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

[DAOstrat.C]

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

@Stastny

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:

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

@Stastny

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.

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

@Stastny

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 ] .

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.

@Stastny

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.

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.