Thanks @davebalter , that’s good to know there is at least the check of an oversight board. My view is that it would be better that it be a resubmission to governance, as this gives more leverage to governance to find a better value option. I think this is warranted for the large contract size involved ($12.5M in NPV to the protocol).
I do look at the $12.5M as a real cost because Uniswap is indeed giving up 50% of the yield on $12.5M worth of Uniswap in today’s value. Indefinitely allocating yield from a minted asset is indifferent economically from minting an asset and allocating a share of ownership. Minting and allocating an asset is not free for the protocol (despite the fact that many protocols mint tokens as though minting is free).
I would be supportive of the following two approaches:
i. A one year deal where Flipside gets 50% of yield. Governance then votes to renew or give the contract to another firm after one year.
ii. A three year deal where Flipside gets 30% of yield. Governance then votes to renew or give the contract to another firm after three years.
I think the two above options are great deals for Flipside (although I’m still not sure they would pass a UNI governance vote).