@0xkeyrock.eth analysis right above your response undermines much of your defense of picking Gauntlet, which still has not posted in this forum. There’s too much handwaving and not enough solid evidence to back up the selection criteria, which raises a red flag.
Again, my number one suggestion is to allow an incentive package integration option for V4 builders. Once the V4 builders complete the cohort process and are ready to launch after audits, simply ask:
“Would you like Merkle and Gauntlet to handle your incentives, or would you prefer to build them in-house?”
Perhaps structuring it around this option would offer more flexibility and reduce dependency on these two third-party firms, while still giving the builders a chance to work with them.
Additionally, it’s pretty obvious that Uniswap Labs and now the Foundation have close relationships with the Gauntlet team. Personally, I don’t see much value added by Gauntlet to the overall space (lack of transparency with the Morpho Vault criteria, AAVE departure, failed and outdated liquidity distribution initiatives, and inactivity in responding to public discourse until the pressure becomes too much).
To highlight @GFXlabs in the other forum post it is important to setup a board to insure conflict of interests are not happening and to have a layer of accountability and neutrality as we approach $200 million post funding.
EDIT: Other potential conflicts of interest may arise between @Gauntlet and the lending hooks being built on V4. How can Gauntlet remain impartial if they have an allegiance to certain lending platforms’ equity or advisory roles (e.g., Morpho), while potentially having grievances with others, such as AAVE? Will the new V4 lending hooks be fairly incentivized, or is competition being intentionally limited?