This is especially important as competition increases and Uniswap can’t rely on its first-mover advantage indefinitely. With the launch of Uniswap v4, educating users about its features is essential. Since Uniswap v4 functions more like a platform, establishing a partnership incentive program or any marketing initiatives are a solid strategy.
Had several discussions with AlphaGrowth team on this. Also talked to GFX. Surprised this hasn’t already been addressed, but Uniswap indeed needs an outbound BD team to manage growth of new integrations and negotiate incentives and co-marketing with the chains that support Uniswap and the projects that list their tokens on Uniswap.
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’re voting FOR the proposal.
We believe the problems identified in the proposal are worth addressing, and the proposed growth program is a step in that direction. Business development and marketing haven’t been Uniswap’s strong suit lately, given that Uniswap has been the dominant DEX for quite some time, and there wasn’t a big need for it.
However, with new competitors spawning every day, we should do our best to continue gaining both mind and market share, especially in newer chains where Uniswap has yet to establish itself.
Furthermore, the opportunity cost of not capitalizing on incentives available across the different chains simply because we do not have a dedicated individual or team to go through the process is probably more significant than the sum of this proposal’s cost.
Thanks to the AlphaGrowth team for their consensus-driven approach to this proposal. There is no one currently doing the job they’re proposing, and done well, it is possible it might lead to growth in trading volume routed through the Uniswap Protocol’s various deployments.
I do want to flag a concern that I raised to the AlphaGrowth team and the other co-sponsors last month. Marketing the incentives described is not without material risk. In Uniswap Labs’ response to the SEC’s Wells Notice, they make the argument that “LP tokens are not securities” (page 33 of the document, which is actually page 36 of the PDF linked here). Whether you agree with that statement or not, it implies that in the notice Labs received, the SEC argued that they believe LP tokens are securities. Publicly marketing yields that are available on tokens that the SEC believes to be unregistered securities is a material risk that requires serious consideration.
Thanks @eek637 for bringing up this point, yes this is an area of importance and something we are very careful about. We never explicitly market available yield. Doing so is the quickest way to attract unwanted eyes. Having run marketing for several DeFi protocols, we’ve learned that in crypto you market events, not yield. If there is any other specific verbiage that the UF would like us to avoid, we are always open to feedback.
I do want to flag a concern that I raised to the AlphaGrowth team and the other co-sponsors last month. Marketing the incentives described is not without material risk. In Uniswap Labs’ response to the SEC’s Wells Notice, they make the argument that “LP tokens are not securities”
I’ve raised the same issue wrt treasury legal structure … basically, if you position UNI as a hybid token rather than pure governance, it (re)opens a whole can of worms. Now the courts have ruled that algorithmic trading is more a mutually consented arrangement amongst willing participants but marketing LP rewards as an economic incentive opens up other regulatory concerns.
One way is to describe marketing incentives as a pull forward (aka advance) of future LP fees, however, this needs to carefully worded because it may then fall into other regulated services (eg advisory).
We reaffirm that SEEDGov is at the disposal of @alphagrowth, the Uniswap MetaGov Team (@PGov, @AranaDigital) and the UEII, we are present in different chains such as Arbitrum, Optimism, Scroll, ZKsync Gnonis, among others, both in delegation teams and in working groups dedicated to the evaluation of different grant and incentive programs, so we can collaborate in these processes.
Hey @eek637 based on further consideration, in order to mitigate the risks around marketing, we will implement a formal legal review process for all marketing efforts. This will ensure that any public communications comply with applicable regulations as the landscape continues to evolve.
We are fully committed to maintaining the integrity of the Uniswap DAO and protocol.
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’re voting FOR the proposal for the same reasons we voted in favor during temp-check.
