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

**URL:** <https://gov.uniswap.org/t/temp-check-forse-analytics-for-uniswap-revitalization-and-growth-program/24373>\
**Category:** Temperature Check\
**Created:** [August 7, 2024, 10:40pm UTC](https://gov.uniswap.org/t/temp-check-forse-analytics-for-uniswap-revitalization-and-growth-program/24373 "2024-08-07T22:40:26Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 5

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![kfx](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/gov.uniswap.org/kfx/32/6717_2.png) [@kfx](https://gov.uniswap.org/u/kfx)\
**Post date:** [August 10, 2024, 2:24pm UTC](https://gov.uniswap.org/t/temp-check-forse-analytics-for-uniswap-revitalization-and-growth-program/24373/5 "2024-08-10T14:24:32Z")

</div>

I have voted against the temp check, explanation [here](https://gov.uniswap.org/t/atiselsts-eth-delegate-platform/22270/10):

> [@Atiselsts.eth Delegate Platform](https://gov.uniswap.org/t/atiselsts-eth-delegate-platform/22270/10):
>
> * * *
> 
> The Uniswap Revitalization and Growth Program has been a significant expense for the DAO so far and, if positively evaluated, will continue to be so in the future as new chains continue to emerge. It should be carefully analyzed, and its results should be reported. This could create valuable knowledge not just for Uniswap’s community but for the entire web3 space, where liquidity mining campaigns remain a contentious topic.
> 
> In my opinion, this task is too important to be rushed. In its current state, the StableLabs proposal is not convincing enough, and it’s unclear whether the metrics it plans to evaluate (such as user retention) are the most relevant to the program’s objectives (gaining market share for Uniswap on newer chains). Additionally, it’s not clear why it proposes to analyze Arbitrum, where URGP funds were not deployed. The LM campaigns on Arbitrum have different objectives, a different operator, different distribution weights, and a different approach to pool selection, so bundling the analysis together doesn’t seem to be a good idea.
> 
> I would accept the proposal if it were improved, but a better approach might be for either the UF or the DAO to define the metrics to be evaluated, outline the expected outcomes, create a call for proposals, and allow service providers to submit competitive bids.

---

_[View the full topic](https://gov.uniswap.org/t/temp-check-forse-analytics-for-uniswap-revitalization-and-growth-program/24373)._