link that dune dash!
I dont seem to have link capabilities yet. Sorry… Maybe someone who does can stop by our discord and grab it?
Hey everyone - Alastor and Web3 Studios are collaborating on an ARB Distribution proposal. Abstract below and link with the rest of the details here!
We propose the establishment of the UNI-ARB Working Group, leveraging a substantial allocation of 2.2 million ARB tokens intended to enhance the Uniswap ecosystem within the Arbitrum Protocol. WG0 will work along two major sub-working groups focused on:
- Protocol Delegates: Active participation in Arbitrum governance through a delegation committee
- Ecosystem Fund: Management of grant program and research for projects fostering the Uniswap-Arbitrum ecosystem
I saw some proposals by liquidity managers here, notably this one by Arrakis or the comment from Bunni above.
I expressed my support in the Gamma proposal about the use of Merkl, but I just wanted to highlight the fact that with Merkl there is no need to choose one liquidity manager over another: all of them can naturally be supported within the system. If you provide liquidity through Arrakis on Uniswap V3, then you can be rewarded without having to stake your liquidity anywhere. That’s the same as if you provide liquidity on Uniswap directly.
So rather than having liquidity managers competing here, I think Merkl provides a fairer and more inclusive way to deal with ALM competition. There will be no discrimination or no choice to make between different solutions. ALMs will just have to make a difference through the efficiency of their management algorithms, which I think will turn in a healthy and efficient way to boost the efficiency of Uniswap liquidity efficiency.
Hey guys, I’m seeing a few different proposals for liquidity mining with $ARB (Bunni, Arrakis, Angle Merkl). Although I proposed the Angle MERKL proposal under Gamma Strategies, it’s not proposing that Gamma be the sole distribution mechanism, but allowing all liquidity providers and managers on Uniswap v3 to be equally eligible for rewards.
How Merkl can be beneficial to Bunni
So with Merkl, those who provide to Bunni will be eligible for the same rewards based on the same criteria as every other liquidity provider (ALM or LP NFT provider).
Out-of-range gauges will not receive any $ARB rewards → There’s no need to kill out-of-range gauges (as mentioned here) and potentially waste $ARB rewards on out-of-range positions and no need to depend on others to initiate the process of killing a gauge. Only LPs who provide in-range gauges will be rewarded with $ARB based on the capital efficiency of their positions.
Dynamic incentivization → Those with the highest earning LP positions will automatically be given more rewards. It reduces the dependency on relying on veLIT voters to rationally make the decision to incentivize according to capital efficiency. Also because each Bunni epoch is 10-days long, it would be impossible to dynamically change the incentives within a 10-day epoch if some gauges perform better than others. With Angle Merkl, the rewards distribution automatically adjusts to the capital efficiency and depth of liquidity of the gauges, without having to relying on the next epoch to adjust the incentives.
How Merkl can be beneficial to Arrakis
With Arrakis’s proposal, I haven’t seen the methodology of the distribution of 500k $ARB or the pairs that will be incentivized; however, Angle Merkl would be inclusive of their positions regardless.
There’s no need to have a separate Arrakis allocation, Gamma allocation, or Bunni allocation or LP NFT allocation. Everyone is incentivized according to the same criteria.
So long as Arrakis provides the deepest liquidity for a pair, they will receive more of the $ARB distribution.
The main concern was the amount of ARB 1.46~million. A showcase of Merkl and Gamma would allow:
More interested groups to be included in future ARB distributions
Open up opportunities with more initiative co-sponsors pairs.
Evaluate effective liquidity pair’s performance metrics
Also a more concrete timeline of how long incentives last would be helpful.
With account abstraction use cases beginning to take shape it would be advantageous to not use up the ~4.4 million ARB as quickly as possible. As additional incentive structures may emerge that would benefit from ARB distributions.
Here is the link to the Bunni Dune Dashboard https://dune.com/bored_genius/bunni
And a new one will be soon available, you can jump into Discord if you have an idea of what data would help you to make your choice.
There is no liquidity manager on Bunni just an fyi. Funds flow into the UNI pool you send them to & thats it.
Thanks for posting this!
Here LI.FI’s proposal to add value to Uniswap and Arbitrum ecosystems on the infrastructure level:
0xPlasma Labs Proposal [RFC] Quadrat (0xPlasma Labs) - 66% Liquidity Farming + 33% Gas Refund
Greetings from Stanford Blockchain.
It is encouraging to observe the numerous concepts that various teams have proposed. Additionally, we extend a warm welcome to new participants of the Uniswap forum.
Having learned from the bridge selection process, I believe we should establish an agreed-upon decision-making protocol before deciding on individual candidates/ideas.
At present, the foundation’s role is missing from the conversation. From our perspective, this grant program falls under the foundation’s current grant program ([Governance Proposal] Create the Uniswap Foundation), with the caveat of being more focused on the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Moreover, the foundation has a proven track record of successful grant funding. We believe that this success is mainly due to 1) full-time members, 2) an in-depth understanding of the ecosystem, 3) a well-resourced organization, and 4) adequately compensated personnel.
Nevertheless, we also acknowledge the merits of involving the community in the grant process. The optimal approach would be a foundation-led, community-supported grant program for the $ARB allocation.
This approach has several advantages compared to a pure foundation or community grant program:
- Continuity and shared learning: the foundation can manage the program while sharing its knowledge with the community, thereby ensuring long-term decentralization.
- Future working groups: the deployment accountability committee and the ARB-UNI working group could serve as ideal testing grounds to determine which working group model would be most suitable for Uniswap’s situation.
We hope the community will seriously consider this option before moving forward with any individual proposal.
With regard to individual proposals, we are not confident that liquidity mining rewards would yield the greatest benefit based on Gauntlet’s recent analysis and personal experiences with the LM world.
Gauntlet’s analysis suggests that Liquidity Mining (LM) rewards could be advantageous when there is a discernible bootstrapping opportunity. By ‘bootstrapping opportunity’, we refer to a pool with considerably lower Total Value Locked (TVL) and volume than the overall L2 activities.
However, we do not see the bootstrapping opportunity for the pools proposed.
First, thanks to the teams and individuals who have submitted proposals. Having written a few of these myself, I appreciate the effort and thoughtfulness that goes into them.
With that said, the conversation around and scrutiny given to any particular proposal by the delegate community has thus far been fairly light. And that’s okay! But without that sort of engagement, sending any proposals to Snapshot seems ill-advised.
Keeping that in mind, I’d ask that Delegates take the next week to read through and comment on proposals that they believe would be value-additive. For those teams that have made proposals, I suggest looking at Delegates’ profiles on the new Uniswap Agora and DMing them on Twitter to engage. There are a bunch of new delegates and I’m hoping that they’re eager to weigh in. Please keep proposal-specific conversations in their own post.
On Wednesday, June 14, if there are proposals that have garnered conversation and community support, let’s take the next step and start sending them to Snapshot. If not - also fine - I’ve posted a backstop proposal here.
Does this mean that new proposals can be posted or is this just giving more time to the existing proposals that were submitted by June 7? Why is editing to our RPC turned off
Please check out the proposal by DefiEdge at:
Regarding the above comments, I think it’s good to have liquidity incentives and allowing the protocols to distribute accordingly.
Merkl can be beneficial, but would like to see more adoption and the opinion of other protocols on it’s choice as well.
And we definitely feel, breaking the LM Incentives into different phases is the way to go as there are some trending projects currently on ARB, but we must account for the changing landscape and incentivize newer projects down the line to give them the initial push usually needed by a growing protocol.
Dunno why editing of your post isn’t working - i’ll have a look.
Re new proposals - per the initial post the deadline was yesterday, and the next week is to gather feedback from delegates. Prior to today there was very little in the way of substantive commentary on any of the proposals.
Will the governance process for this ARB Distribution Proposal require: 10m UNI Quorum for the TempCheck; and 2.5 mil delegated for the proposal; and 40 m Quorm for the governance stage? This seems really difficult to do.
Its working. Thank you.
Yes. The process is designed to make sure that proposers have gotten token holders on board. If you look at the profiles on vote.uniswapfoundation.org you can see a bunch of delegates who have the required amount of votes. These delegates are generally who you should be talking to to pitch your proposal. I’ve been trying to get them to weigh in on the forums but you can also reach out to them directly (Twitter or discourse dm).