The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @kaereste and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We are voting FOR the proposal.
We recognize and value the contributions Tally has made to Uniswap and the broader Ethereum ecosystem, particularly in the DAO landscape. As delegates in multiple protocols, we’ve crossed paths with Tally numerous times and frequently use their voting platform, even in cases like Uniswap, where multiple front-ends exist.
In general, we’re supportive of proposals that enable and support the development of DAO infrastructure and tooling, as we understand the difficulty of building them. While, as some other delegates pointed out, Tally has received support from other protocols (and might receive it again in the future), we must not disregard the time and resources it takes to develop features across chains or for different protocols.
Tally having received a grant to develop a feature for Protocol A doesn’t necessarily translate to Protocol B being able to ‘plug-and-play’ with the same feature. For this reason, we are looking at this proposal and assessing it based simply on its merit within Uniswap, and we do not seek to compare it to Tally’s presence elsewhere.
Having said that, we believe the scope of work outlined in the proposal and the funding request is reasonable and that Tally is well-positioned to deliver value that will be well worth the funds.
One thing we’d like to mention, however, is that there should be some sort of oversight and ownership counterparty to ensure that a) the funds are being used correctly, b) will work with Tally to ensure that features developed, align with the needs and direction of the DAO, and c) Tally meets the KPIs they’ve set forward and delivers the new features or shows concrete progress towards their completion.
We believe the most suitable entity for that oversight to be either the Uniswap Foundation, or the UAC.