Following up on some of this conversation, I agree with @brenner and @leighton that targeting a specific number or a time bound period for fees to be activated would be an appropriate way to proceed.
I don’t think it’s necessary to specify a use for these funds, but some obvious things come to mind. In terms of adding funds to existing initiatives, options are:
- Funding next version of Uniswap Grants Program with fees.
- Adding funds to the bug bounty.
In terms of new initiatives, there is an enormous amount of value to be gained in funding dedicated entities to take on certain aspects of protocol governance work that currently is not happening because none of us are getting paid.
- Designing a paid delegation program.
- Creating a special purpose vehicle to act as legal counterparty on dao2dao transactions and contracts, e.g. like those that have happened with Voltz, the Polygon team, Moonbeam, and so on. (We have another report coming out soon that details some of the accountability issues that we’ve seen in the Uniswap ecosystem that covers this in greater detail).
- Independent team focused on procurement work along the lines of what we have been doing with our crosschain governance initiative. This is especially critical now that Uniswap Labs has increasingly stepped back.
- Hiring new development orgs to make new contributions to the protocol, like what Scopelift has done with its recent grants from UGP.
Even without deciding a larger “mission” for Uniswap, these opportunities are pretty obvious and I daresay necessary steps for growing Uniswap’s competitiveness.
@leighton I think a viable next step for moving this conversation forward would be writing the code for a parameter change that takes the preceding conversation here into account and posting it here as a concrete artifact for debate and more discussion. Is there someone on your team who would be willing to take that on?