Governance Proposal UP1.2: Community-Enabled Analytics

Hi @Naught - thanks for the questions.

We will be putting on twitter, etc. tomorrow. Figured people would want their weekends.

On the Oversight Committee, Flipside is intentionally in the minority, and is available to help clarify any components of the program in the event of a required vote. Note that I have zero interest in maintaining this grant if we aren’t delivering effectively — my votes will be in favor of what’s best for the community.

The salary schedule is what it costs flipside to run a program at this scale; these are resources specific to the Uniswap Community-Enabled Analytics execution.

This program is arm’s length from Uniswap; so an equity relationship isn’t established. It’s a valid ask, although the program benefits the Uniswap ecosystem and community members (who receive bounties, etc.) significantly already.

Hope that helps.

Hi, Steve here from Blockchain @ Berkeley

Thanks Dave for the update and clarifying the amendments. I also appreciate the pointers to data that has guided the structure of the proposal. We are largely supportive of this proposal. It would be appreciated if you could you speak to the following however:

  1. Quality management / usability of analytics
  2. Oversight committee review frequency

For the discussion point 1, it would seem that this would be an opportune time to set a good example for how to utilize blockchain infrastructure to provide reproducibility of data analyses. Are there plans to allow the data and analysis models to be crosschecked by the community as well (e.g. IPFS data and model hosting)?
I see “quality control” was mentioned in the 4th bullet point in the summary at the end, so it would great to know what this entails.

For discussion point 2, in the context of the rapid dynamics within the DeFi space, is the annual Oversight Committee review frequent enough to effectively adjust the direction of the project? Also, I may not be understanding fully the clause “Note that commitments must be reviewed for efficacy at the 3 year mark by the Oversight Committee[the Committee can call for a review at any time]”, so maybe clarifying this statement would help.



Thank you for the response, for clairification the salary schedule has percentages (%) for the breakdown of the monthly salary ($100-150k per month). The first few percentages say 100%, is this implying that the data engineer, data scientist etc, make more than the head of finance?

Hi @Naught - the %s represent the total amount of their salary committed to the initiative. So 100% is a dedicated individual, 10% is someone who is assigned 10% of their time (like the head of finance) to the initiative. In this case, the top 7 people are entirely dedicated and everyone below is partial time.

1 Like

Hi @stvnshpd, thanks for reviewing!

On 1. this is a great call out and core to how we’ve designed our data layer, query builder, and visualization studio. A few highlights:

  • All of our analysts build in public - meaning all queries & analyses they produce are accessible to everyone and can even be shared/collaborated on by multiple analysts at a time.
  • As well, all the models that we use to build out datasets are publicly accessible:
  • Moving forward, we’re actively working on frameworks that will allow users to build their own deeper models, which will scale this process even further.

On 2. the Oversight Committee votes annually, which is a build from our earlier phases (note: we edited this section at the top of the proposal, which was a legacy statement). Other key points:

  • The CEA program is designed to scale and evolve with community needs & demands, and the honus is on the Flipside team to be nimble and effectively adjust direction as the space changes rapidly.
  • As such, the Oversight Committee is set-up to ensure Flipside remains dedicated and attentive to this end.

Let us know if we can provide any further clarity!

1 Like

I have gone to the flipside website to get a better idea of what analytics have been built, customer engagement (i.e. the data set behind the user retention), and how bounties work. In order to see community built analytics it is requiring a login and it looks like bounties are structured through discord (which I dont have). Is there a more accessible way to view what flipside does, analytic examples, and how bounties are connected to these analytics?

I had imagined that flipside operated more like trading view with tools at hand to create insights.

1 Like

Hi @naught, sure thing:

  • You can see a list of our active bounty programs here.
  • Access results from all bounty submissions across partner projects here.
  • Sign-up for access to our full dataset, query builder, API, & visualization studio here.
  • Check out an awesome community-sourced Uni V3 dashboard here.
  • Highly recommend getting Discord and checking out our thriving community here.



as an analyst, I started off a few months ago with zero SQL skills, and this is all thanks to compoud, uniswap, terra, polygon, yearn and flipside. This is success by its highest metric. While I think all the money should go to me personally, flipside will do a better job at bringing new talent, community engagement to the space. Shoutout to Avi, Brandon, GJ, Angela, Meg, all the analysts and the rest of the staff who have been amazing and data hungry.

and DATA

1 Like

Cross-posting my question. Thanks.


1 Like

Hi @uniyj - thanks, great question.

The structure of the program flexes with the yield. In the event the yield drops below 30%, the amount of bounties that are to be delivered also drops, as does the fee for running the program on a 1:1 ratio basis.

Net, we share the risk together.

In the event the yield drops for a consistent period of time, we have structured to present the 7-member Allocation Committee with other scenarios to deliver additional yield - we specifically want to drive yield that is as beneficial to the community as possible (larger yields are possible, often at the detriment of other stakeholders).

For the initial recommendation, we evaluated countless strategies. Currently the yield for this strategy is slightly higher than 30% - we believe it will come down as the program progresses, so we’ve taken that into account.

Hope that helps

Thanks for your reply. In that case, I think there isn’t really much “opportunity cost” in providing the UNI from Treasury to attract yield to fund the program – sounds good to me. All the best.


I may be missing something here, but what happens to the $25M that is generating the yield after the 2 year period here is over?

My other first comment here is that it seems like having the oversight committee review the program and report key findings would be helpful to do more frequently than annually. I think even after 4 or 5 months, there’s probably a lot that could be analyzed and published.

“In the event the Oversight Committee determines the program to be ineffective, at any voting junction, the $25M grant would be submitted as a proposal to Uniswap Governance to be evaluated and re-assigned to other programs.”

hello unicorns and flipside team,

would like to say that I really like the idea of a yield fund, and really appreciate all your hard work you guys have put into this proposal, feedback you have providing and for being flexible to change on various community suggestions, and initially was thinking on voting yes on this, but in recent light of dune analytics pointing out a fatal flow in this proposal, as pointed out in this tweet

Hence I suggest at this point we reject the proposal in current form and start a discussion of an analytical yield fund, where all teams providing analytical services, LPs providers (in ur proposal it was too only visor), etc could participate and would be able to discuss and compete on strategies to fund, generete yield, etc.

I also acknowledge that there has been a lot of work put into this proposal, and it is very time consuming and requires a lot of coordination to put and move along the DAO governance, so if this community sees this as experiment and a starting point to kickstart such initiatives I got no problem with that, as I also wouldn’t want this to get buried in endless discussions, but I really do agree here with dune, that fundamentally this proposal should be focused on establishing an uniswap analytical yield fund, just like our grants fund.

Maybe something like a community board that decided which strategies/teams would get liquidity to generate yield, some control mechanism for the liquidity provided and a backlog of proposals that will get funded by those yields (or maybe liquidity + yield could be a combo, just like in ur case)

Any how as I said previously, I like the idea, but think mechanism to provide liquidity should be more decentralised and free marketish, but also understand that this could be just a starting point and we could use this precedent to then provide liquidity to others, as I have not enough time to comprehend everything at this point, since I only found out about this proposal yesterday, ps maybe flipside themselves are willing to postpone the proposal in light of flaws pointed out by dune team, have a nice day everyone!

P.S. I sugest we could discuss mechanism of such general yield fund further in this proposal discussion

@jcp love that idea. We actually will have a real time dashboard that will show all outcomes: " Transparency Dashboard: Tracking fund performance and transaction activities will be broadcast live via a custom dashboard for the Uniswap community."

Love the build of a formal report every few months. That’s a great idea. I think @wijuwiju commented on how the funds are returned to governance if the program isn’t delivering. We think is VERY important for the ecosystem’s checks and balances. There needs to be a way to return grant money if not being used effectively.

I ended up voting no here. My thinking is below:

  • I don’t think we need $90k / mo in bounties for analytics right now. Many great dashboards are being built openly by the community
  • I don’t think we need to pay $90k/mo to run this kind of bounty program. UGP is awarding grants on the same order of magnitude with much lower spending
  • The “no loss” funding strategy is interesting, but risky to the amount of funds available for both bounties and labor
  • Credible neutrality is lacking. Other analytics platforms like Dune have had strong traction, and I think any analytics bounties program should be run by a credibly neutral party.

What I do like about this proposal is that it puts forth an interesting idea around using yield to fund new programs. Additionally, I believe the authors here have been diligent about the process of receiving feedback from the community throughout the process of bringing this to a vote.

We do need to take seriously the idea of putting treasury funds to use in a more aggressive way, so I hope to see more proposals like this one in the future. In that sense, this is a model proposal! Thanks Flipside for putting in such considerate thought and discussion here. I’d personally be interested in seeing something along these lines continue to be discussed and maybe re-proposed.


Thank you to the Flipside team for bringing this proposal to the table, and thank you to the community at large for providing helpful feedback. The Flipside team has proven itself to be a valuable community member, delivering high quality tools like the Uniswap V3 Fee Calculator. Furthermore, we appreciate their introduction of an innovative funding method that does not require the sale of UNI tokens.

We at a16z value Flipside’s work initiating this proposal, but voted no.

We wish to share some thoughts about this proposal to provide insight into our thinking about how to approach something similar in the future:

  • While allocations to private entities to provide services are okay, community grant programs should be left to neutral community actors to administer.
  • Oversight committees associated with grants should be composed of community members that are independent of the grantee.
  • Flipside proposed a compelling funding method, albeit one that requires oversight and a thorough specification.

We explore each of the aforementioned points in greater detail below:

While allocations to private entities to provide services are okay, grants programs should be left to neutral community actors to administer.

The proposal had two components: (1) funding earmarked to fund a private service provider’s operations, and (2) funding earmarked for a community bounty program run by that same service provider.

We think (2) is inappropriate when the administrator of those funds has a conflict of interest with potential grantees–the allocation of community grants should be left to neutral actors. The original Uniswap Grants Program is an excellent example of how to create such a program.

Alternatively, we have no problem with (1)–DAO treasury funds going to a private service provider–given that the service provider demonstrates a compelling use for the funds and sufficient community oversight is in place.

Oversight committees associated with grants should be composed of community members that are independent of the grantee.

If a proposal involves an oversight committee to hold a grantee accountable, it’s crucial for members of that oversight committee to be independent of the grantee. Ideal members of that committee would be active community members who don’t stand to benefit from the grant directly.

Flipside proposed a compelling funding method, albeit one that requires oversight and a thorough specification.

Flipside’s proposal of using yield generation strategies to avoid selling allocated UNI is worth exploring.

This approach, however, requires the deployment of a large amount of UNI to generate yield. This should entail oversight in accordance with the guidelines above, as well as a thorough specification of the management of the funds over time.

An alternative funding method that requires less oversight is a stream grant (for example, see an implementation by Compound). While this eliminates the benefit of not selling the governance token, it allows for much more control from the DAO, as the grant can be stopped at any point via a proposal and vote.


First off we’d like to give @davebalter and Flipside credit for working on this proposal and for attempting to put the UNI treasury to work. We acknowledge that we’ve been passive here, and apologize for showing up late.

As UNI holders and stewards for hundreds of Uniswap dashboards creators we called attention to this proposal because it is risky and biased, and was seemingly passing without much community attention. Our objections to this proposal are largely echoed by a16z’s thoughtful comment above and is summarized below.

UP1.2 is essentially bundle of three things

  1. Funding grants with yield farming
  2. UNI analytics grants
  3. Funding of Flipsides operations

In our opinion there’s no obvious reason to bundle these together.

1. Funding grants with yield

While funding grants with yield is an interesting idea at large, this proposal was essentially for a data analytics provider to manage $25M of the UNI community’s treasury. There are plenty of important questions around risk, operations and checks and balances of capital management in and of itself. What happens if the money is lost? What is the appropriate amount of risk? Managing capital is a profession for a reason and from our perspective a totally separate matter to an analytics grant. If the UNI community wants to allocate funds in this manner, we encourage a separate proposal to deal with that and there’s already a discussion of this in another thread initiated by @wijuwiju.

2. Analytics grants

We are super excited to see UNI funds go towards creation of great analytics dashboards by funding community creators and education. However, this proposal is not credibly provider neutral. Flipside employees and investors were overrepresented on both the allocation committee and the oversight board.

3. Flipside Operational funding

Our take is that grants from the UNI treasury towards analytics should go to community creators, not Dune and not Flipside. Creators are the scarce resource for Uniswap, not the actual data tables.

There are plenty of analytics tools and providers that get funding from VCs, tokens and/or revenue. There’s no obvious reason for UNI holders to subsidise one of these, but if they want to it should be an explicit vendor/DAO arrangement, with clear SLA, the option to cancel etc. This is something different than a community analytics bounty program.

Summing up

All in all we think the proposal is overly complex and is not vendor neutral.

We would love to help funnel UNI grants to dashboard creators with a proposal that ensures that the actual community creators get the money and it is straightforward for UNI holders to understand what they are paying for.

With this as the backbone we are already working on a UNI community analytics proposal. We’d love to discuss how to best enable UNI analytics with everyone that voted last week, data providers and the Uniswap community broadly.


Thanks for articulating your perspective here @hagaetc. Excited to have Dune engaged and interested in the governance process.

In mischaracterizing Flipside’s model structure and benefits, you’ve failed to identify that we’re recommending the treasury funds the ability to provide all analysts unlimited access to data and a free open API that can be used to develop anywhere.

An effective vendor-neutral program would need to avoid:

Charging any community member for any premium data solutions.

  • The very nature of a subscription model for analytics distinguishes the have and have nots. A fantastically talented individual of lower means will be unable to fully utilize all of the benefits of a fee-based platform. The data should allow all members to have equal access to all capabilities in order to create fairness for bounties.

Activating data that is held hostage in a single platform.

  • The production and delivery of data should occur wherever an analyst is most comfortable. In the event an individual has expertise with Tableau or Rstudio or Dash (Plotly) … or their own custom builds, they should be free to design within those platforms. If not, bias is given to those who have developed specialized expertise on a single platform.

We remain big fans of Dune and certainly of premium-upsell models; while different from Flipside, it’s no less valuable for the ecosystem (Dr. Ethereum, who utilizes both platforms, breaks down the distinctions in the models quite well.)

That said, in this specific case, we’d have to reflect on how charging creators and restricting data decentralization is vendor-neutral - or ensures the creator is truly the beneficiary.

What we’ve proposed is quite different: the treasury enables anyone to build anywhere. No restrictions. This allows value creation to move from pure analytics, to the onboarding and retention of as many community members as possible.

Flipside believes there will be multiple models of value creation over time; all of them should have the equal benefit of evaluation and experimentation.

With community feedback in hand, we may be recommending an update to Uniswap Proposal 1.2. In the short term, we’d love to see a Dune proposal for a structure that is vendor-neutral and keeps data free and accessible to creators anywhere.


Hi folks, grateful you got the ball rolling on grants for analytics.
I’m the founder of Revert (, an analytics tool for LPs. For a few months after the release of Uniswap v3, Revert was the only tool where Uniswap LPs could see the PNL and APR for any v3 position. Given that context, I would like to respectfully provide some feedback on the previous proposal and the ensuing discussion.

As originally proposed the analytics grant had some problems that for me made it unviable. Fundamentally:

  • An operational budget for Flipside seems like a waste of community treasury which would be better used in funding analytics solutions creators directly
  • There is a claim of a 30% yield target which seems high for a conservative estimate. If the target was arrived at by some methodology it should be described so as to be reproducible. It is not even clear if that yield target is only taking into account fees accrued and ignoring IL
  • A committee has discretionality in deploying grant funds to the projects it selects
  • Finally I would like to say that while, without a doubt, Dune and Flipside are great platforms for DeFi analytics, ideally a lot of the analytics tools will be built outside of those platforms as web3 products. So credible neutrality will start by completely removing the mention of either platform directly from a fair analytics proposal.

A neutral way to think about analytics grants is for the community to spec out the analytics solutions it is looking to fund, and then builders can build the tools that meet the specs, grants can be assigned retroactively and independently of how or where they get built. Would be great to be able to start thinking about what we want to fund in those terms and work together towards that.