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.