Thanks @willprice - great feedback.
A few thoughts:
-
It’s important to recognize that every grant has some form of risk. For example, funding a service that fails to deliver on its outlined objective is a relatively simple risk. In this case, the risk is more complex and relates to managing funds responsibly to deliver the service outcomes. We would make the argument that Flipside has a long history in treasury management and certainly in analytics. Our efforts here will also help shape how these strategies can be applied to additional use cases.
-
These are keen observations around the effects that market making strategies can have on UNI price and LPs - we’ve debated them internally as well. In fact, our sustainable yield-based approach to program funding was inspired by an attempt to avoid the downward selling pressure inherent in straight grants (where we’d have to directly sell UNI to fund the program). Effectively, the most important question to assess is whether the program will produce a significant net-positive impact on the Uniswap ecosystem.
-
As such, the net-benefits here are all extremely significant for Uniswap: 1) analytics solutions that drive significant network usage and liquidity, 2) UNI perpetually allocated to participants helping build the ecosystem, and 3) new paradigms for treasury management.
*An important footnote to the discussion on this: It’s essential that the ecosystem continue to evolve and experiment in finding new frameworks that deliver results. Proposals will inevitably face a plethora of competing perspectives, and the requirement to solve for each point of view makes it difficult to foster the ethos of finding evolutionary opportunities (i.e. perfect is the enemy of good). Ultimately, our goal here is to develop programs that yield significant net-benefits for the Uniswap ecosystem, while sufficiently balancing & aligning differing perspectives.