A few thoughts on this:
-
One of the most important components of this proposal is achieving a high level of outreach to inform the crypto Twitter community about incentive opportunities. Aave and Aerodrome have experienced significant success by energizing their crypto Twitter audiences, and this growth is reflected in their results. From a quick glance at @alphagrowth’s Twitter, it appears that it may not have the outreach or community size needed to spread the message beyond its current, limited audience. As it stands, incentive outreach risks remaining in a small echo chamber.
-
It is already challenging to keep track of the various committees, their activities, and what the wind-down of these committees might look like in the future. When it becomes difficult to monitor these aspects and understand where the money is flowing, it can create risks related to trust and overall attention.
-
We need more emphasis on mechanism design rather than on committees. With V4 on the horizon, it is crucial to find ways to align value between applications and the teams building on top. For example, mechanism design could involve using UNI tokens to cover user fees for front-ends built around certain hooks. These hooks would then provide incentives back to Uniswap through liquidity incentives, which could be promoted by the teams or applications. If a successful application emerges, its marketing would be handled organically without relying on a centralized third-party committee.
-
Uniswap should avoid emulating Compound’s strategy. Aave’s success stems from a well-informed marketing strategy and creating virality around applications built on its platform. Uniswap can achieve similar success by focusing on bootstrapping hooks that have the potential to go viral. This bootstrapping could involve governance voting on a group of hook applications, introducing some unresolved mechanism, or leveraging a trusted team with knowledge of hook teams/applications, such as the Uniswap Foundation.