We voted YES: We have really enjoyed seeing this proposal being fleshed out and are incredibly satisfied with the final proposal/temp check! We are very confident in the team and are also incredibly optimistic for the future specifically with respect to governance. We look forward to getting more involved on this front and would love to contribute!
We voted YES: As part of Uniswap’s multichain vision, we believe Aurora is a great and logical next step. As a rapidly increasing blockchain, that’s lets users easily onboard onto the nonEVM Near chain, Aurora is a nice connector between the EVM world Uniswap users are used to and newer and possibly more innovative nonEVM chains.
We voted 3 Phases [50k/2w, 100k/3w, 650k]: We think the slightly tiered decrease in emissions for next 3 weeks is appropriate once liquidity has been provided, users’ TVL are sticky and less likely to move out. The final analysis before deploying the 650k rest is also appropriate.
Optimism-Uniswap Protocol LM Program: Pool selection
We voted WETH/USDC, WETH/DAI, USDC/DAI: The reason why we chose to add DAI/USDC as opposed to nothing or OP was because this stablecoin pair won’t need that much incentives to drive millions of dollars of liquidity to enter the pool. For example, users would be find taking for example 5% extra on a stable LP but would require 15% extra for a volatile pool, therefore, for the same amount of LM rewards, the stable pair could attract 3x as much liquidity.
We voted NO: Voting no for now as we’ve made attempts to talk with the Scroll team and no response yet. So voting no until we get some more clarity as many of the comments rolling through on the forums still are/have been suspicious and the team has done nothing to interacting with delegates that we know of. Not many of key Uniswap players seem to care right now and no real comments on the forums, so we think it is better tabled now until we get more clarity and communication.
Hi there, thanks so much for taking the time to read through our proposal. We regret that our proposal drew so many spam comments to the forum which should be a place for constructive discussion. We have been in close contact with the Uniswap Foundation to resolve this. This is the first time this happened to us and we are taking notes to avoid this in the future where we can.
We chose to post the Temperature Check for a testnet deployment in order to be in close contact with the Uniswap community from the start and be able to make sure everything is running smoothly before considering a deployment on mainnet. We take your feedback seriously and would love to get the chance to chat.
Thanks for the follow up here! Appreciate you taking steps to sort out the comment spam.
In the direction message you sent to us in paralle to this forum post, you mentioned “Next to the Uniswap Foundation we have been in touch with many delegates ahead of time including Gauntlet, She256, Blockchain at Berkley, etc. All of which have signalled support once we are ready to start the governance process for mainnet.” We are in touch with all of these delegates as well and would love to chat. I believe Kydo from llama/stanford has set up a chat has been set up with us and Berkeley. We are waiting for someone from Scroll to join and answer some of the questions we all have.
We voted YES: We are a huge fan of the new updates to the Temperature Check and Consensus Check logistics. We recently concluded a governance deep dive research piece for the UF and this will be one of the main things many people said they wanted to improve!
We voted YES: Voting yes our general opinions regarding v3 being made available to as many good chains as possible holds here. We worked with the team to help them submit this proposal through the formal governance process and thank them for all their help.
UPDATED: Voting yes on the new proposal after a change in the legal recipient of the additional use grant