In our conversations with delegates over the last couple of weeks, we’ve heard constructive feedback and suggestions on ways to tighten the feedback loop between the UF and Uniswap delegates. One of those suggestions was to create a forum where delegates can meet with UF leadership to review and give feedback on the UF’s strategy and execution.
For this endeavor to be effective, it must be designed in tandem between the UF and delegates. The goal of this post is to start a conversation around the things that we should think about in its design. Once delegates have provided their thoughts here, we would aim to find a delegate or group of delegates who we can work with to finalize the design of this forum, and to support us in operationalizing it.
A non-exhaustive list of topics:
Goals: What are the desired outputs of this work?
Participants:
Who are the participants?
What is their responsibility to the larger delegate community?
How often do these meetings occur?
What should be on a high-level agenda for each meeting?
Excited to get this conversation started - please add any other considerations you think would be useful to think about below!
I do want to note that the Uniswap Foundation has been pretty good at communicating and responding to feedback. For example, regular calls the Foundation is hosting and Foundation members also attend Community calls that UAC hosts.
But I do see metric in having those topics on forum and discuss further together. One of examples have been on Treasury Delegation Program as well as Uniswap Delegate Compensation plans.
One of the “sensitive” topics is diversifying UF funding sources. At the moment everything is financed via capital depletion (one-way UNI-fiat conversion). Given that there is
a) free-riding via vampire mining of the AMM software post-business license lockup
b) some of the activities (eg lobbying) are more pool-goods rather than specific to UniDAO
c) UF is 501(c)4 non-profit which by law is not allowed to be used as a vehicle to directly benefit the business interests of the company that establishes it
then logically UF can accept donations from a broader spectrum of DeFi participants. The question is who? And more importantly, are they collaborators, co-opetitors, or competitors (business frienemy) to the DAO.
Above is a typology of AMMs segmented bv dissimilarity matrix. Thinking about the space:
what is the criteria for joint activity - ie spiillover effects are so large (eg hooks) that it makes sense accepting monies that benefit both parties
is there identified burden-sharing or cost-splitting which allows co-opetitors to take advantage of scale (rather than replicating UF across every AMM)
are hybrids which also use an order-book basically a CEX and thus a direct substitute for the uniswap protocol?
A nuanced answer to the above means diversification and thus increased resilience for UF activities whilst being more capital efficient for the DAO treasury (== sustainability) plus reduce legal risk as Brian @Nistler noted. General (not advice) observation
Possibilities include, but are not limited to, ensuring the company is not the sole source of the 501(c)(4)’s funding and/or having outside representation on the 501(c)(4)’s governing board. One could also vet the nonprofit’s activities to ensure that there is a strong position that they serve a social welfare interest.
I’d like to share my perspective on shaping these meetings to ensure they serve two key goals:
fostering open, transparent communication between the DAO and the UF;
ensuring alignment on our shared long-term vision for Uniswap’s success.
Here’s my proposal:
frequency: I believe these meetings should occur monthly. This cadence would provide regular touch-points without overwhelming either side;
participation: I’m not yet clear on who exactly should participate. I think the goal is to ensure the right mix of voices are present so that the dialogue remains constructive and builds on mutual trust;
meeting structure & agenda: the agenda should strike a balance between high-level strategic vision and practical, operational updates. Importantly, these meetings shouldn’t be a venue for the DAO to micromanage UF decisions. Instead, the meetings should serve as a forum for both sides to share insights, celebrate achievements, and provide constructive feedback.
Here’s a structure I’d propose:
wins: begin by sharing three wins from each side. This positive start highlights accomplishments that might otherwise go unnoticed, reinforcing the collaborative spirit we’ve seen with initiatives like the GovSwap Dinners;
constructive feedback: each side should have an opportunity to offer feedback on the past month’s efforts. While it’s likely that much of this will come from the DAO towards the UF, the door should remain open for reciprocal feedback. The focus should be on actionable insights, not turning the meeting into a drama session;
planning: discuss the priorities for the upcoming month. This is the time to outline key initiatives—whether it’s launching a UNI incentives program, progressing with the CFM lending initiative, or updating the delegate incentive program—and to ensure these priorities align with our long-term vision;
financials: finally, include an update on spending and funding. I suggest we review financials on a quarterly basis to align with the UF’s formal publication, keeping everyone in the loop on how resources are allocated. For example, @drllau_LexDAO’s topic would be discussed in this section.
