, integrators, and end users to both Uniswap v4 and Unichain.
In short, a yes vote endorses a well-calibrated, transparent plan designed to secure Uniswap’s leadership by creating a strong, sustainable liquidity foundation.

4

[Governance Proposal] Uniswap Unleashed
https://vote.uniswapfoundation.org/proposals/83
ABSTAIN
We voted to abstain on the Uniswap Unleashed proposal because while we appreciate the ambition behind the initiative, we believe several areas still require further clarification before we can fully commit our support. Specifically, we have concerns regarding the proposal’s expansive scope and the clarity of its performance metrics. The long‑term KPIs and intermediate milestones need to be more clearly defined to ensure that we can objectively measure progress and adjust strategy as needed. Additionally, the substantial funding request spread over multiple years raises questions about resource allocation and accountability.

We agree with concerns many delegates have brought up, including:

  1. Vague direction on fee sharing and fee switch
  2. Unichain ownership and vague direction of DAO legal structure
  3. Lump sum has no incremental or milestone-driven unlocks
  4. Vague onboarding direction of Core Contributors

We believe in the core direction of this proposal and the incentivization of univ4 and hook builders is necessary but its implementation contains some conflicts of interest and vague direction on DAO ownership/responsibility.

1 Like