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’re glad to see this moving forward and have voted in favor of Combined Liquidity Incentives and MMA Infrastructure Development proposals.
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.
We agreed that the remaining balance should be allocated to the UF’s proposal.
Is there any progress for the onchain vote?
Still no progress on the ARB distribution?
So that’s it no distribution???
It is important to have multiple ALM options as that offers more competition and there for more efficient liquidity.
Have been waiting for several weeks without a response on the status of this. Can we get some kind of update please @eek637
the vote has been live since last week and the temp check post has been updated to reflect that. the proposers spent 6 weeks working behind the scenes talking to delegates to give it the best chances of passing.
What is the status of this? We have not heard from anyone from the proposal team at all.
We at Brincx were part of the proposal team meaning that we should have gotten some allocation or at least some notification about what was to happen. This is not right. Is this fair to just exclude Brincx from this process?