[RFC] - Alastor | w3s - Create a UNI-ARB Working Group

Proposal Name

Working Group Uniswap - Arbitrum


Alastor and web3 Studios - bringing together top-tier experience from work in web3 (Uniswap, Zerion, Polygon, Lido, Gitcoin, and others), TradFi (Qatalyst, Blackstone), Consulting (McKinsey) and collectively creating an extensive web3 network.

Alastor is a crypto-native strategic and financial advisory firm for Web3 based out of New York. Its founders, Jordan Stastny and Sam Bronstein, were previously M&A advisors at Qatalyst and Citigroup where they advised leading technology companies on M&A and strategy.

The Alastor team recently prepared the Uniswap Fee Switch Report diving into fee switch ramifications and recommendations and served as advisor to mStable on their sale to dHEDGE. The Alastor team has done strategic grant work for Lido, Decentraland, and Gitcoin.

web3 Studios (“w3s”) is an investment banking firm exclusively focused on companies building the open economy based out of London, Lisbon, and Berlin. Founded by Blackstone and McKinsey alumni, the group facilitates M&A, capital raising, and strategic projects for web3 companies and DAOs.

The group has previously been engaged with Zerion, doing Strategic Work for Gro DAO, and conducted research work together with leading web3 firms such as Polygon, The Sandbox, and DappRadar.

This Working Group Zero (WG0) is aimed to propose the UNI-ARB Working Group guidelines and transitioning its operations into the hands of the community.


We propose the establishment of the UNI-ARB Working Group, leveraging a substantial allocation of 2.2 million ARB tokens intended to enhance the Uniswap ecosystem within the Arbitrum Protocol. WG0 will work along two major sub-working groups focused on:

  1. Protocol Delegates: Active participation in Arbitrum governance through a delegation committee
  2. Ecosystem Fund: Management of grant program and research for projects fostering the Uniswap-Arbitrum ecosystem


The objective is to form the UNI-ARB Working Group, tasked with exploring governance and operational structures that enable the DAO to maintain its operation and initiatives indefinitely. The Group will create a sustainable, community-led infrastructure that further decentralizes the DAO, improves operational efficiency, and maintains the flexibility to adapt to any arising opportunities. It will also provide a clear vision and mission for all initiatives within the Arbitrum and Uniswap ecosystem.


The ARB airdrop provides the Uniswap community with an opportunity to enhance its presence within the Arbitrum ecosystem, thus nurturing growth. The received airdrop allows us to cover various aspects of ecosystem growth. The UNI-ARB Working Group will consolidate all initiatives under one structured system to ensure alignment with the Uniswap vision, ready to leverage potential allocation opportunities.


The Working Group establishment will provide structure and a unified vision for the UNI-ARB ecosystem. It will incorporate the two main areas of Protocol Delegates and Ecosystem Fund. The future potential of the Sub-Working Groups is oriented at Uniswaps’ existing initiatives driving value to its ecosystem, namely, the Optimism delegation program and the Uniswap Grants program.

Hence, Working Group Zero (WG0) is acting as a structural roof of key Sub-Working Groups and is tasked with:

  • Formation of the Sub-WGs, incl. participant nomination and election process
  • Establishment of the Sub-WGs objectives and ground rules
  • Initial planning of the investment schedule (picked up by the elected Grant Program)


Working Group Charter

Mandate and Scope:

We propose the establishment of the UNI-ARB Working Group, allocating the ARB tokens as follows:

  1. Protocol Delegates: 1.1 million (25% of the total airdrop) ARB tokens for Governance - Empowering the committee to actively participate in Arbitrum governance and influence strategic decisions.
  2. Ecosystem Fund: 1.1 million (25% of the total airdrop) ARB tokens for Arb-Uniswap Grants - Supporting growth and development of projects within the Arbitrum-Uniswap ecosystem, with a focus on long-term benefits.

There are various suggestions to allocate a portion of the airdrop towards liquidity mining rewards; however, this particular proposal does not address that aspect.

1. Protocol Delegates

To ensure effective representation, a committee of 3-5 members will serve as dedicated representatives of the Uniswap community’s interests as it was implemented by Uniswap-Optimism Delegate Committee [LINK] . These committee members will exclusively represent Uniswap, ensuring unbiased decision-making. The primary goal is to actively engage in Arbitrum governance, allowing the Uniswap community to shape the future of the ecosystem.

Task areas:

The Uni-Arb Working Group will transparently and accountably represent the Uniswap community’s interests in the Arbitrum DAO. Potential responsibilities might include:

  • Participation in voting discussions
  • Voting participation through multi-sig
  • Attendance at bi-weekly community calls

Selection criteria:

We would propose the same criteria to delegates as for the Optimism proposal, meaning that the successful candidate should satisfy the following qualities:

  • Demonstrated contributions to the Uniswap and/or Arbitrum ecosystems
  • Familiarity and experience with DAO governance
  • Demonstrated Uniswap and Arbitrum protocol knowledge
  • Commitment to being an active delegate based on proclaimed bandwidth
  • No already existing ARB delegations to avoid moat building, while contributing new perspectives to the Arbitrum governance process

ARB allocation:

1.1 million ARB should be allocated to this Sub-Group, passing the minimum threshold of 1M tokens [LINK] allowing the committee to post on-chain proposals

2. Ecosystem Fund

The Ecosystem Fund, fueled by the ARB-Uniswap Grants, will serve a crucial role in fostering a thriving and sustainable Uniswap-Arbitrum ecosystem.

The fund could extend its scope in a multitude of ways:

  • Strengthening ecosystem partnerships
  • Seeking investment opportunities through the ARB-Uniswap Grants Program
  • Assisting chosen projects with strategy, customer acquisition, retention, engagement, go-to-market, and fundraising/mints

To bring the Ecosystem Fund to fruition, we’ll begin with defining a clear investment policy that articulates our financial objectives, risk tolerance, and target investments. We’ll seek out innovative projects and initiatives within the Arbitrum-Uniswap ecosystem that align with our strategic goals and have a high potential for long-term growth.

Setting up a dedicated team will follow, composed of experts well-versed in DAO governance, blockchain tech, and investment management. This team will be responsible for overseeing fund operations, conducting due diligence, and making investment decisions.

Lastly, we’ll establish an investment schedule that lays out a timeline for deploying the funds. It will detail key milestones for the initial disbursement of funds and subsequent follow-on investments, ensuring an organized and effective allocation of resources to foster the growth and success of the ecosystem.

Potential task areas:

  • Accelerator Program: A part of the funds could be used to run an incubator or accelerator program, providing a more structured way to support early-stage projects. These programs often provide funding, mentorship, and networking opportunities over a fixed period.
  • Mentoring and Advisory Services: The Ecosystem Fund could provide mentorship and advisory services to grantees, offering guidance in critical areas such as strategy, customer acquisition, retention, engagement, go-to-market, and fundraising/mints
  • Research Initiatives: A portion of the Ecosystem Fund could be allocated to support research initiatives aimed at exploring new use cases, or addressing technical challenges within the Arbitrum-Uniswap ecosystem.
  • Developer Grants: These grants can be provided to developers or development teams to create new features, improve existing services, or address known issues within the ecosystem.
  • Cross-community Grants: These can be aimed at community builders who can contribute to the growth of the Uniswap-Arbitrum ecosystem through educational content, community engagement initiatives, and promotional activities.

To initiate the Ecosystem Fund, we’re stepping forward to nominate ourselves as contributors, given our deep understanding of the Arbitrum-Uniswap ecosystem and our experience supporting leading early-stage projects (Uniswap, Zerion, Polygon, Lido, Gitcoin, and others) along their journey through our advisory work.

Additionally, we warmly extend an invitation to current contributors of the Uniswap Foundation / Grant Program or other talented individuals with complementary skillsets to join this Sub-Working Group. We believe that their insights, experiences, and ideas will be invaluable in shaping the direction of the Ecosystem Fund and ensuring its success in supporting the flourishing of the Uniswap-Arbitrum ecosystem.

ARB allocation:

1.1 million ARB tokens will be allocated to Arb-Uniswap Grants, supporting long-term benefits and the growth of projects within the Arbitrum-Uniswap ecosystem.

Working Group Zero Members

Initially, we propose the formation of the interim Working Group (WG0), comprising 3-5 members. This preliminary group will be entrusted with laying the groundwork for the overall structure, defining roles, responsibilities, and operational procedures. WG0 will set the foundation and provide a clear blueprint for the subsequent sub-working groups.

Post this initial phase, we will facilitate a nomination and election process to choose members for each of the two Sub-Working Groups: Protocol Delegates and Ecosystem Fund. We anticipate electing 5 members for each sub-group, resulting in a robust team of 10 members in total. We believe this size will balance the need for a wide range of skills and perspectives with the ability to maintain efficient communication and decision-making processes.

Steps to implement:

  1. Approve the formation of WG0: Align on the formation of a UNI-ARB Working Group Zero.
  2. Sub-working Groups Objectives and Ground Rules: Iterate on guidelines for the Sub-Working Group to follow together with the community.
  3. Define the Protocol Delegate Committee Scope: Establish the committee’s responsibilities, focusing on its role in Arbitrum governance and representing the Uniswap community’s interests.
  4. Kickstart the Sub-Working Group Election: Facilitate a fair and inclusive election process to select the committee members representing the Uniswap community.
  5. Define the Grant Program Vision: Articulate a comprehensive vision for the ARB-Uniswap Grants Program, supporting innovative projects and fostering growth in the Uniswap-Arbitrum ecosystem.
  6. Engage the community to surface new ideas and contributions.
  7. Provide regular updates to the DAO community on the group’s operations and decisions.


  • Week 1-2: Iteration on the proposal including feedback from Uniswap/Arbitrum community/contributors
  • Week 3-4: Establishment of objectives and ground rules for Working Sub-Groups
  • Week 5-7: Run nomination and election process
  • Week 8+: Sub-Working Groups commence operations, incl. defining key deliverables and budget

Firstly, we would like to thank you for your considerable efforts in outlining a comprehensive proposal for creating a UNI-ARB Working group. We fully support a community-run program and are pleased to see Alastor & co’s work here! My co-worker Erikson Herman and I reviewed the proposal and wish to dive deeper into certain aspects. We hope this discussion will contribute to the refinement and improvement of the proposal.

Leveraging our past experience with ConsenSys, specifically in establishing the MetaMask Grants DAO, we understand the operational demands of running grant programs. Although the challenges will differ in this context, operational complexities remain a key concern. Consequently, we’ve outlined a few questions related to the proposal.

General Governance Process

We appreciate the detail on the working group’s strategy and operational aspects. The structure you’ve laid out makes sense, but many core and fundamental questions surrounding the grants program could potentially be more fleshed out. These details are currently omitted, as it’s stated that the WG0 will address these. However, we believe some of these factors are critical for supporting the decision and distribution of the allocated ARB.

Questions 1: Process for Establishment

We’re still trying to understand how you see this process going…

  • Currently, does this RFC → Temp check establish the entire working group (WG0 + Protocol Delegates + Ecosystem Fund)

  • Or are we approving only WG0’s idea and general structure of the program, then there will be further community votes on the structure of the grant program?

As you will see with some of our thoughts below, we would either like to see more oversight or multiple votes to establish the programs.

Working Group Structures

Question 2: On Working Group Zero

We think (unless concluded otherwise through discussion) this committee should be formed to work through considerations before the final vote for disbursement.

  • From a community perspective, There is a general concern with entrusting 3-5 people with no stated oversight in establishing these groups with such a large allocation of the DAO’s ARB.
  • We suggest either adding oversight or stage gating the process with community feedback.

Question 3: On Working Group Charter

The allocation of 50% of the ARB airdrop derives from where? Is there any benchmarking data or evidence to arrive at this distribution? We would like to understand the evidence-based approach to this.

If arbitrary, that is also OK; happy to discuss this further.

Question Set 4: On Protocol Delegates

LOVE this idea. Cross-protocol governance participation helps to support the growth and considerations of the origin and target protocols/network.

Small considerations that we ran into while establishing the OP committee:

  1. What are the measures planned to ensure unbiased decision-making by Protocol Delegates?
  2. What is the expected timeline for the appointment and operation of these delegates? Are there plans for time-bound appointments?

Question Set 5: Ecostem Fund

We are also curious about how the community will be involved in defining the operational details of the ecosystem fund. Some of the most challenging aspects of a grants program are the processes, thesis’, timelines, and tech stacks included. We support a working group/council structure to execute a grant for a time-bound period. If needed, this also allows for reflection, course correction, and community oversight. We would like to explore the best way to proceed on this topic.

Thinking this should be defined before deciding on the ecosystem Fund, If defining this with the community is not achievable, we should discuss what kind of oversight this process we as a community will have while establishing these details. I.e., Potential oversight from community members or the UF?

At the end of the day. Grant programs are operationally heavy, especially when these are community driven. Some of our general questions and considerations are below before fully supporting:

  1. How will the Ecosystem Fund identify, evaluate, and prioritize investment opportunities through the ARB-Uniswap Grants Program?
  2. How will alignment with the Uniswap-Arbitrum ecosystem’s strategic goals be ensured, and how will potential for long-term growth be assessed?
  3. How many projects are anticipated to be funded with the 1.1M ARB allocation, and over what duration?
  4. What is the grant application process and workflow for ecosystem fund administrators? Will specific tools (Google Forms/Airtable, Notion, Questbook) be used?
  5. What is the proposed structure for the dedicated team overseeing the Ecosystem Fund, and how will their performance be evaluated? Will this team solely identify projects, or will the process be opened to other Uniswap stakeholders?
  6. How do you plan to manage the challenges of rotating entire working groups due to the specific knowledge required for grant-related activities?

On General Accountability and Transparency:

Question Set 6: Accountability

We should highlight, discuss, or consider what kind of accountability this program will provide to the community. There was also a recently established Accountability Committee found here. Could this team play a key role here? I would love to see how they can be looped into this discussion.

Some questions and thoughts:

  1. What mechanisms are planned to ensure transparency and accountability in the operations of the Working Group, the Protocol Delegates, and the Ecosystem Fund?
  2. Given the operational demands of running a grants program, how will the Working Group ensure they can deliver on this proposal?
  3. What form of compensation is planned for these committees? Is there potential for retroactive compensation through Hypercerts?

We look forward to your thoughts/input on these points. We believe that addressing these questions will contribute significantly to the overall quality and feasibility of the proposed working groups.


Great proposal! Congrats on forming the UNI-ARB Working Group. Excited to see the positive impact ahead.

Can you explain the selection process for the committee members who will serve as Protocol Delegates? What criteria will be considered in choosing these representatives?

1 Like

First of all big thanks for carving and delving deep into our proposal. Your detailed feedback is invaluable to us in shaping this into a significant contribution to the Uniswap DAO.

We especially acknowledge and value the depth of experience and insights you and Erikson bring from establishing the MetaMask Grants DAO at ConsenSys.

Let’s dive right into your questions - here are our responses:

Answer 1: Process for Establishment

  • The latter. This proposal aims to approve the WG0 - tasked with turning the sub-working groups of protocol delegates and ecosystem fund into reality.

This means, WG0 is tasked to:

  • Propose blueprint for both sub-working groups
  • Collect and implement community feedback on blueprint
  • Put blueprint to vote by the community
  • Run the contributors’ nomination and election process

Appreciate your push toward oversight here! We are fully aligned with having as much oversight and alignment with the community as possible - and hope to establish this with the met outlined above.

Answer 2: On Working Group Zero

Totally hear you that entrusting 3-5 people shouldn’t be trusted with orchestrating such a big allocation.

The WG0 with 3-5 members will have no power to establish the sub-working groups. As stated in answer to Question 1, establishing these groups will transparently go through community feedback and voting. This counts for the structure of the working group as much as for the actual contributors that will be determined via a nomination and election process.

Happy to stage gate the process to mitigate any risk associated with the disbursement of capital to the Ecosystem fund (e.g., disburse parts of allocation quarterly with the achievement of OKRs of the prior “cycle”).

For the protocol delegate program, we’ll need to find a level of oversight that we all feel comfortable with (see suggestions below), as this sub-working group will need a minimum of 1M tokens to participate in governance.

Answer 3: On Working Group Charter

  • 1M+ for delegations comes from ARB minimum requirement, so we don’t rely on external delegators (if others decide to delegate tokens to our WG)
  • 1M for grants would allow us to allocate the funds within a funding schedule so we support 20ish companies with 50k on average. It would be operationally feasible and aligns with other grant programs (Aave, MetaMask)

Answer 4: On Protocol Delegates

Our primary goal is to ensure that the delegates’ incentives are aligned with the interest of the Uniswap DAO and Foundation - upholding Uniswap’s core values — decentralization, security, and permissionless access — and extending them across the entire Ethereum ecosystem.

We aim to achieve this through transparency in presenting the voting options, enabling the community to challenge decision-making, and making the Uniswap Foundation part of the multisig.

  1. Unbiased decision-making:
  • We’ll require the committee to explain its voting rationale to the Uniswap community in detail. This is aimed to empower community members to raise their concerns and keep the decision-making process accountable and transparent.
    • The voting rationale explanation will be conducted via a standard framework and include dimensions such as impact on the Uniswap ecosystem, view on connected stakeholders, and decentralization implications, among others.
  • Additionally, to protect against potential conflicts of interest, the Uniswap Foundation will retain a seat on the multisig, allowing it to intervene if the committee’s actions don’t align with Uniswap’s best interests.
  1. Timeline: We propose a dynamic timeline with terms of 6 months for delegates. Delegates can be re-elected multiple times, which gives the option to reduce operational overhead. However, if any misconduct or biased decision-making is observed, community members should always have the option to challenge the existing delegates.

Answer 5: Ecosystem Fund

WG0 is tasked to create a blueprint for the sub-working groups and propose the underlying building blocks (i.e., among others processes, thesis’, timelines, and tech stacks included).

These blueprints will then be iterated together on community input.

Funds will only be allocated after the community votes to approve the ecosystem fund blueprint and the specific building blocks it contains.

Community oversight is a priority. We’re proposing strong reporting standards, and we want community members to have the ability to raise concerns. Our goal is to involve the community in the fund as much as possible while avoiding any unnecessary bureaucracy.

Once the ecosystem fund is established, we recommend distributing funds in stages. I.e., disburse 25% of the total amount every quarter, provided that OKRs of the previous quarter are met.

Being mindful, here are initial reactions to your detailed questions. Obviously would very much appreciate your learnings on these as well to make sure we’re on the right track. Most of these will be up for discussion for the community pre sub-working group set-up.

  1. We’ll establish an investment policy for identifying and prioritizing opportunities in the ARB-Uniswap Grants Program.

  2. The Working Group will set the ecosystem’s vision, which all sub-WGs, including those managing the fund, will adhere to.

  3. We anticipate funding about 5 projects each quarter with roughly 50K ARB each, spreading the 1.1M ARB allocation across a year.

  4. We’ll use Notion for tracking applications and Airtable with Plug-ins as the application platform. Obv. happy to hear about your experience if you have another favorite set-up that worked out well for you.

  5. The proposed team set-up will ideally be 2 fund leads with complementary skillsets on the operational side of setting up and running the ecosystem fund, and a person more focused on domain and ideally early-stage project support expertise within these ecosystems. The rest of the working group will be reviewer positions that guarantee the flawless execution of the ecosystem fund by validating the effective work of the leads, as well as ensuring the secure and unbiased handling of funds. As for the identification of projects we are currently thinking about ways to enable the wider community to take part - happy to hear outside ideas here.

  6. To manage rotation in working groups, we’ll source individuals with the right expertise for grant-related activities. We know this is easier said than done, but will focus on a rigorous nomination and election process aiming to ensure there is always the right mix of skillsets in the sub-WGs.

Answer 6: Accountability

Absolutely. We think it makes a lot of sense to make the Accountability Committee part of the process for Grant decision-making. We could see them as essential part of both sub-working groups, i.e., assessing the explanations for proposed votes for the protocol delegate working group, and ensuring the credibility of projects for the Ecosystem Fund.

Wdyt @Doo_Stablelab, @kendraleong?

To answer your detailed questions.

  1. We aim to ensure transparency and accountability in the Working Group’s operations through the implementation of 3-month OKRs and monthly reporting. Each report will highlight specific KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) that reflect the operational effectiveness of the different entities. For instance, the Protocol Delegates’ activity might be measured by the percentage of votes conducted, whereas the Ecosystem Fund’s performance might be evaluated based on funnel metrics and investment decisions.

  2. As for managing the operational demands of the grants program, we the election process to help us onboard high-quality, experienced contributors who can realistically dedicate sufficient time and energy to their roles. To ensure performance and commitment, we will initiate 3-month OKR cycles, which are publicly tracked. In case of significant underperformance, the community, being fully informed of these OKRs, can take action, including the possibility of offboarding contributors.

  3. Regarding compensation, we intend to set guidelines established and approved in the Uniswap Grants Program for the Ecosystem Fund, and for the Optimism Delegate program respectively. I.e., we don’t want to make a financial case out of this, but rather compensate for the operational work hours needed in a fair manner. Generally open to considering mechanisms like Hypercerts for retroactive compensation tied to OKR achievement.


Absolutely @Damboy. We’ll take a thorough approach in selecting the committee members for the Protocol Delegates.

Below you find our requirements for the selection process. Please note that many of the criteria we’ve set up are indeed “soft” requirements, which emphasizes the need for a transparent nomination and election process.

Hope that helps!

1 Like

Thanks For clarifying @Stastny

Great detailed proposal. On a high level, we’re supportive of this and it has the potential to fuel even more growth for Uniswap on Arbitrum.

Our only question mark is focused on the ecosystem fund and if it is necessary to be 25% of total airdrop when considering all the other proposals made.

For example, we’re in favour of Gauntlet’s proposal given their track record and extremely detailed/quantitative approach which is 2M ARB and then we’d like to support this proposal which asks for 2.2M ARB.

This leaves us 200k ARB left if that would be the community consensus. In that scenario we’d also support the Flashstake proposal that is asking for 200k ARB.

In our view this seems like a good allocation and diversification of initiatives but we would like to openly question the community regarding the ecosystem fund and if it is maybe too much?

1 Like

This RFC’s spirit promises to offer value to both the Uniswap and Arbitrum communities. The cross-protocol relationships and emphasis on establishing processes with accountability in mind are beneficial.

Unfortunately, establishing WG0, the associated nomination and elections, and the creation of two subgroups will be a cumbersome process requiring a dedicated attention span.

Also, as proposed, it’s not until week eight that the sub-working groups will establish key deliverables and budgets. This timeline poses a risk for decision-making based on sunk costs in an already complex process.

Despite my concerns about execution as proposed, I am interested in the intention.

  1. To me, where this RFC stands out is the creation of protocol delegates. Would you consider simplifying this proposal to encompass that mission solely?

  2. Is this merely being shepherded by Alastor and web3 Studios, or do you foresee your organization(s) having dedicated seats on these working groups?


Hi @0xkeyrock.eth, we appreciate your positive feedback on the proposal and your support!

We understand your concern regarding the ecosystem fund and its allocation in relation to other proposals. The intention of the ecosystem fund is to provide support to a reasonable number of projects within the designated timeframe. An average grant size of around 50k ARB per project is estimated to ensure a fair distribution.

With the aim of steering this fund for at least one year, approximately 5 projects per quarter are anticipated to receive funding. Lowering the allocation to the ecosystem fund would have an impact on either the number of supported projects or the size of the contribution to each project.

Happy to get your reaction and hear more community input on this - we are open discuss potential adjustments to the allocation of the 2.2M ARB between delegates and the ecosystem fund.

1 Like

Hi @coltron.eth, thank you for taking the time to provide feedback!

We are with you on that one, the process could be cumbersome, and that’s why we want to help the community by taking care of it. We understand the challenges involved and are committed to supporting the community throughout the process with dedicated attention and resources.

We see both the creation of protocol delegates and the allocation of ecosystem funds as integral parts of the same vision and mission. By combining these elements, we can better serve the interests of the Uniswap and Arbitrum communities.

The timeline for setting the budget after 8 weeks is designed to accommodate the scope of the working groups and the final headcount. This approach allows for a more accurate assessment of the resources required. In the earlier stages, our team will voluntarily cover organizational topics, ensuring that prior aspects are addressed without undue delay.

Also to answer your more detailed questions:

We have actively considered simplifying the proposal solely around the protocol delegate mission, and have so far worked in the strong belief that allowing the WG0 group to handle the setup would minimize the overall community effort required. However, we remain open to potential adjustments and splitting the steering responsibilities, based on community feedback and evolving needs. Would love to hear more views on this!

While Alastor and web3 Studios will initially lead the process and provide organizational support, dedicated seats on the working groups will be determined through a fair and transparent election process. We are committed to ensuring equal opportunities for all participants, and while we plan to nominate ourselves based on our expertise, we will not have any advantages in the election.

Hope that helps - would love to hear further views!


Thanks for this proposal @Stastny, and the subsequent review and mention @DAOstrat.C!

Cameron, a lot of your points above I am personally in agreement with, and as we see more and more teams vie for their share of the Arb distribution, a lot of your points of consideration remain unanswered. As the playing field dwindles after a snapshot and on-chain votes, I’d also love to get some more clarity on the remaining proposals.

Thanks for thinking of and mentioning the Uniswap deployment accountability committee in your response. We have been closely following these RFC’s and on behalf of the committee, @kendraleong, @Doo_StableLab, @rafaelsolari, @Kydo, and I believe that it is within our best interest to separate this proposal from our current work providing help and accountability for teams interested in deploying Uniswap v3.

While some of us, including myself, are personally interested in getting involved here, we believe it is best we do so outside of the Deployment Accountability Committee’s context. This group would require additional resources and much more time, and is best suited for longer term work agreements (our committee runs on 6 month cycles).

Huge thanks to @eek637 and the rest of the UF team for setting this RFC up; this is a great example for other protocols to hopefully one day follow. Seeing all of the great proposals currently out there, I am personally amazed and confident the final approved group(s) will work very well!


Yes, echoing @Juanbug 's comment, thank you for the mention @DAOstrat.C . And also yes, I am quite interested in getting involved here as well. My experience in serving in various committees and council including Uniswap, MakerDAO, and Compound would be helpful to this Working Group.


Hi @Juanbug and @Doo_StableLab!

Thank you both for your support! It’s fantastic to hear that you are interested in getting involved in some capacity, particularly considering your experience with the accountability committee. Your expertise would be invaluable to us.

We would love to hear your thoughts and have a deeper discussion. Let us reach out via direct message to explore how we could get you involved.

Thank you once again for your support and willingness to contribute.


The onchain vote for the UNI-ARB Grant Program (UAGP) and Protocol Delegate Program has been posted and will be live in two days. The voting schedule as is follows:

Voting goes live on Thursday Sep 14 10:09am ET

Voting ends on Wednesday Sep 20 12:33am ET

After aggregating feedback from the community and key DAO stakeholders, the Working Group Zero (WG0) members for this proposal (@bernard, @Stastny, @Doo_Stablelab, and @Juanbug) have made relevant alterations. Please see the full, final proposal here.

As delegates for both Uniswap and Arbitrum, we Michigan Blockchain are in support of and have sponsored this proposal because we believe that it introduces harmonious relationships between two prominent DAOs. It takes 25% of the total ARB airdrop and dedicates it to funding Uni-Arb-based projects; the other 25% of the total ARB airdrop will be allotted to a meta-governance initiative, where a Uniswap DAO-led multisig will vote on Arbitrum DAO proposals.

It will likely be a customary practice in the coming years to commingle governance tokens between different DAO treasuries, thereby aligning incentives and strategies to grow the Ethereum ecosystem as a whole. This proposal allows Uniswap to begin leading such initiatives.

Another highlight of this proposal is that the theoretical benefits are substantiated with a detailed plan. A structure for how the allocated $ARB will be utilized operationally is submitted, with clear goals and mechanisms to sustain the longevity of this proposal–such as the transition of multisig signers and the continual reporting of KPIs relating to both the UAGP and Protocol Delegate Program.


Great work by the WG0. We will be voting in favour of the plan outlined for this vote!


Update on the UNI-ARB Grant (UAGP) and Delegate Program (UADP) Proposal - Voting Has Passed

The on-chain vote for the proposal has concluded surpassing the quorum with 50M/40M votes and 99% approval. Thank you to everyone for the thoughtful feedback, active participation, and deep engagement with the proposal. The shared vision to enhance Uniswap, while strengthening the bonds between the Uniswap and Arbitrum ecosystems is clear.

With the conclusion of the vote - here is a TL;DR on the proposal:

  • Establishment of the UNI-ARB Grant (UAGP) and Delegate Program (UADP).
  • Equal division of the 2.2m ARB for both programs.
  • Initial staffing with WG0 members: @Doo_StableLab and @Bernard for UAGP (2 out of 5 seats), and @Jun for UADP (1 out of 2 seats). Upcoming elections for the remaining seats are in the pipeline for next 2 weeks.

Next steps:

  • Kicking off the 2-week nomination and election period for remaining seats.
  • Implementing the outlined grant management processes from our proposal.
  • Finalizing discussions with toolstack providers and initiating set up of infrastructure.

As we press forward, we want to stay transparent and work in a collaborative manner - for any insights, questions, or concerns feel free to reach out to @Doo_StableLab, @Jun, @bernard

Thank you!