While we do believe an analysis needs to be performed for each chain, the proposed solution is expensive. For $70K, and assuming a generous $300/hr, the DAO would be paying for 233 hours to complete the analysis of four chains. To justify such a cost in our eyes, either the scope of the study would need to expand, or the deliverable by Forse needs to be better detailed so we can assess the potential value of the report.
As others have pointed out, only a handful of the programs have finished. Once the rewards cease, we likely need to wait one or two months before we can analyze how the rewards performed and their lasting effect. It would be preferable to create a standard report that can be completed post-rewards, and then Forse could be the entity that puts the reports together.
As we discuss analyzing the rewards program, we should revisit that the core goal of the URGP was to increase Uniswap’s market share by deploying to emerging chains so that Uniswap could secure a strong market position in the event the chain scaled. In some cases, the DAO also invested in existing deployments such as BSC, zkSync, and Base to boost our existing market position.
The success of individual chain deployments has less to do with Uniswap and more to do with the overall success of the chain. Our assumption with the program was that two or three of the chains would go on to become major deployments for the DAO and, post fee-switch, generate significant revenues for the DAO.
Where the DAO would benefit from analysis is when making decisions regarding follow-on incentives for chains. However, with everything we have learned over the last several months, we would be against follow-on incentives (today) unless the chain pledged to match the incentives or made an attractive proposal for the DAO to consider.
Lastly, we could add a section to the Uniswap reports that Oku has been writing focusing on the deployments with rewards if delegates would find that helpful.