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.
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!
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.
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.
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?
@Brincnomics - For advanced notice of future incentive allocations, please DM us, and we’ll connect over Telegram to deliver that. This goes for any/all ALMs interested in participating.
. 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