[Temp Check] Uniswap Delegate Reward Initiative - Cycle 3
We are voting in favor of this Delegate Reward Initiative Cycle 3, while maintaining our stance from previous cycles, particularly on quality vs. quantity, conflict of interest, and vesting mechanisms (see previous discussions: Curia Delegate Platform and Cycle 3 Discussion).
Although we support several proposed improvements—increased emphasis on voting participation points, clearer tie-breakers, and rationale deadlines—we believe the initiative could be more ambitious given the six-month cycle. Our primary concern is maintaining a balance between the quantity and quality of contributions.
Relying solely on quantitative metrics may not fully capture thoughtful proposal analysis or meaningful contributions. We therefore advocate for more robust mechanisms that reward quality governance participation, where the rationale behind decisions is given greater weight.
Attracting newcomers with meaningful contributions is essential for diversifying opinions and enriching governance. However, if the focus remains predominantly on numbers, it could hinder efforts to challenge delegates who receive monthly payments despite not meeting the higher standards of quality. Others should have the opportunity to challenge delegate decisions based on the quality of their rationale, and we should closely evaluate this cycle’s outcomes to understand its full impact.
In the next cycle, we would advocate for having a monthly rewards system that incentivizes full participation. Delegates who achieve 100% participation would receive rewards, while those falling short would incur proportional deductions. Additionally, a quality-based bonus pool would recognize meaningful contributions—we could even experiment further allowing those not eligible for monthly payments to get this bonus as well.
This approach would encourage delegates to consistently provide high-quality rationale and strive for continuous improvement, while still rewarding top performers. For evaluating the quality of contributions, we are keen to adopt a framework similar to Arbitrum’s—as Seedgov mentioned—where a Program Manager scores contributions based on predefined parameters. Although this method involves a degree of subjectivity, its structured approach helps ensure that valuable insights are properly recognized.
In summary, we believe striking a balance between quality and quantity is key to enhancing governance and maintaining an engaged, diverse pool of delegates. We also support the proposed vesting approach, but view it as a long-term strategy to align incentives with sustainable, quality contributions.