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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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:
To support the proposal going up for quorum, please delegate your votes to the APC address at 0x76f54Eeb0D33a2A2c5CCb72FE12542A56f35d67C!
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!
I have to second Hiturunk on this one! This is one of the best proposals ever created 
Good job everybody, you got my votes
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.
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:
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 reasonHope this answers your questions!
Hi,
I was wondering how to apply for this grant?
How do I apply for this hiba?
indeed@ undead? cheers!
is there a clear guideline to the submission of a proposal? what are the requirements and what metrics will my proposal be measured on?
@Buckerino @teoleibowitz @moody @kenneth
Take a look at the application and previous grantees here for an idea:
Separately we also have RFPs if you need some inspiration!
