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

The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @kaereste and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.

We’re voting FOR the proposal.

During temp-check, we suggested that the focus be kept on two chains to analyze and monitor (Arbitrum and Base), which would serve as proof of concept. Although the onchain proposal is for three chains, the cost has also been reduced by $10,000, which we find to be a fair compromise.

Something that wasn’t addressed in the feedback incorporated in the proposal, which we also brought up previously, is that we’d ideally see someone take ownership of acting on the data collected through Forse when and where it makes sense to do so. Although it’s not a deal-breaker, we’d like to further discuss this going forward.

1 Like

We voted against this proposal, you can read our rationale in our delegation thread:

3 Likes

Thank you for the response to our question. We agree with the stance stated by @SEEDGov, specifically the part quoted below, and will therefore being voting against as well.

We know that the consequences of this are not serious in themselves… 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.

2 Likes

It is fortunate that this proposal did not pass. A few changes should be made to governance and delegate responsibilities:

  • A code of conduct should be established for delegates in the delegate program. This will help reduce conflicts of interest and ensure adherence to the votes cast during temperature checks.

  • @Doo_StableLab abstained during the temperature check and should have also abstained during the on-chain vote, as this proposal directly benefits @Doo_StableLab .

  • Quorum needs to be raised. This vote was much too close for not following due process, and the number of abstentions rather than outright rejections is concerning.

  • An open call for service provider proposals. i.e. payment proposals related to providing data for the success of the L2 incentive program.

  • Rules should be established to prevent service providers from applying for committee positions. Uniswap DAO is already facing conflict of interest issues in this regard.

Service provider voted against at temp check:

Service Provider voted for onchain:

Gm, gm! :sparkles:

The results are in for the Forse Analytics for Uniswap Revitalization and Growth Program on-chain proposal.

See how the community voted and more Uniswap stats: https://dhive.io/proposal/1387

Hi guys, we’ve reviewed the vote and noticed a discrepancy between different voting platforms. On Uniswap’s Tally portal, it seems the proposal didn’t reach quorum, while the Agora interface shows a different outcome. We understand the quorum requirement is 40M UNI, but we’re uncertain if it includes only the “For” votes or all votes (For, Against, and Abstain). Typically, quorum counts all votes, but we’re unsure if that’s the case here.

We’ve observed that the handling of service providers applying for committee positions varies across DAOs. Some DAOs allow service providers to apply, while others do not. In DAOs that permit this, service providers are typically required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest and abstain from voting on proposals that would benefit them. To establish such rules, it would need consensus from the DAO as a whole.

2 Likes
  • Quorum: In order for a vote to pass, it must achieve quorum of 4% of all UNI (40M) voting in the affirmative. The purpose of the quorum is to ensure that the only measures that pass have adequate voter participation.

https://docs.uniswap.org/concepts/governance/glossary

Established rules should have been contingent on the delegate reward program proposal being passed. It seemed to be rushed after the protocol fee switch proposal was floated. There is now very little oversight to how delegates are operating between DAO’s and within proposals themselves, as seen here.

1 Like

Thanks everyone for participating and also giving feedback. We will indeed take time to reflect and also consider such feedback in the future.

The truth is on-chain.

https://etherscan.io/address/0x408ED6354d4973f66138C91495F2f2FCbd8724C3#readProxyContract

image

From the governance contract source code, state 3 means “Defeated”:
image

2 Likes

Simple Summary

This proposal seeks to onboard Forse by StableLab as a data service provider, helping analyze the effectiveness of the Uniswap Revitalization and Growth Program. The offchain vote was passed in early August of this year, and for a month, we have discussed with various Uniswap DAO participants to incorporate their feedback. The onchain vote however didn’t hit the quorum by less than a million UNI. Therefore, we have incorporated further feedback received and will retry the onchain vote.

Feedback Incorporated

1. Accountability and Completion Based

The budget once the onchain vote passes will first go to the Uniswap Accountability Committee. Once the Committee confirms that the work has been completed, StableLab can claim the budget.

2. Budget and Scope

Initially, the RFC requested $70,000 worth of UNI to analyze the impact of the Uniswap Revitalization and Growth Program for 3 blockchains chosen by the Uniswap DAO; this was expanded to 4 blockchains for offchain vote following the feedback. Following the feedback, the Analytics will cover 4 blockchains but at a reduced cost of $60,000, effectively reducing the cost by $10,000 and also increasing the number of blockchains covered compared to the original RFC.

3. Preventing Redundancy

There have been questions that the work on Arbitrum especially might overlap with Gauntlet’s research on incentive programs on Arbitrum. We are in talks with the Gauntlet team and will also ensure the focus of the work doesn’t overlap with Gauntlet’s domains.

Motivation

In February 2024, the Uniswap DAO introduced the Uniswap Revitalization and Growth Program, which incentivizes users to participate in current and new deployments of Uniswap on different networks within the L2 space. The initial onboarding packages of this program cost the Uniswap DAO at least $3.5M worth of assets.

We propose that Uniswap DAO engage with Forse, our DAO intelligence and analytics platform, to analyze the impact of the Uniswap Revitalization and Growth program and assess if the current approach drives real growth.

By assessing the impacts of the Revitalization and Growth Program, the Uniswap DAO will have valuable insights to improve further iterations of the program and/or other incentive programs. With this information, Uniswap DAO will be able to understand who are the most relevant user groups, their acquisition cost, and evaluate if the program itself was effective in influencing user behavior leading to increased stickiness of users, and therefore TVL and other top-level protocol metrics.

Recently, StableLab supported the Arbitrum DAO as the Program Manager for the Arbitrum Short-Term Incentives Program, and we delivered a comprehensive analysis of the STIP to the Arbitrium DAO.

With Uniswap allocating over $3.5M worth of assets for the purpose of growing Uniswap’s market share, it is essential to ensure that the DAO analyses and reviews the impact of these incentives on an ongoing basis.

What is Forse?

Forse is a data and intelligence platform built by StableLab helping DAOs analyze the impact of governance decisions in protocol growth, top-line metrics, and governance operations, including its cost and effort structures. StableLab is the leading provider of governance products and solutions for decentralized protocols. We work with various projects, from the ones just starting their journey to decentralization to the most prominent DeFi protocols.

We are currently working with:

Figure: Example of Onchain Impact Analaysis - Arb STIP Analysis

Figure: Example of User Segmentation Analysis - Arb STIP Analysis

This service provider engagement grants the Uniswap DAO access to the services of the entire StableLab team. Specifically, three StableLab team members will be the primary points of contact.

Team

Christian Ziegler is the CTO at StableLab. Previously, he worked as a researcher at the Technical University of Munich (TUM), where he wrote his doctoral thesis on DAOs. In 2018, he co-founded Blockcurators GmbH. Christian has several published scientific articles, including a Taxonomy of DAOs; scoring methodologies for DAOs; network analysis of DAOS; and classification of DAO proposals using LLMs; among others.

Johannes Loewe is the Data Lead at StableLab, where he focuses on all stages of AI and ML development, from experimentation to deployment. Before joining StableLab, he was a Freelance AI & Blockchain Software Engineer. He also has experience with DAOs, being a founding member of PretzelDAO in Munich. He holds a Bachelor’s degree from Radboud University in the Netherlands and a Master’s degree in Machine Learning from NUI-Galway in Ireland.

Marcos Miranda is the Head of Product at StableLab. With over 5 years of experience in Product Management, focusing on Web3 and Analytics products, he is also experienced in building DeFi protocols, having previously worked for other protocols in the space.

Methods

  • K-means with Euclidean distance for user groups based on transformed transactions
  • Difference in Difference Analysis and Interrupted Time Series Analysis to separate the effect of the growth program from the effect of the market
  • The remaining analysis using further advanced statistical analysis

Specification

By analyzing the impact of these incentives, Forse by StableLab hopes to identify the following:

  • Impact quantification of the Uniswap Revitalization and Growth Program in top-line protocol metrics with the isolation of external factors influencing these metrics as far as permitted and reasonably possible.
  • User segmentation and analysis based on archetypes of users to determine the types of users attracted through the incentive program.
  • Post-incentive user retention, reactivation, and user acquisition cost metrics.
  • Per-dollar value of incentives compared to other ways of incentivizing users (e.g. Airdrops, LP rewards, grants, …).
  • User Retention and activity patterns over the time of the Uniswap Revitalization and Growth Program.

To see Forse in action, explore our interactive dashboard showcasing the Arbitrum Short-Term Incentives Program. This provides a great example of what our output could be for Uniswap’s Revitalization and Growth Program. Our Deliverable would be an interactive dashboard hosted on dashboard.forse.io on at least the metrics stated above.

Budget Request

The proposal requests $60,000 worth of UNI, which is 7,500 UNI to analyze the impact of the Uniswap Revitalization and Growth Program so far for 4 blockchains chosen by the Uniswap DAO, with 3 months of additional maintenance support and updates to analytics modules utilized in the live dashboard.

Four Blockchains Among Chosen by the Uniswap DAO

Blockchains TVL
Arbitrum $3.07b
Base $2.68b
Scroll $1.01b
Blast $731.18m
2 Likes

It was an issue with Agora, the team updated it now to show the correct outcome: https://vote.uniswapfoundation.org/proposals/71

1 Like

The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @kaereste and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.

We’re voting FOR the proposal.

The previous proposal, which we had voted in favor of, didn’t pass because it failed to meet quorum. The new proposal also incorporates feedback from delegates which makes us even more comfortable voting for the proposal than before.

Gm, gm! :sparkles:

The results are in for the [Updated] Forse Analytics for Uniswap Revitalization and Growth Program on-chain proposal.

See how the community voted and more Uniswap stats: https://dhive.io/proposal/1475

What’s the status here?

2 Likes

We are aiming to share it by Q1 of 2025

2 Likes

The dashboard itself will be ready by the end of Q1 of 2025, but we are happy to share a quick update on the progress we’ve made since the approval of our proposal to analyze the Revitalization and Growth Program. We’ve been working hard to set the stage for impactful analysis, and we’re grateful for the opportunity to contribute to Uniswap’s ecosystem.

What We’ve Accomplished So Far

  • Expansion of our Data Team: Expanded the data team and upgraded data processing pipelines to efficiently integrate the data for the four chosen chains (Arbitrum, Base, Scroll, and Blast).
  • Improved our Platform: Upgraded our charting library and terminal infra, increasing performance and enabling more insightful visualizations.
  • Refined Scope of Analysis: Defined the technical specifications of the analyses and explored complementary methodologies to enhance the insights we deliver.

Next Steps

  • Wrap-up Data Preparation: Continue gathering and labeling payout data to accurately link users to the respective incentive programs.
  • Perform Comparison Analysis: Collect comparison datasets to generate actionable insights on program performance and user engagement.
  • Coordinate on Arbitrum: Collaborate with stakeholders to clarify payout structures and avoid potential overlaps with ongoing research.

We’re committed to delivering an analysis that helps the Uniswap evaluate the program’s impact and drive better decisions for future initiatives. We will continue to publish bi-weekly updates of our progress in this thread.

3 Likes

Uniswap Forse Update January 27th, 2025

What We’ve Accomplished So Far

Data Analysis Progress

We’ve moved further with the analysis, focusing on evaluating key dimensions like TVL growth, activity volume, user retention, and LP behavior across the four target chains (Arbitrum, Base, Scroll, and Blast). This includes working on a comparative analysis of incentivized versus non-incentivized pools and behavioral insights to understand how LPs respond to incentives.

Wireframing Underway:

We’ve started the wireframing process for the terminal. Leveraging our experience, we are designing a Terminal focusing on usability and clarity.

We are simultaneously ensuring we have access to relevant data on all chains and prototyping the analysis on one chain to be transferred to other chains later.

Current Analysis Focus Areas

  • User Attribution
    • We developed methodologies and implementations to analyse user’s relevant interactions with Uniswap
    • Based on that we can attribute them different characteristics and build groups
  • Insights into User Behavior
    • Tracking LP activity before, during, and after incentives.
    • Identifying trends in UNI reward behavior after incentives (e.g., sell, hold).
  • Comparative Analysis
    • Comparison between incentivized and non-incentivized pools to evaluate performance.
    • Looking at Cross-protocol for additional comparisons.
  • Retention Metrics
    • Analyze how incentives influence user retention.
    • Cohort-based retention curves segmented by pool and user type.
  • Cluster Analysis
    • Exploring potential LP clusterings: small vs. large LPs, activity patterns, among others.

Next Steps

  • Finalize data pipelines and further refine analysis methodologies.
  • Continue wireframing and begin implementing the terminal structure.

Feedback Preparation

In anticipation of our presentation to the Uniswap community in the next month, we are gathering and ordering information into viewable slides. We are hoping to gather valuable feedback from everyone involved. We invite you to join us on the 11.02.2025 for the community call.

We’d Love Your Feedback already

To make sure the analysis meets Uniswap’s needs, we’d appreciate your thoughts on the following:

  • Are there any additional metrics or insights you’d like us to prioritize?
  • How would you prefer we evaluate pool performance beyond TVL and volume?
  • Any specific LP behavior patterns or trends you’d like us to focus on?
4 Likes

Early Insights from the Revitalization & Growth Program

Yesterday, we shared our initial analysis of Uniswap’s incentive program on Base, diving into how it impacted liquidity, volume, and long-term LP retention. The discussion brought valuable feedback from the community, and we’re already exploring ways to integrate it into our ongoing analysis.

Key Findings So Far

Incentives Drove TVL, But Retention Remains a Challenge

During the campaign period, incentivized pools on Base saw an average daily TVL increase of $6M+, demonstrating a strong initial response.

Pool name Change in avg daily volume 90 days after the campaign
WETH/USDC 0.05% -31%
USDC/USDT 0.01% -39%
WETH/USDT 0.05% -83%
cbETH/WETH 0.05% -83%

However, once incentives ended, most pools experienced a sharp LP exodus. The data suggests that post-incentive volume sustainability is critical for LP retention, with pools that maintained strong volume (e.g., WETH/USDC) keeping more LPs engaged.

The Cost of Growth – ROI Metrics

We analyzed how much TVL growth was generated per UNI spent:

Total UNI spent per day 692
Average UNI price over the incentives period $9.20
Average daily TVL increase per UNI spent $8,718
Average daily TVL increase per USD spent $948
Average daily TVL increase attributed to incentives $ 6,032,729

Incentives & Impact on Volume

One key takeaway from our extended analysis is how incentives influenced Uniswap’s overall volume share within the Base ecosystem.


  • During the incentivization program, the total average daily volume for Uniswap was ~$295M/day, with incentivized pools accounting for 24% of this volume.
  • Post-incentives, incentivized pools retained a higher share of Uniswap’s total volume than before, despite an overall decline in ecosystem-wide trading activity.

This suggests that while incentives temporarily boost trading activity, they also contribute to some residual stickiness in Uniswap’s volume share.

Where Did LPs Go After the Incentives?

One of the main concerns was whether LPs simply moved to Uniswap’s biggest competitor on Base, Aerodrome. The data suggests a more nuanced picture:

  • 27.8% of Uniswap’s incentivized LPs provided liquidity on Aerodrome post-incentives
    • Of those, 84.5% fully left Uniswap
  • However, most users who left Uniswap (~64.8%) didn’t move to Aerodrome either, indicating broader retention challenges beyond direct competition

This suggests that user attrition is not just about LPs chasing better incentives elsewhere—there are underlying factors affecting retention that need deeper exploration.

Community Feedback & Next Steps

We received great feedback during the presentation, including:

  • Comparing Uniswap’s incentivized pools to similar pools on other DEXs: This will help contextualize Uniswap’s performance and assess whether incentives were competitive relative to other platforms.
  • Analyzing user order flow vs. algorithmic flow in incentivized pools: Understanding whether activity was driven by organic LPs or automated strategies will provide valuable insights into how sustainable the liquidity provision was.

What’s Coming Next

  • Expanding Analysis to Other Chains: Now that we are wrapping up our Base analysis, we’re extending our methodology to other chains where Uniswap deployed incentives, as part of our grant scope.
  • Deeper Retention & Competitor Comparisons:
    • We’ll integrate cross-DEX comparisons to benchmark Uniswap’s effectiveness against similar incentives.
    • We’ll explore how order flow dynamics influenced the longevity of incentive-driven liquidity.
  • Terminal Development Progress: Wireframes for the Uniswap Impact Terminal are in place, ensuring seamless access to insights. Mobile and desktop versions are being finalized.

We’d Love Your Input

We’re refining our analysis and want to ensure it delivers the most relevant insights for the Uniswap community.

  • Are there additional metrics or trends you’d like us to investigate?
  • Any specific patterns or user behaviors you’d like us to explore?
1 Like