Thanks for the updated deployment proposal process Devin!
I believe most deployment proposals did not deploy on testnet beforehand- though I think this is good guidance. This minimizes the time between proposal->deployment.
A few questions about the deployment process I’d like to raise
-
Do deployment proposals become a thing of the past if the v3 BSL is not renewed?
- I imagine not, as Uniswap governance will need to recognize an official deployment on each chain. If an official deployment is not recognized, Uniswap governance will not have guidance over which deployment to control using the governance bridge.
-
Should license grants be paired with conditionals?
- Many other deployments promise liquidity mining/grants programs in their proposals, yet there is no oversight to whether these are seen through; Is the community okay treating these as nice-to-have promises or should these conditions be enforced somehow (legally as a license exemption conditional is one way, but not ideal).
-
How should non-EVM deployments of Uniswap v3 be treated differently?
- There is currently a conversation about this in the StarkNet deployment proposal thread.
- Should these be treated on a case by case basis or should an alternative framework be developed? This conversation becomes difficult and nuanced as we discuss the deployments on EVM-like chains (See vitalik’s post on types of zkEVMs)
I appreciate this topic being re-visited as there has been an influx of deployment proposals lately. It’s important to keep the community guidelines around this cohesive to not waste delegates’ time.