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.
Does this represent genuine decentralized governance?
Bigger protocols, such as Arrakis Gamma and others, collaborating to achieve comprehensive distribution, even though neither of them have really invested in the Arbitrum ecosystem and have chosen to provide significant liquidity and support for Optimism instead?
Isn’t it unfair and disadvantageous for smaller projects that truly support and contribute to the Arbitrum growth?
No matter the strategy, there is no guarantee that delegates will always act in the best interest of either protocol. It is essential to have mechanisms to replace individuals regularly. In this case, scheduled redelegation every x months would achieve this.
This is a good program. The advantage is reduced complexity and governance overhead. The Create a UNI-ARB Working Group appears to be significantly more complex than the Uniswap Optimism Protocol Delegation Program because, as proposed, it requires multiple working group structures.
Hey again. Following up from my post here Request for Proposals - ARB Distribution - #5 by Dakotah
I am sorry that I missed that I was supposed to create a separate proposal for this. Have we missed the window and therefore have no shot at all? We may be smaller than a lot of the projects listed here but we are a permissionless platform built on top of Uni v3. We dont manage funds or do any of these tasks that involve trust. We pushed a lot of volume from Frax onto Uniswap and plan to continue growing with them and elsewhere. We will be on Arbitrum next month. I request that Bunni isnt left in the dark because of my mistake or not partnering with specific projects just to increase likelihood that we get the grant… Our fees are only 10% of LP swap fees! We are good for Uniswap!
Snapshot is posted here and goes live in five hours. Thanks to the proposing teams and good luck!
We appreciate the collaboration between the complementary Gauntlet and Gamma Strategies proposals and, considering the Architectural Reccomendations in the recent bridge assessment, it is prudent also to support the MMA Infrastructure Development proposal.
A possibility exists that a remainder of ARB will be available when this polling process concludes. If the total balance requested by the passing proposals is significantly less than the ~4.4m ARB available, we would support the remaining balance be allocated to the UF in alignment with the backstop proposal.
Hi, what are next steps?
We agreed that the remaining balance should be allocated to the UF’s proposal.
Is there any progress for the onchain vote?