Thanks @0xSocratic for putting up this proposal. I know the Accountability Committee and DapDap have gone over the proposal in the past few weeks–but I’ll reiterate some of the comments for public discourse.
Most of the recent Uniswap deployments have been integrated into Oku’s front-end. There are examples of a couple that are not integrated, yes–like Gnosis Chain. They came to the DAO just about 6 days ago requesting an incentive package. The proposal also stated:
The proposal by default selected Oku as the front-end, which, if this proposal passes, will be subsidized by the DAO. Here, I can see a potential entry point for DapDap. The DAO could potentially decide which FE they want to select. Maybe Oku fits the more sophisticated market and DapDap a more familiar, user-friendly market.
Another option is having discussions with the proposing team (ie the target chain). In the event that the DAO does not want to subsidize the FE, which it often hasn’t, then the target chain will be presented options for which FE they want to pay for. This can be Oku, DapDap, or some other team like Protofire.
Correct, but this is not exactly a mere front-end issue–it’s a branding issue. The Uniswap Labs FE has a lot of value. Whenever a chain is integrated there, usage shoots up. But when speaking about secondary FE’s, we’re mostly at parity. The biggest mitigator to this issue is incentive packages, something the DAO has been running for the better part of this year.
The question for delegates here is–does an aggregated, composable UI like that of DapDap make sense? Or does a more dedicated trading site like Oku make more sense? The downside to having too many FEs is that 1) it costs the DAO more money 2) it may actually confuse consumers more. Like people know what Oku is now, so they associate it with Uniswap. But every new FE that’s added is less useful largely because the Uniswap brand cannot be licensed from Labs. DapDap abstracts much of this away. So going with DapDap is actually a bet on the DapDap brand.
I would argue that Oku’s interface is tailored to both more tenured traders as well as those looking for a simple, familiar swap. Simplicity isn’t the competitive advantage. The real advantage from DapDap is its own name. If composable environments win, DapDap wins.
I’m quite curious what other people’s perspective is on a more composable FE that combines numerous dapps. I usually have a place for swapping, another for lending, etc. But I can see the utility of a combined interface.
Wouldn’t it be wiser to have an integration for new deployment that’s not yet live? The DAO expending capital on integrations already present on Oku may not be the wisest use of funds, especially with that chain already has less activity across all its dapps.
The Gnosis proposal above comes to mind as a starting point for DapDap. And a deployment that makes more sense is Base, but it seems you’ve just received a grant for that. Would be curious to see how much traffic is driven to that site over time.
Also, the https://www.dapdap.net/network/blast shows all these networks:
I’m able to click on each of them and select “swap”. Once I’m routed to the swap page, who are you guys using on the backend? It seems like some deployments are already done?
From the linked AMAs and odyssey campaigns, it looks like the current advertising is on a network basis–not specific marketing for particular dapps?
Here on the Scroll campaign, for example, I also see Uni v3 already present as a swapping option. So, I’m again confused about why we need to pay for this integration if it’s already there. Plus, there are a handful of competing DEXs present on the page, which may dilute our reach. How exclusive and Uniswap-focused would this marketing be, and does DapDap have funding/agreements from other DEXs already?
One final question for @eek637–is the Uniswap branding on the mockups fine? @0xSocratic curious what the domain names you’re choosing are as well for the swap sites.