I think Uniswap should have a bias for action and bring in additional contributors when possible. And given Ekubo is deployed on Starknet, it is potentially more complementary to Uniswap vs forks on EVM networks.
That being said, I think the proposal is a bit underdeveloped and needs some revision before progressing to on-chain voting. Will pick out the most important points from my perspective.
Valuation seems pretty high given current traction of Ekubo/Starkware and execution risk. Particularly for a minority stake where Uniswap is likely able to be outvoted on any governance matters by core team (and governance has not even been deployed yet). Not a dealbreaker imo but makes the other points more critical because the valuation isn’t a clear slam dunk for Uni.
If the funds are all released up front and fully liquid, there’s no way for Uniswap to ensure performance of any of the “acquihire” part of the deal. Uniswap is aligned financially with Ekubo’s success (via holdings of an illiquid early stage project that can’t realistically be disposed quickly), but the same can’t be said in the other direction (Ekubo is likely to sell UNI immediately to fund operations, which makes sense but does not create concrete incentive alignment).
I get why Ekubo may not want to overcommit to a specific distribution plan so early, as it limits flexibility. But I think this is a bit of a negative from Uniswap’s perspective - for example, funds allocated to community treasury or liquidity incentives effectively accrue value to all other existing token holders, while funds granted to founders/employees/private investors do not. More clarity on this (even just broad strokes - minimum % that will go to the community via airdrop/treasury/liq mining) would be helpful.
I don’t really understand how the second statement follows from the first. Does Ekubo need the license grant for existing parts of the protocol? Is there a reason lack of Univ4 license would prevent Ekubo from making code contributions to Uniswap, or is this just considered part of the payment (along with UNI) for receiving Ekubo tokens? Is Ekubo considering formalizing a reciprocal grant of Ekubo IP in favor of Uniswap Labs / Uniswap Foundation / Uniswap DAO?
To sum up
I think the proposal is interesting and compelling, particularly how exposure to Starknet and broadening the contributor base can be complementary to the existing Uniswap protocol and ecosystem. And while I feel valuation is high, I don’t necessarily think this is a huge sticking point. I’m not viewing this in the lens of “treasury diversification” or “investment” per say, moreso as a strategic partnership.
But I think if the deal is supposed to involve mutual development contributions, then the financial incentives should be set up to support this. How can Uniswap ensure Ekubo’s performance of any commitments made under this agreement? How can we build in meaningful financial alignment over the long term? How will Uniswap’s voting stake in Ekubo fit into the wider token distribution?
I think milestone based payments and a bit more structuring in general are probably necessary for me to support this on chain. But giving it my support for temp check because I think it’s worth pursuing further.