[Temp Check] Uniswap Delegate Reward Initiative - Cycle 2
We vote âYesâ on continuing the compensation program for delegates. The data from Cycle 1 demonstrates the programâs success in improving delegate participation and dedication, achieving 100% voting participation among selected delegates and attracting 5 new delegates, including us. This aligns with the general consensus that the compensation program could enhance delegate engagement.
Cycle 2 introduces several adjustments to accommodate more new delegates. These changes include increasing the number of positions from 12 to 15, allowing applications from delegates who have joined less than 3 months ago, and removing the requirement for a minimum Voting Power. These modifications contrast with Cycle 1âs stricter criteria due to the goal of attracting existing delegates, which required delegates to have been Uniswap delegates for at least 3 months and have a Voting Power of 10,000 $UNI or authorship of a passed off-chain proposal.
The point metrics for Cycle 2 have been adjusted to be more accessible to new delegates. Voting participation rate will now be based on the past 6 months, counterbalanced by the first date of on-chain voting. Additionally, the maximum points for authoring a proposal that passed an on-chain vote have been reduced.
Full compensation eligibility in Cycle 2 maintains the 80% voting participation requirement and offers additional rewards for writing rationales. It also introduces a new criterion: attending Uniswap Community Calls, which we support. The tie-breaker method has changed from the number of âlikesâ in Cycle 1 to the date of the first on-chain vote in Cycle 2.
We acknowledge community concerns about potential sybil attacks and spam delegates who might focus on perfect track records without quality contributions because Cycle 2 removes economic stake requirements, and there are worries that reputation stake will not affect them. Regarding the balance between quantity and quality, we believe itâs crucial to develop measurable metrics for quality over time. We agree with the approach of starting simple and gradually refining the process based on learnings from previous cycles, as evidenced by the improvements in Cycle 2. We suggest including a session for applicants to disclose potential conflicts of interest, especially for new applicants who may not yet have established Delegate Platforms.