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).
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.
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.
We think that Create a UNI-ARB Working Group is complex but beneficial. This proposal offers decentralised decision-making by creating an organisation outside of the Uniswap Foundation specifically for the Uniswap-Arbitrum ecosystem. Therefore, it may include a sub-grant program (ecosystem fund) and protocol delegates which may repeat the Uniswap Foundation.
One question on your suggestion:
- What do you mean by " 50% to be included in the next Delegate Race"? Can you explain more of what you will use the allocation for?
Couple of good proposals covering different aspect of token usages.
uni-arb working group along with focused on liquidity would be best use of token.
I dont think giving token to dev team building on top of uni would be a good move as Arbitrum foundation could be best place for such funding. there are also other method to raise funds.
Supporting Liquidity, like mentioned above by BP333, will be good for uniswap in general and having a working group would put us, OG and leading multichain dApp, in close collaboration with Arbitrum.
The Request for Proposal states:
Proposals should provide a clear rationale for how they will add value to the Uniswap ecosystem and they should be focused on the Arbitrum deployment of the protocol.
The value proposition for BrincX: add $ARB to our liquidity vaults which will generate “real APY” deployed entirely to Uniswap v3 liquidity pools on the Arbitrum network. We are not giving away the ARB as liquidity rewards, we are deploying the funds as liquidity to show the DeFi community how “real APYs” are generated right here on Uniswap.
We recommend that the UF holds 50% of the ARB, but delegates it within the Uniswap community. The delegate races could be used to select those delegates without adding additional processes to oversee and maintain.
The underlying intention is to ensure a significant amount of the ARB airdrop is mandated for use as a governance instrument. This use aligns with the Arbitrum core values and long-term sustainability of their protocol, which should be a guidepost during this decision-making process.
Hey all, update here. A few of the teams that proposed various forms of liquidity incentives are in the process of seeing whether they can combine their proposals. With that in mind, I’m going to push this back one more week.
Next Wednesday, I’ll queue up a Snapshot with each proposal listed as an option. The sum of the ARB requests will be less than or equal to the total amount of the DAO’s grant.
Delegates can vote for any, all, or none of the proposals. Each proposal with > 10m votes will move to the next round of on-chain voting.
Thanks for your response . How can we make sure the delegates we choose will vote aligned with the Uniswap ecosystem? What’s the advantage compared to a council like [RFC] Uniswap Optimism Protocol Delegation Program ? Thank you.