Request for Proposals - ARB Distribution

There is no liquidity manager on Bunni just an fyi. Funds flow into the UNI pool you send them to & thats it.

1 Like

Thanks for posting this!

1 Like

Here LI.FI’s proposal to add value to Uniswap and Arbitrum ecosystems on the infrastructure level:

0xPlasma Labs Proposal :point_right: [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.

We would like to emphasize the point raised by @stastny and @t_norm. We also believe a grant program would be the most suitable decision-making body for the $ARB allocation.

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:

  1. Continuity and shared learning: the foundation can manage the program while sharing its knowledge with the community, thereby ensuring long-term decentralization.
  2. 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.

Instead of bootstrapping individual pools, we suggest that a portion of the $ARB be allocated directly to Active Liquidity Managers (ALMs) such as Gamma, xToken, etc. This aims to raise user awareness and broaden the design space with other liquidity management solutions for retail users.


Hi all,

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

1 Like

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.

1 Like

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 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).


Realistically, this will be tough unless a project submitting the proposal has 2.5 mil UNI or friends with lots of UNI. This is the equivalent of over $10mil. I mean, Arrakis, Gauntlet, and Gamma have that in cash so can easily get their ppl to just vote for their own projects. I hope there can be some consideration to the 2.5mil delegation rule in order to make this more equitable for the smaller projects that need the funds more.

How will the snapshot work for all the proposals?

With the amount being asked for each proposals it seems only 1 or 2 could be approved. 2 million~ is going towards the Uniswap foundation? Some proposals are asking for 2 million ARB, i.e Gauntlet; while some are asking for 1 million+ ARB.

Will the voting be for each individual proposal or will there be an initial vote of all the proposals with information about each in one poll?

We at Arrakis agree with this approach and believe that it’s probably the best for all of us to support the proposal from Gamma in a joint venture fashion.

Should we still use the 14 June as the final date before the Snapshot period? Most proposals still don’t have enough interactions and also the backstop proposal would not cover all ARB allocation.

Hi all, we’ve been waiting for multiple proposals and ideas to come through the forum in order to start reviewing. I believe now there is a sufficient amount of ideas to start the review thus maybe such short notice for 14th of June is maybe not the best idea.

It is reasonable that more delegates have the same approach and we would advise some patience to read through all the proposals so everyone can receive feedback.


Agreed, we think delegates may need more time to review and discuss proposals. Each response between the author and delegates may take more than a day to reply so it would be in its best interest to postpone the deadline.

1 Like

Sure - ultimately I think we should only send props to Snapshot that have been fully baked in the forums, so I’m happy to see delegates start to weigh in here. Let’s change the target to next Wednesday, June 21.


We understand the value of using the RFP process as a means to gather community feedback; on the other hand, we worry about creating complex sub-layers of governance. The DAO should prioritize simple governing structures that promote transparency and lower the costs of community participation.

Many of the submitted proposals are highly technical and merit further review or have objectives that fall within the key activities of the Uniswap Foundation. The foundation is already well-resourced with contributors, possesses an in-depth understanding of the ecosystem, and has a grants program that would efficiently decide on the best allocation of the ARB airdrop.

Given the above, we suggest considering a hybrid approach that transfers the entire ARB airdrop to the Uniswap Foundation’s multisig and subsequently allocates it in the following way:

  • 50% used to fund grants for one, or more, of the available RFCs
  • 50% to be included in the next Delegate Race

This approach allows capitalising on the merits of the community’s feedback and shared learnings as well as relying on Uniswap Foundation’s existing accountability and decision-making structures.

Additionally, this approach reduces selling pressure by using ARB as a governance instrument that will align future Arbitrum developments and Uniswap’s best interests in the long term.