Focus on newcomers: healthy long term community building

Hello everyone!

If you agree with my way of thinking, I welcome you to join and delegate your votes towards the implementation of my policy.

An ideal state would be the one where you can logically derive my voting decisions from the policy statements I’ve made.

Me being a good delegate would mean that you could save effort, attention, thinking time, and maybe a few gas fees on voting while ensuring that you contribute effectively towards the well-being of the protocol you care about.


My overall view of the UNI distribution event.

I consider the UNI distribution event as a historical one. It is the first time that I know of when a company creates an enormous amount of value, gets unequivocal leadership in its niche – and then decides to give away up to 60% of its “shares” to its network participants from the outside. My analogy for this event is: imagine Amazon distributing 60% of its shares 20 years ago towards its customers and merchant partners.

This is not a typical Initial Coin Offering where people invest money into a company that prints 3-4x amount of that money in the form of candy wrappers, an event that inevitably creates a complete set of perverse incentives.

This is an initial value and responsibility distribution.

I respect this action by the Uniswap team and am willing to contribute to the protocol development.


Thesis: Fairness of wealth distribution is a crucial factor for the protocol’s ability to gain network effects.

My question to check for fairness is the following one:

“Is it possible to substantially surpass the original protocol in the fairness of its wealth distribution?”

My answer to that for UNI is no. The same answer applies to Bitcoin and Ethereum. But even though the initial distribution is fair for UNI, it can definitely be ruined through the governance processes.

Ultimately the ‘fairness’ comes down to the distribution of wealth between different groups of actors in the system. For the most part, these groups are:

  1. Providers of network functionality

    • Miners and stakers for PoW/PoS, Liquidity Providers for Uniswap
  2. Past, present, and future investors into the protocol

  3. Developers (in a broad sense of the word)

  4. Users, and

  5. Governors.

When incentives are distributed evenly, the groups tend to intersect more.

Miners become holders and users, holders and users become developers and governors, etc.


Focus on newcomers

Uniswap is a go-to swapping protocol on the Ethereum blockchain.

If Uniswap develops harmoniously and Ethereum gets mass adoption, the sky is the limit for all groups involved, as long as UNI captures the value that Uniswap DEX generates. It is an enormously positive-sum game then.

But there also is a scenario where one group takes advantage of the others and brings the game closer to zero-sum. This way, the protocol advancement would get staggered, and the resulting pie would become a lot smaller compared to the first scenario.

To be sure that we are on track to create a bigger pie, I propose to focus on newcomers to the network.

Uniswap has already been inclusive towards new liquidity providers from day one. Let’s keep it that way.

If we talk about future investors, caring for them can be done by bringing the store of value property to the UNI token. I think this change is the most important thing to do to bootstrap the network effects as it affects everyone.

The same logic applies to other groups.

To sum up, it needs to be a good thing - becoming a new long term network participant at any point in time in the future .

Happy newcomers naturally tend to bring in more newcomers to the network.


Policy directions

Below are the policy directions I find particularly relevant to the protocol advancement:

1. Tie the token’s worth to the value the Uniswap DEX generates .

The most natural way to do that would be to activate the fee switch and distribute the unlocked fees towards UNI token holders in ETH.

2. Strategic liquidity provision incentives

The key questions I find significant when deciding whether or not we should additionally incentivize a pool via UNI distribution are:

  • How big is the community that we’re trying to get interested?
  • Would we advise people who want to accumulate UNI tokens to buy the tokens we promote? What are the chances that people will lose money on these buys?

At the moment, the coins I see fit for liquidity mining incentives are ETH, BTC, USD, and UNI.

3. Fostering the growth of inclusive, cooperative, and complimentary developers network.

4. Encouraging participation in Uniswap governance .


Governance assets distribution

When it comes to the way we design UNI distribution incentives, I believe they should be moderate and complementary:

  • Moderate to appeal to long term supporters and discourage short-term speculators

  • Complementary to encourage a deeper level of community involvement. This way, the distribution encourages full-throttle activism. An essential change in this regard would be to allow UNI tokens from liquidity mining pools to participate in governance and enjoy the benefits of that participation.


My modus operandi as a delegate:

Transparency and Communication.

It is my intention to give a heads up about my voting decisions a couple of days before I vote so that people who disapprove of them could have time to respond and withdraw their voting power.

Initially, I plan to give at least 48 hours’ notice, and I’ll keep statistics of the “time to respond” metric.

I intend to signal every time I make a decision to vote or to abstain from voting, but if for whatever reason I’m not able to do that in due time, it would mean I’m not voting.

I’m going to set up an announcement channel, probably in Telegram, and I also might add Twitter and some immutable alternative if there is a need for it.

A typical announcement will contain the voting decision and the earliest time the vote will be cast.

If I ever reach the 1% threshold of voting power needed for submitting new proposals, I’ll create an additional communication channel for delegators, probably via Discord.


Thank you for reading.

If you’d like to delegate me your votes, here is the address:


You can also use this address to the same effect:



Mr. Po.


The telegram announcements channel

I like that you defend a long term vision @Mr_Po.

As $UNI holders, it would be clever to think about how to grow Uniswap adoption, because this would increase $UNI real value. Oppositely we shouldn’t try to pump $UNI with timelocks or other artefacts, because this won’t last.

You can count me in for now :sunglasses::unicorn:


Thank you for your measured and thought out pitch to this, I have been looking for someone with a mature outlook to delegate my large holding of Uni to.

A couple of things before I commit, do you have further platforms we can follow you on? Twitter, forums etc?

Do you have a way we can follow the number of votes delegated to you?

Best wishes

P.s. I dont see your address on the leaderboard posted here: Delegation pitch leaderboard

I would find it hard to delegate to someone who doesn’t have skin in the game.

Thanks for your interest, nicoGD & uni123 & the people who liked the pitch.



#1 This forum is the first public space I’ve become active on, and it is currently the only one.

I will create accounts on other platforms, but for the purpose of announcing my voting decisions.

If you’d like to get to know what my thinking is, the best place to do so is through the forum:

  • The complete picture is available through my profile activity tab.

  • I also intended to keep a short version of my policy statements as the 2nd message in this topic. But, as it’s not editable, I’ll be making new policy statements messages and delete the old ones. It’s probably better anyway as it notifies you when a change has been made. I’ll try to make the first one of those closer to when the voting begins.

  • And lastly, I’m available publicly through this topic and privately through direct messages on the forum if there are any further questions you’re interested in my stance on.


#2 I believe the best way to follow the number of votes delegated to me will be through Dune analytics if you sort the addresses by the number of delegators.

My delegator count will rise closer to the date when the voting begins due to my own and my friends’ participation at the very least. So it will be trackable, but at the moment, the number is 0.


#3 As for skin in the game, I’ve committed most of my life’s savings towards the UNI liquidity mining program. I plan to continue participating in it as long as there is a BTC/ETH pair, and distribution rates are not wholly negligible. I’ve advised my friends to do the same thing and assisted them with it. I’m not sure if there is a way one could break the LP contracts through governance proposals, but it would immensely hurt my well-being if that was to happen.

When it comes to UNI, I do not possess any significant amount yet. I am a newcomer, and I’m interested in accumulating a larger UNI position over the long term. I think it aligns with my program well. I do not qualify as a past/present investor, but I do as a future one.

With me having around 1% of UNI I’d like to own, my interests would get hurt if, for example, a proposal that artificially pumps UNI price by introducing ponzinomics concepts would pass.



There is a reason why this is my first public appearance. It’s a combination of two things.

Firstly and shortly, I find the cause worthy.

And secondly, my path in life and things I cherish have forged me the way I find fitting for this participation.

This is the first public cause, where I feel like I could make a meaningful difference. So I’m going to be making it no matter how small the actual effect is.


Mr. Po.


Thanks for the response PO, you’re correct I had forgotten those with the Uni in LP won’t show on the vote list, and it’s a very important factor in Uni’s success.

For now I am delegating to as they have the largest share of votes and will be first to be able to make new proposals, furthermore they have a good presence with research approach and clear accountability. 0x6626593C237f530D15aE9980A95ef938Ac15c35c

Please keep a presence here in the forums and I’m sure I will be looking to move my support at some points in the future.


Well, if you aim to increase the number of delegates who can make proposals, I believe you’ve made the right choice. Gauntlet network does have a reputation to lose, and they do stress tests as a part of their job. They’ve also stated that they’ll be politically neutral, which is a good thing for a proposal submitter.

For a community delegate like me to become a good proposal submitter, the infrastructure isn’t there yet. We need people who would write the code and audit those proposals, and we haven’t built those networks yet. So it’s good to have delegates who could do that on their own, at least for starters. And it’s good that they’re neutral.

I’m a different type of delegate though, my policy is not neutral, and my main job as a delegate is to vote according to my statements.

Edit: as the first proposal “Reduce UNI Governance Proposal & Quorum Thresholds” showed, Gauntlet is clearly not politically neutral. They do have a self-rewarding agenda that hides behind ‘neutral’ analysis. They want to have a single entity quorum, so they’re able to easily pass the proposals they want, and it would be extremely hard to contest them.

I’d love to chat on a 1on 1 with you good friend, if that interest you don’t hesitate to reach out! I’ve got quite a bit to stand on this I think we’d have a ball

The first proposal is Up to vote: “Reduce UNI Governance Proposal & Quorum Thresholds

The voting will end on the 19th of October. I’ll allow myself to vote starting from 18:00 GMT on 18th Oct (72 hours notice).

My plan is to vote against this proposal.

I’m against this proposal because it is a Rider proposal.
It looks like the Uniswap community supports reducing the threshold for making governance proposals, but there is no such thing in regard to reducing the quorum threshold.

I think the quorum threshold should not be lowered as it compromises the safety of the protocol. And I find it unethical to make such a proposal in a way it’s been made.

As this proposal is made by gauntlet, I take back the good words I’ve said about them earlier to @uni123.
It is clear that they’re not politically neutral. They do have a hidden agenda, and they don’t put it to discussion beforehand: there is no topic “Reduce Quorum thresholds” on this forum.

I view this proposal as an attempt to capture the governance of Uniswap protocol. I don’t think we want the protocol to be governed by two entities. Especially as these entities want to retro-airdrop more UNI to themselves.


Important update.

As it turns out you can’t revoke your votes once a proposal is submitted.

So my idea of announcing my votes beforehand makes little sense within the present system.

I don’t think this delegation system is healthy, so I propose we change it here.