[Temp Check] Forse Analytics for Uniswap Revitalization and Growth Program

[AbdullahUmar]

Firstly, someone does need to conduct a retrospective analysis on the efficacy of these incentive programs, especially if we wish to renew incentives or alter them in some capacity. So I’m directionally in favor of this proposal.

@AbdullahUmar

There will be a review conducted on the efficacy of the incentive programs that the DAO’s running. The process for this and who will conduct it is still tbd. Most of these programs are either in the middle of being administered or have yet to start. The Base incentives were deployed on April 25 and will conclude on July 25.

As per the above, not all of the programs have been terminated yet. Looks like Base is currently leading the race, which is good since those incentives have come to a conclusion. For anyone interested, here’s a more detailed overview of the Base program:

• Scroll incentives ended on July 11th.
• Blast was divided into two parts. 50% of those incentives concluded July 2nd. The other 50% haven’t yet been deployed.
• Linea concluded on July 11th.
• Mantle is still live.
• Arbitrum LTIPP is still live.

^Note: analysis will only be available for campaigns that have concluded. Those that are still live will require some wait time.

@Tane

One question, why isn’t BSC a part of chains to be analyzed on? In our understanding, the DAO has decided to distributed the maximum amount ($1M) on an on-chain proposal but it wasn’t deployed yet?

Correct–the BSC incentives haven’t been deployed yet since we are trying to finalize some of the bridging issues. This is the only campaign set that hasn’t begun yet. The Accountability Committee will keep you all posted.

@kfx

Additionally, it’s not clear why it proposes to analyze Arbitrum, where URGP funds were not deployed.

^This point is being overlooked…Arbitrum incentives were a part of the LTIPP matching program. Here’s some color on how the URGP differs from the LTIPP:

@AbdullahUmar

Gauntlet tends to follow a 98/1/1 breakdown (with 98 going to fees and the other 2 equally given to the other parameters). For the incentive programs being managed by the Accountability Committee, slightly different gauges have been selected, with both 60/20/20 and 40/30/30 structures having been implemented. The duration of Gauntlet incentives are also 2 weeks. The AC, however, usually distributes on a 3-month basis. This means that Gauntlet is involved in active management, constantly looking at data points from each previous campaign, factoring in current market conditions, and consequently selecting the best pools to deploy incentives to.

This proposal therefore isn’t limited to the URGP. Since there’s overwhelming support for Arbitrum right now, the DAO should note that this analysis will be reviewing Gauntlet’s distribution, which is far more sophisticated than the URGP method for distribution. It could be beneficial to contrast the two methods, however. We may see that a simple, heuristics-based approach being used for the URGP isn’t effective enough (or it could reveal the contrary).

I’m also interested in seeing the efficacy of incentive programs on EVMs that Uniswap is less dominant on. We already see a degree of success on Arbitrum and Base–but the majority of the URGP incentives actually go to new or less active EVMs. We are therefore voting for Scroll, Blast, and Base. Scroll incentives were deployed nearly a year after its mainnet launched. Blast incentives were deployed early-on, when Blast just went live. This would show how much benefit an early mover advantage yields. And Base would be a good case for studying how tied incentives are to a chain that is directionally doing well due to narratives like memecoins.