[RFC] Uniswap Grants Program v0.1

thanks for everyone’s input on this so far! please keep them coming!

These are both great points!

  • With the program design, we had decided on a budget simply to set a ceiling with a narrow scope so as to get the ball rolling. The goal here is less about creating the best possible program (we know that’s impossible right now!), instead it’s to prove out that this is a method that can work effectively, especially as it expands. Everything is completely open and whatever doesn’t get used gets returned to the treasury but we want to be clear we absolutely encourage others to propose programs that better fit those specific needs.
  • The compensation and grantee treasury in general are really interesting points to note, just based on what I’ve seen with grants in general. I am still working on the Ecosystem Support Program at the EF, but Greg is right, we have seen many grantees/teams struggle with treasury management, especially during market downturns. On the flipside, it’s worked out really well for some other teams! It’s an extremely important discussion to be having, but unfortunately I just don’t have great advice on how grantees should best manage their funds.

Absolutely agreed here. As mentioned above, in the short term we just want to ensure the foundations for the program are well established, but ultimately the goal is to empower a diverse group of community members to steer this program.

4 Likes

I love the idea. UNI governance needs to move from the standstill and I think this is great first step.

As for 6th position in reviewer team. I volunteer. If you find value in someone who is spending unhealthy amount of time with the Uniswap community feel free to reach out.

1 Like

Great effort to move from decentralized to centralized… stop :stop_sign: trying to put hands on treasury :moneybag: and give proposals that will increase value of UNI!

We don’t need full blown proposal process for funding for example a hackathon with $5k. This makes UNI governance more agile. 750k is very small part of the treasury funds and it can bring a lot of value to the protocol.

1 Like

Why would we fund any hackathon? 750k per quater is not small money… Treasury is not there to be spent without clear proposal that will increase value of Uniswap and all UNI holders.

It was just an example.

However funding things such as hackathons and other projects building on top of Uniswap protocol will bring a lot of value to UNI holders. You have to spend money to make money.

Does android pay you to make an app for mobile phone?
It’s natural for projects to build on top of the biggest exchange and we saw in August ridiculous amount of money going to Swapfolio, Unitrade… and a dozen of other projects who wants to build on Uniswap.

This quotes from social networks are nonsense…
You have to make money to spend money.

1 Like

I hear your point, but I think you’re missing some things. At the end of the day Uniswap is a public good, so yes anyone can build supporting applications (and they already have to a large extent). But, there’s a lot of aspects of a public good that cannot be commercially incentivized. For instance, Google builds a lot of the infrastructure around Android. Who is going to do that for Uniswap? The developer tooling is not going to build itself.

Uniswap needs distribution, and grants to eager and talented community members are a good place to start IMO. If executed properly, this will dramatically increase the value of your UNI in the long run by growing the protocol beyond its current limitations.

1 Like

Do you think selling more UNI will increase distribution or give whales more cheap tokens and bigger voting power?

From 250,000 ETH addresses that were eligible for airdrop (min 400 UNI), we know have less than 22k addresses with 400 or more UNI, also the amount of addresses that hold more than 10 UNI is less than 60k.

Every telegram private and public group was talking about Uniswap.
Who ever doesn’t know abot Uniswap is not really into crypto.

We need new users and they will come organically as crypto adoption rises (ETH and BTC price going up is the best marketing to attract new users into this space).

This is not a company and trying to lead as a company is not an appropriate way to do it IMO.

Who is the right person to choose who is talented and who is not?
Should we vote for directors?
Should we vote for remuneration?
Will they be responsible when SEC asks why securities can be traded on Uniswap and why did they accept to work for an anti-law project?

This is a blunt promise, “if executed… then dramatically” .If not executed well, sorry guys we had a good time and experiment.
I was carefully listening to the community call and I saw a very loud mouth who wants to experiment with 5mil UNI tokens to see what is going to happened with liquidity.
For me as an investor and someone who is in this space long time this is not acceptable.

2 Likes

Yes but we need to find a way, and the current state of affairs is not right…
As i’ve highlighted in another post, we should elect directors for daily management, yes, because it is impossible to fully do so on forums via voting.
As for the responsibility, it is their problem, they have to assume it, which is why I don’t feel VCs would fit in.

The thing is… we need to do something, 3 months into governance and nothing has happened.

2 Likes

I said Uniswap needs more distribution, not UNI. I.e. the DEX needs more integrations and developer tooling to increase volumes. If you don’t believe that investing in the ability of the protocol to reach more users will be good for the price of UNI, I don’t think I’ll be able to convince you of anything.

1 Like

No, we don’t need to experiment with our treasury.
We can copy the best practices from other protocols and implement into the Uniswap ecosystem once they prove they are working.
I gave idea that we invest treasury for ETH and BTC and provide permanent liquidity.
Swap UNI for ETH and BTC

You don’t need to convince me in anything.
Once again, how do you think to reach more users?
Uniswap has more active users than most hyped projects holders.
Everyone in crypto know for Uniswap, influx of new users will come when BTC or ETH price go to ATH.
Just watch Uniswap liquidity 1.Jun $22mil , 1.Jul $44mil, 1.Aug $150mil, 1.Sep $1.95B
I think this was exponential growth without any incentive don’t you think so?

3 Likes

Doing something =/= experimenting
I understand your fright of experimentation, and copying might be a great strategy to begin with, but you can’t stay market leader if you aren’t willing to try something new in such an innovative space

2 Likes

I’m not frighten, I don’t want anyone to experiment with my money.
You can experiment with your own money and I will be happy.

When the switch is turn on and we start accruing fees $140k per day at the moment, I will be happy that some portion of profit (10% for ex.) go to R&D.

2 Likes

At some level, inaction is still an experiment in it’s own. A stagnant treasury may or may not do something, but we just don’t know yet! The silver lining here is that this proposal is a commitment to attempt to empower the larger community, but if it’s not productive, the funds are returned!

+100 on this! The goal is to make sure we can grow and empower the community sustainably. It won’t be revolutionary overnight, but will require more mindful prioritization to identify what’s impactful for Uniswap and its participants.

Consequently, one huge update, Ashleigh Schap has agreed to join the allocation committee as our fifth member! With the committee now filled, we’ve identified some more clarifications on what is necessary for setting up the program and have created an autonomous proposal contract to formally propose UGP. Updates as follows:

  • At the time of writing the contract, the price of UNI was $3, and thus if passed, the treasury will allocate 519,500 UNI. Just to call this out explicitly, all amounts from the proposal are caps to which we will not exceed and any excess UNI remaining at the end of the epoch will be returned to treasury.
  • Based on some preliminary gut checks, we want to budget 10% of the UNI allocation for administrative, setup, and legal fees to ensure that this first iteration can establish best practices which will be completely open for anyone else to adopt.
    • 450,000 UNI for UGP allocations
    • 50,000 UNI for setup budget
    • 19,500 for compensation

To support the proposal going up for quorum, please delegate your votes to the APC address at 0x76f54Eeb0D33a2A2c5CCb72FE12542A56f35d67C!

4 Likes

Really awesome to see the second-ever Autonomous proposal get used for Uniswap governance! And really awesome to see this proposal which is what I illustrated several times at the beginning of Uni’s governance - funding development with grants from the treasury.

I am fully in support of this proposal and I’d like to congratulate the team on what I think is very well-thought governance proposal! Great job everybody!

3 Likes

I have to second Hiturunk on this one! This is one of the best proposals ever created :slight_smile: Good job everybody, you got my votes :slight_smile:

2 Likes

I would just like to understand the rationale for the lead compensation of ~$100 / hr. At max cap of 30 hrs / week that’s ~$12,000 per month or $144,000 / year which is well above the 90th percentile for grants program administrators in New York (where Ken Ng is based according to his Twitter profile). (See: https://www.salary.com/research/salary/benchmark/grants-administrator-salary/new-york-ny)

Perhaps there are special qualifications / considerations to justify this rate, but I would like more detail. Partly, my concern stems from his co-authorship of the proposal. To be clear, I’m not familiar with Ken, personally, and my question should in no way be construed as a lack of confidence in his leadership of the committee or the merits of the concept generally. But as a “point of order” (if you will), it does seem at least worth a moment’s pause when a proposal directly benefits its (co-)author, although – credit where it’s due – this was clearly disclosed.

Thanks in advance.

8 Likes

Thanks for bringing this up! I did help co-author this post, but generally just to help provide input in shaping the proposal to represent more precisely what the grants program will/would look like eg. narrow scope, committee-run, budgets and spending caps.

Just a couple points on the compensation:

  • I’ve worked in nonprofit and biomedical research for a few years so I’m quite familiar with grantmaking and the salaries that come with it :sweat_smile: although I’ve noticed it’s been different in mostly tech fields. Looking at models like DARPA and other more niche programs, this salary is well within reason
  • Separately, this is a consultant rate, instead of salaried compensation (so no benefits package like healthcare or tax coverage the way a company would), where rates are generally higher to cover taxes
  • As the program starts to take shape, we might see that 30 hours is too much when it comes to vetting applications, which is why 30 hours is the max cap. At least for this proposal, we should be looking to establish best practices and a good precedent for the future

Hope this answers your questions!

11 Likes

Hi,

I was wondering how to apply for this grant?

1 Like