SEEDGov Delegate Platform

Delegation Pitch
1

Delegate Introduction

Name: @SEEDGov

Wallet Address:

  • Address: 0x12b30979b9a53bb0b42deaaa974ac9304fab0832

RRSS:

We are excited about the opportunity to join Uniswap Governance, where we hope to contribute significantly to one of the longest-running DeFi protocols in the ecosystem. We have a dedicated team of SEEDGov members, passionate about Uniswap and committed to governance activities.

The main objective of this delegation will be to maintain active and meaningful participation, contributing to the growth and evolution of Uniswap Protocol Governance within Ethereum and other chains where available, as an entity that deeply resonate with our values and principles.

Our delegation will include our members @Marian, @Jadmat, @AnonBuilder, and the entire SEED team at disposal as well as other consultants necessary for the comprehensive elaboration, assessment and analysis of proposals.

What is SEEDGov?

SEEDGov is as a dynamic and evolving vertical within the SEED Org ecosystem, dedicated to shaping the future of decentralized governance in the web3 space through active participation, community engagement, decision-making and experimentation by anticipating emerging needs of DAOs and protocols, while acknowledging the importance of context-specific approaches to minimize governance where appropriate and professionalize it where necessary.

SEEDGov is the first Latam based Delegate Platform actively engaging in various governance activities. Rooted in community values, we’ve shifted from educational models to a participatory approach, driving a new chapter in how individuals collaborate, coordinate, and decide in the ever-changing landscape of Web3.

Our scope of work across various projects and protocols includes managing grant and allocation programs, designing and implementing governance infrastructure, creating and overseeing incentive programs, and onboarding builders to align with protocol needs.

Operating within established frameworks, our dedicated platform go beyond the traditional role of delegates. We are functional and deeply committed to the success of the protocol through every decision we make.

How we work

As a professional delegate platform SEEDGov collaborates with communities and partners to ensure credible representation of all interested in Web3’s future. Since its inception, SEEDGov has advocated for critical thinking through education. We do not endorse scams or collaborate with blockchains, projects, or protocols that are not aligned with our core values.

The members selected to be part of our delegation will collaborate both directly and indirectly with other SEEDGov members. Any decisions made by this delegation regarding governance will be thoroughly discussed and communicated to all stakeholders through our discussion channels and seamlessly executed through specialized working units.

Captura de pantalla 2024-05-22 103007
Captura de pantalla 2024-05-22 1030071195×382 63.4 KB

When a project aligns with our principles, we proactively take steps to ensure its success, whether through offering informed opinions or taking concrete action. We believe in more than just participating; we believe in actively shaping and improving projects within our sphere and we are committed to expressing our principles and rationale in a clear, transparent, and detailed manner in this forum.

SEEDOrg>SEEDGov>Uniswap

Participation in forum discussion threads and daily activities represent the opinions of SEEDGov and collaborators in their efforts to stay up to date with their roles and commitment to governance. Regular discussions occur prior to deciding our next steps and opinions about governance topics that arise, all through this profile.

Our delegation will do its utmost to represent and embody our values to enhance Uniswap governance:

  • Decentralization: Uniswap is one of the most decentralized DeFi protocols and all of our initiatives and proposals will align with this same principle. Along with this position, and as the ecosystem continues to mature and be driven by its community, we will collaborate in the creation, iteration, and improvement of governance processes to ensure broader participation and that the system remains secure.
  • Community Led Growth & Sustainability: We will promote and support all initiatives that enable the growth, adoption, scalability and innovation for Uniswap ecosystem. Our focus will be placed on ensuring that all growth initiatives are reliable, secure, and sustainable over time.
  • Security: We will always make sure that no DAO decisions will jeopardize the security of the protocol and thus harm users.
  • Ethos and Support: We will actively contribute to the governance of the protocol and its ecosystem worldwide, looking forward to working with other interested delegates to promote the Uniswap mission and encourage others to actively participate in DAO governance.

Why Uniswap?

Uniswap’s success, achieved independently of the core development team since its deployment, demonstrates the significant demand for permissionless financial services. From our perspective, some strengths make this protocol a special case:

  • Innovation: Uniswap is consistently at the forefront of pioneering innovations in DeFi infrastructure technology. Its open and permissionless architecture fosters innovation by enabling anyone to create and encourages experimentation and the creation of novel financial instruments, driving the growth and diversity of the DeFi ecosystem.
  • Accessibility: The Uniswap ecosystem has outpaced others in driving widespread adoption. Its accessibility reduces barriers to entry, democratizing decentralized finance for users globally.
  • Capital efficiency: Uniswap typically outperforms other AMMs in terms of capital efficiency due to its concentrated liquidity model (V3). The efficient use of capital allows to handle larger trades with less price impact, making it very competitive and attractive among other AMMs.

Our case

We see Uniswap as an infrastructure layer set to drive innovation throughout the entire ecosystem. Being part of this space will enable us to continue understanding, building, and participating in the following verticals (among others):

  1. Extensive Composability: Uniswap’s vast integration with hundreds of interfaces and applications ensures a smooth interaction within the DeFi ecosystem. Is our intention to actively participate in decisions that enhance and expand these integrations, further solidifying Uniswap’s position as a critical infrastructure layer in DeFi by contributing ideas for improvements and applications, whether for hooks (V4) or any other innovation/technology from Uniswap or external ones that we can implement into the protocol.
  2. Governance: Uniswap’s governance framework is designed to be as constrained as possible, focusing only on essential areas to maintain neutrality and trust minimization. Despite a large community, only a small fraction actively participates in governance, potentially limiting smaller stakeholders voices. Maintaining good participation rates, active discussions, and healthy governance with genuine engagement is crucial for a DAO’s effectiveness. We believe Uniswap can address these challenges by empowering community involvement, overcoming voter apathy, onboarding new participants, and streamlining governance frameworks.

Disclosure:

SEEDGov is a broad organization with a high participation in some of the most prominent governances in the ecosystem such as Optimism, Arbitrum, Gnosis, Starknet, Connext and we also constitute Sovereign Finance AVC in MakerDAO. As mentioned above we come to Uniswap Governance to bring value, in case there is any conflict of interest, we will communicate it to the community members.

Captura de pantalla 2024-05-22 103046
Captura de pantalla 2024-05-22 1030461005×388 250 KB

5 Likes
2

Proposal: Uniswap Arbitrum LTIPP Matching

Vote: 1M

Summary: We voted in favor and chose as the first option 1 million, as we believe in supporting Arbitrum’s experimental program to foster growth within the second most impactful chain in DeFi, which is significant for Uniswap where the protocol is the leading Dex. Although we acknowledge the complexity of maintaining retention and liquidity levels post-program, these types of programs greatly improve KPIs like DAU, TVL and volumes in general.

We accept to accompany these instances, on the verge of genuine sustainability/impact improvements. We also believe that the chosen amount can positively impact with minimal risk for the DAO, in terms of continuing to forge a relationship with Arbitrum.

1 Like
3

Proposal: [Temp Check] Uniswap Onboarding Package - Gnosis Chain

Vote: $250k

Rationale: As stated in the respective post, we voted in favor of this proposal presented by @karpatkey and chose for the 250k option, as we believe that Onboarding Package for Gnosis Chain is appropriate and reasonable, as it is a network in current growth of both TVL and DeFi protocols, so it represents a great opportunity for Uniswap to strengthen its presence there and expand the scope of “Uniswap Revitalization and Growth” in order to capture more market share of activity and volume for the protocol and we believe that 250k is an appropriate amount, given the history of similar programs for other networks.

1 Like
4

Proposal: [TEMP CHECK] Uniswap Onboarding Package - OKX Chain (Snapshot)

Vote: Against (deploy without incentives)

Rationale: First, we would like to point out that the proponent did not respond to our comment and question regarding the distribution of incentives in the proposed pairs, which we view as a negative sign. Regarding the substance of the proposal, the TVL of layer X is currently very low and we do not believe it is productive to allocate incentives at this time. We applaud the proponent’s position in accepting feedback that it intends to proceed for the time being without $UNI incentives.

1 Like
5

Proposal: Onboarding Package for Gnosis Chain (onchain)

Vote: For

Rationale: Consistent with our vote in the Temp Chack (For - Option 250k), we voted in favor of this proposal, understanding that Gnosis is a growing network of both TVL and DeFi protocols, so reinforcing its presence there is a great opportunity for Uniswap to capture more market cap volume and activity.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Proposal: [TEMP CHECK]- Revised - Uniswap Onboarding Package - OKX Chain (Snapshot)

Vote: For

Rationale: Also in line with our vote in the previous Temp Check (Against - deploy without incentives), we voted in favor of this proposal, welcoming that the proponent has accepted the feedback from the community and has decided to move forward with its proposal without requesting incentives for the moment and committing to allocate $1M for liquidity for a minimum term of 6 months via community multisig, understanding that the cost for Uniswap to deploy the frontend is reasonable.

We at SEED Gov again offer ourselves as signatories to the multisig.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Proposal: [Temp Check] Forse Analytics for Uniswap Revitalization and Growth Program (Snapshot)

Vote: 33% Arbitrum - 33% Base - 33% Scroll

Rationale: We voted in favor as having the proposed data and metrics may help the protocol and the DAO to establish future strategies to allocate incentives in a more efficient and optimized manner.
As for the networks, we support that the analysis is done equally in:

  • Arbitrum: For being the L2 with the highest LTV.
  • Base: For being the second L2 with the highest LTV in marked growth during the last months. Source: DefiLlama.
    image
    image1549×581 61.8 KB
  • Scroll: For being the L2 with zero knowledge technology with the highest LTV, with a rapid growth in the last 2 months. Souce: DefiLlama
    image
    image1540×576 50 KB
6

Proposal: Deploy Uniswap v3 on X Layer (Onchain)

Vote: For

Rationale: Consistent with our vote in the Temp Check (For), we voted in favor of this proposal, understanding that it is beneficial for Uniswap to deploy in this network, taking charge only of the cost of the frontend and without assigning incentives for the moment, committing the proponent to allocate 1M for liquidity for a minimum term of 6 months via community multisig.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Proposal: [Temp Check] Activate 2, 3, 4 bps fee tiers on Uniswap v3 on Base (Snapshot)

Vote: For

Rationale: We have read some of @aadams’ research and understand their capabilities and support for the Uniswap ecosystem. Therefore, having analyzed the proposal and despite some concerns we have, we understand that it is worth trying to add new fee tiers in the ETH/USDC pair in Base, in order to make Uniswap more competitive, hopefully capturing part of Aerodrome’s market cap and adapting to new market conditions that may occur in the future, waiting for an expected reaction from that DEX to the move that Uniswap makes.

However, we do not want to overlook the potential disadvantages that the new implementation may bring:

  1. Increased access to arbitrage: by reducing fees, previously unprofitable extractions of value will become profitable
  2. Fragmentation of liquidity; starting new pools will keep liquidity more fragmented, which will increase LVR and IL, negative for liquidity providers; as well as potential cost overruns in more complex routing for the trader.

If the proposal is approved, we expect the proponent to conduct a subsequent analysis and present conclusions on the impact of the changes introduced, to corroborate that the proposed hypothesis has been validated. We encourage the proponent will consider a commitment to this sense for the onchain vote.

7

Proposal: [REDO: Temp Check] Activate 2, 3, 4 bps fee tiers on Uniswap v3 on Base (Snapshot)

Vote: For

Rationale: Since this is a re-running of this temp chek in which we have already voted and justified the sense of our vote, we repeat our vote in favor for the same arguments, which we cite below:

8

Proposal: [Temp Check] Uniswap Delegate Reward Initiative - Cycle 2 (Snapshot)

Vote: Yes

Rationale: We support this proposal because experience shows that the establishment of a delegate system by itself does not achieve the desired results of promoting high quality participation and good governance practices, since governance has become very complex and it is not expected that a group of people will voluntarily dedicate enough time and effort required for active and quality participation in governance, or at least it is not expected that this will happen to a large scale. Thus, the incentivized or compensated professional delegate system is being imposed in the most important DAOs, achieving the desired results of further increasing informed, responsible and quality participation in governance, by having paid individuals and groups of individuals who can devote time and effort to this task, training, research, and thus increase the quality of their participation.

It’s also great to see that off-chain participation factors are being considered, as we believe the policy-making process is just as crucial as the actual voting itself.

In Arbitrum we are the Program Managers for the Delegates Incentive Program, which started 6 months ago and has generated a very positive impact, ratifying the above mentioned. And coincidentally, Cycle 1 of the Uniswap Delegate Reward has been a success, with the 12 delegates included in the program maintaining a 100% participation rate in onchain and offchain voting, as well as incorporating new delegates with high participation rates, all of which strengthens the governance of the DAO.

We look forward to being part of this program!

1 Like
9

Proposal: Uniswap Delegate Reward Initiative - Cycle 2 (Onchain)

Vote: For

Rationale: Consistent with our vote in the Temp Check (For), we voted in favor of this proposal. We share the rationale expressed on that occasion, as we maintain our position:

10

Proposal: [Temp Check] - Ethereum Foundation Attackathon Sponsorship (Snapshot)

Vote: Abstain

Rationale: While we generally support initiatives of this nature in all delegations where we have a presence, as they contribute positively to the ecosystem, our experience reviewing multiple sponsorship requests leads us to seek additional budgetary details and further clarification.

Additionally, despite mentioning marketing and branding integrations for Uniswap, we observed no dedicated workshop or side event for the sponsor.

In summary, and beyond that it is a program that, by reinforcing the security of Ethereum, will indirectly reinforce the security of Uniswap, but from the commercial point of view of the exposure that Uniswap could achieve, and considering that it is a program aimed at advanced developers who presumably, given their specialization, already know Uniswap, we understand that it is very low the impact of the program and the positioning that Uniswap could achieve, not justifying making the budgetary effort of allocating 75 or 30 ETH.

1 Like
11

Proposal: Proposal to active 2, 3, 4 bps fee-tiers on Base (Onchain)

Vote: For

Rationale: Consistent with our vote in the Temp Check (For) we support this proposal. We have read some of @aadams ’ research and understand their capabilities and support for the Uniswap ecosystem. Therefore, having analyzed the proposal and despite some concerns we have (regarding increased access to arbitrage and liquidity fragmentation), we understand that it is worth trying to add new fee tiers in the ETH/USDC pair in Base, in order to make Uniswap more competitive, hopefully capturing part of Aerodrome’s market cap and adapting to new market conditions that may occur in the future, waiting for an expected reaction from that DEX to the move that Uniswap makes.

We expect the proponent to conduct a subsequent analysis and present conclusions on the impact of the changes introduced, to corroborate that the proposed hypothesis has been validated.

12

Proposal: UAC Renewal S3 (Snapshot)

Vote: Renew UAC

Rationale: The UAC has done a great job, so we support its renewal for 7 months for Season 3, as well as the expansion of its scope, which logically must be accompanied by an increase in the expected hours of work and adequate compensation, as well as the increase of a new additional seat.

We are interested in collaborating with and being part of the committee, since we have the necessary team in SEED Gov. Therefore, if this proposal is approved, we express our interest in applying for one of the two available seats.

13

Proposal: Approved Budgets Rebalancing (Snapshot)

Vote: Approved Rebalance

Rationale: We support this proposal, since the program budgets have been approved in U.S. dollars, but the UNI token has been established for its payment, so the fluctuation of its price has caused an imbalance in the approved budgets, making the proposed rebalancing logical to balance the accounts.

14

Proposal: Uniswap Delegate Race Tiebreaker (Snapshot)

Vote: Both (create an extra 1616th spot)

Rationale: We understand that there has been a total tie between both applicants @Tane and @Argonaut, for the following considerations:

  • We share with @Pgov statement in that the rule of who voted first should be understood by the proposal on which they have voted and not the precise time and date, as this would encourage undesirable behaviors such as delegates rushing to vote quickly as soon as a proposal is uploaded to be the first to vote, which does not respond to best practices of analyzing the proposals and voting after forming a well-founded opinion within the voting period.

  • We share the @Argonaut opinion that the criteria used for the tiebreaker expressed by @Pgov as “we moved to what was used as a tiebreaker in other elections for Uniswap (Uniswap delegation initiative) which was forum activity, to which Tane had more likes, earlier start date and ‘forum cred’" has not been approved by the governance for this specific case, so it should not be used as a tiebreaker.

  • That tie-breaker criterion detailed above is easily gameable by fake users or bots or even by agreements between delegates to give each other likes and improve this metric in an irregular way, so not only we do not share its use in this case for the reason stated above, but we do not share and discourage to use it in the future for any other selection method.

For the above mentioned, we understand that there has been a total tie between both applicants, not having been foreseen in the proposal how to break a tie of these characteristics.

Given that the proposal approved by the governance has not foreseen tie-breaking criteria for such a case, we understand that there are no elements that allow choosing or prioritizing one over the other applicant, so it would not be a fair solution to make a decision of these characteristics without any parameter to support it.

Our opinion then is that there would be two possible solutions:

  • That both be ranked 15 and receive 50% of the monthly compensation of a delegate each.

  • That both be eligible for full compensation by expanding to a slot of 16 incentivized delegates and increasing the budget for this purpose through a governance decision.

Given that one of the main reasons and objectives taken into account in the proposal to renew the rewards initiative to a cycle 2 has been to incorporate new delegates and increase participation to strengthen governance, we believe that the latter solution would be the fairest and most compatible with these objectives.

Consequently we voted for the option “BOTH (create an extra 16th spot)”.

Given this experience, which should be taken as a learning experience for the future (every experience brings with it a constant learning process that should serve as a basis for future improvement), we are at complete disposal and we want to be part of the working group where opinions are shared and discussions are carried out for the opportunity to decide to renew to a cycle 3. In Arbitrum we are the Program Managers for the Delegates Incentive Program, which started 6 months ago and has generated a very positive impact, so we have the experience and the necessary team that we put at Uniswap’s disposal to make our best contributions to further improve the current incentive program and its eligibility criteria for the future cycle 3.

3 Likes
15

Proposal: Uniswap Accountability S3 Renewal and Rebalance (Onchain)

Vote: For

Rationale: This online voting proposal combines the 3 Temp Cheks approved by the community between September 10th and 15th: Uniswap Accountability Renewal (UAC) Season 3, Approved Budget Rebalance, and extra 16th delegate cycle 2 spot for Argonaut and Tane. Consistent with our votes in the above temp checks, we support this proposal and confirm the previously stated rationales, which we maintain in this occasion and consider reproduced with the links below.

16

Proposal: Forse Analytics for Uniswap Revitalization and Growth Program (Onchain)

Vote: Against

Rationale: The proposal expressly stated:

and

and

In other words, it was clearly proposed that the DAO should decide whether to proceed with the proposal, and if so, it would be the DAO that would decide on which 3 blockchains the dashboards would be made.

In the temp check submitted to a vote, the DAO decided to proceed with the proposal and chose 3 blockchains: Base supported by 1,665,046.46 UNU, Arbitrum with 10,438,561.17 UNI and third Scroll with 1,171,901.87 UNI, followed closely by Blast with 1,171,615.9 UNI. In other words, the third place was very hard fought and the difference was very close, but the DAO chose Scroll over Blast.

Contrary to this, in the onchain voting, the proponent included Base, Arbitrum and Blast, i.e. the fourth blockchain chosen by the DAO, and not the third. When asked why this was the case, he expressly replied:

The proposal then stated that the 3 blockchains would be chosen by the Uniswap DAO, but we are faced with an onchain proposal that includes 3 blockchains, one of them chosen by the proponent contrary to what the DAO decided.

In principle, and without this being important for our analysis, it should be noted that the TVL of the blockchains today are not those reported in the proposal of Blast $838.46m and Scroll $601.14m, but that today Scroll with $771.92m has more TVL than Blast with $766.41m, so that taking the criteria of the proponent to decide by TVL, Scroll should have been chosen. Source: DefiLllama.

image
image494×691 40.1 KB

But beyond that, we understand that what has happened is very serious and dangerous, the DAO chose Scroll in third place, so the onchain vote should have included Scroll, the proposer by choosing Blast using his own criteria, did not respect and violated what was decided by the DAO.

We know that the consequences of this are not serious in themselves, since a dashboard will be made analysing Blast instead of Scroll, but we understand that the impact of the vote or the importance of what is being voted in this specific case is secondary, the issue here is that the DAO’s decision has been violated and not respected, which could set a very serious and dangerous precedent in other votes with greater impact.

Consequently, we vote against and request the proposer to cancel this onchain vote and submit a new one that respects the DAO’s decision.

1 Like
17

Proposal: Uniswap Accountability Committee S3 Elections (Snapshot)

Vote: 50% _JoJo – 50% Alicecorsini

Rationale: In principle, both successful candidates show a commitment of time and quality to Uniswap.

We know @_jojo in particular from the Arbitrum delegation where we witnessed his work capacity and professionalism.

With regard to @alicecorsini, we have great confidence in karpatkey’s support, so we understand that she is a suitable candidate for this seat, both given her experience as part of the Uniswap Treasury Working Group, and given karpatkey’s experience in financial and accountability issues.

1 Like
18

Proposal: [TEMP CHECK] - Onboarding Package for Lisk (Snapshot)

Vote: For

Rationale: We support this proposal as we find it reasonable and beneficial that in exchange for $375 of incentives to be provided by Uniswap, Lisk commits to match $250k in LSK incentives and to lock an additional $1m for 1 year. We also point out that the Oku deployment has already been arranged and therefore this proposal does not include the costs associated with it.

Finally, we highlight that Lisk is on the Optimism Foundation’s whitelist to be part of the superchain, so it is an opportunity for Uniswap to continue to increase its presence in networks that will be part of that ecosystem.

1 Like
19

Proposal: Uniswap Growth Program Trial (Snapshot)

Vote: In Support

Rationale: We support this initiative because we understand that it can be beneficial for Uniswap to have a dedicated team for Business Development, Marketing and to explore the possibility of obtaining grants and incentives in various chains. We also believe that a 6-month trial program is appropriate in order to evaluate the concrete results obtained and the impact generated, and to decide whether or not to extend the programme, and if so, under the same or different conditions.

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.

3 Likes
20

Proposal: [Updated] Forse Analytics for Uniswap Revitalization and Growth Program (Onchain)

Vote: For

Rationale: By including the 4 most voted chains in the snapshot voting (even with the same budget), the objections we raised in the previous on-chain vote have been overcome.

Furthermore, we consider very positive the forecast that the budget will be released once the Uniswap Accountability Committee confirms that the work has been done.

We therefore now support the updated proposal submitted to onchain vote.

We thank @doo_stablelab for being so responsive to the criticisms it has received and improving the proposal based on it.

1 Like