Uniswap Delegate Reward Initiative - Cycle 2 Application

Governance-Meta
21

Applicant Name: Arana Digital

Specify if you’re applying as an individual or an organization: Organization

Link to Onchain Voting Profile: Tally

Applicant Summary: Our members have been active participants in the Uniswap DAO for the past ~2 years under the Michigan Blockchain brand–and now under Arana Digital. History with the DAO allows us to make informed voting decisions. During our tenure, we’ve maintained an excellent voting record, passed numerous proposals, and collaborated with multiple other delegates, the Foundation, and adjacent teams associated with Uniswap. Our team lead, Abdullah, is currently serving on three Uniswap working groups: UADP, UAC, and UTWG. Arana hopes to continue delivering on its members’ previous commitments to the Uniswap DAO going forward, abiding by transparent communication & thoughtful decision making, all with the intention of bettering Uniswap as a whole.

Please provide the date and link of the first offchain and onchain Uniswap vote you made:
Offchain: March 1, 2024 – Activate Uniswap Protocol Governance
Onchain: February 8, 2024 – Deploy Uniswap V3 on Zora

Have you posted an RFC that passed the offchain/onchain voting stage before? If so, please provide links here (only the sole author or co-authors explicitly mentioned on the proposal will receive credit):

Yes. Our team has authored over 10 proposals that eventually passed the offchain & onchain voting stages. Links to each can be referenced on our delegate page.

Have you joined the Uniswap Gov Workshop Before? If so, when?

Yes:

  • Uniswap Delegate “Blessing” in NYC (September, 2023)
  • EthDenver Govswap (February 2024)

Have you joined the Uniswap Community Call Before? If so, when?

  • Yes–since January 2024
1 Like
22

Applicant name: Blockchain Education Network

Specify if you’re applying as an individual or an organization: Organization

Link to Tally onchain voting profile: https://www.tally.xyz/gov/uniswap/delegate/blockchainedu.eth

Applicant summary–briefly explain why you’re interested in applying for this Delegate Reward Initiative:
Since 2021, BEN has been a champion for onboarding diverse voices onto Uniswap governance through running our own delegate, hosting various governance calls and voting on several proposals with 70+ students participating from over 13 universities around the world. We also assisted several blockchain clubs, including Rutgers, Blockchain at Michigan, and Penn Blockchain, in setting up their own Aave, Uniswap, and Compound delegates through educational workshops with Harvard Law and Berkeley and direct connections to interested parties like a16z who wanted to delegate their voting power to more student groups.

We have had a considerable impact in Uniswap governance over the years. Through this program we hope to have a continued sustained model to grow our impact, educate the community, drive more participation, and create more tangible results for the Uniswap ecosystem.

Please provide the date and link of the first offchain and onchain Uniswap vote you made:

Offchain: May 26, 2021 https://snapshot.org/#/uniswapgovernance.eth/proposal/Qmehop1NNWP9VEf7tGLEAYRphVsXtdxkL7oKEhaXL2Xao6

Onchain: Jan 25th, 2023 https://www.tally.xyz/gov/uniswap/proposal/30

Have you posted an RFC that passed the offchain voting stage before? If so, please provide links here (only the sole author or co-authors explicitly mentioned on the proposal will receive credit): N/a

Have you posted an RFC that passed the onchain voting stage before? If so, please provide links here (only the sole author or co-authors explicitly mentioned on the proposal will receive credit): N/a

Have you joined the Uniswap Gov Workshop Before? If so, when? (If you joined several times, you can just note as period like “From January 2024 to July 2024”): Yes, like GovSwap during ETHDenver

Have you joined the Uniswap Community Call Before? If so, when? (If you joined several times, you can just note as period like “From January 2024 to July 2024”):
Yes, joined calls throughout 2024, and hosted community calls as early as 2021

1 Like
23

Applicant name:
Avantgarde (avantgardefi.eth)

 

Specify if you’re applying as an individual or an organization:
Organization

 

Link to Tally onchain voting profile:
https://www.tally.xyz/gov/uniswap/delegate/0xb49f8b8613be240213c1827e2e576044ffec7948

 

Applicant summary–briefly explain why you’re interested in applying for this Delegate Reward Initiative:
Avantgarde has been active in the Uniswap ecosystem for two years. Notably, we participated in the Uniswap Bridge Assessment Committee. We have also contributed R&D towards other proposals, most recently involving the fee switch discussions. We believe governance participation is crucial and we believe we have the right expertise and track record to continue delivering and improving on our input to the Uniswap DAO.

 

Please provide the date and link of the first offchain and onchain Uniswap vote you made:

 

  • Offchain: August 2022, 29% participation in votes over last 6 months (Feb - July). Link to first vote ever https://snapshot.org/#/uniswapgovernance.eth/proposal/0xee4851601143b1e9655be7168ca2d0f119fba31afadf2a7f808ea12b7bb4e9df
  • Onchain: August, 2022, 89% participation in votes over last 6 months (Feb - July). Link to first vote ever https://www.tally.xyz/gov/uniswap/proposal/24

 

Have you posted an RFC that passed the offchain voting stage before? If so, please provide links here (only the sole author or co-authors explicitly mentioned on the proposal will receive credit):
No

 

Have you posted an RFC that passed the onchain voting stage before? If so, please provide links here (only the sole author or co-authors explicitly mentioned on the proposal will receive credit):
No

 

Have you joined the Uniswap Gov Workshop Before? If so, when? (If you joined several times, you can just note as period like “From January 2024 to July 2024”):
Yes, New York in September 2023 and Brussels in July 2024

 

Have you joined the Uniswap Community Call Before? If so, when? (If you joined several times, you can just note as period like “From January 2024 to July 2024”):
Yes from August 2022 until present.

1 Like
24

Reminder that the deadline is in 9 hours or so.

1 Like
25

Applicant name: Argonaut

Specify if you’re applying as an individual or an organization: Organization

Link to Tally onchain voting profile: https://www.tally.xyz/gov/uniswap/delegate/0x21b3b193b71680e2fafe40768c03a0fd305efa75

Applicant summary–briefly explain why you’re interested in applying for this Delegate Reward Initiative:

Argonaut is a team of highly motivated crypto enthusiasts eager to participate in governance and make meaningful improvements where we see opportunities. Our team is diverse, with expertise on DeFi analysis, smart contract development, and research.

We chose the name Argonaut to symbolize our commitment to governance across various DAOs. Like Jason’s mythological crew, we bring together a range of skills and a pioneering spirit, dedicated to exploring new challenges and leading with innovation in decentralized governance.

Since our first vote, we have maintained a 100% voting participation rate, and we believe this program will enable us to have a full-time contributor dedicated to Uniswap. This presents a significant opportunity for our team, especially as a new, unfunded group. We’re driven by passion and would love the chance to dedicate more time to this work and create value for Uniswap!

Please provide the date and link of the first offchain and onchain Uniswap vote you made:

Offchain: https://snapshot.org/#/uniswapgovernance.eth/proposal/0xc2eed288ba61241dd86928eff15b7c8c9622168fc4b435657f58dda8ce285d13 (Jul 22, 2024)

Onchain: https://www.tally.xyz/gov/uniswap/proposal/65 (Jun 27, 2024)

Have you posted an RFC that passed the offchain voting stage before? If so, please provide links here (only the sole author or co-authors explicitly mentioned on the proposal will receive credit): No.

Have you posted an RFC that passed the onchain voting stage before? If so, please provide links here (only the sole author or co-authors explicitly mentioned on the proposal will receive credit): No.

Have you joined the Uniswap Gov Workshop Before? If so, when? (If you joined several times, you can just note as period like “From January 2024 to July 2024”): Yes, GovSwap at Brussels (July 8th, 2024)

Have you joined the Uniswap Community Call Before? If so, when? (If you joined several times, you can just note as period like “From January 2024 to July 2024”): Yes, August 2024 and a member of the team has also joined before once but he doesn’t remember the date.

26

Applicant name: Michigan Blockchain

Specify if you’re applying as an individual or an organization: Organization

Link to Tally onchain voting profile: https://www.tally.xyz/gov/uniswap/delegate/michiganblockchain.eth

Applicant summary–briefly explain why you’re interested in applying for this Delegate Reward Initiative:

Michigan Blockchain is an organization run by students at the University of Michigan. Our main goal is to educate students about blockchain and prepare them for roles within and outside our organization including governance, consulting, and investment. We have been involved and active in the Uniswap governance ecosystem for around three years now, and are also involved in governance across other DAOs. We plan on continuing our contribution to the future success of the protocol. We think this program does a great job in incentivizing governance participants to first, consistently vote, and more importantly, make more informed voting decisions. We also appreciate that this program incentivizes engaging in discussion with community members. This is crucial in involving a wider pool of delegates to suggest improvements and share ideas about the protocol.

Please provide the date and link of the first offchain and onchain Uniswap vote you made:

Offchain:

July 20, 2021

https://snapshot.org/#/uniswapgovernance.eth/proposal/Qmeza7LnzTLAGhHeA2psNtf1ua4kgm2Q1NHAMPeVzs5C2i

Onchain:

Nov 7, 2022

https://www.tally.xyz/gov/uniswap/proposal/9

Have you posted an RFC that passed the offchain voting stage before? If so, please provide links here (only the sole author or co-authors explicitly mentioned on the proposal will receive credit):

3 Recent:

[Temperature Check] Deploy Uniswap v3 on Rootstock (Bitcoin Sidechain)

[Temperature Check] Deploy Uniswap v3 on Filecoin Virtual Machine (FVM)

[Temperature Check] Deploy Uniswap v3 on Moonbeam (2023)

Have you posted an RFC that passed the onchain voting stage before? If so, please provide links here (only the sole author or co-authors explicitly mentioned on the proposal will receive credit):

3 Recent:

Deploy Uniswap V3 on Rootstock

Deploy Uniswap V3 on Filecoin Virtual Machine (FVM)

Deploy Uniswap V3 on Moonbeam (2023)

Have you joined the Uniswap Gov Workshop Before? If so, when? (If you joined several times, you can just note as period like “From January 2024 to July 2024”):

Yes - Uniswap Delegate “Blessing” in NYC (September, 2023), EthDenver Govswap (February 2024)

Have you joined the Uniswap Community Call Before? If so, when? (If you joined several times, you can just note as period like “From January 2024 to July 2024”):

Yes - January, March, April, August 2024

1 Like
27

The application is closed. We will announce top 15 as soon as possible

2 Likes
28

720×360 209 KB

Uniswap Delegate Reward Initiative - Cycle 2 Results

Authors: @Doo_StableLab @PGov @AranaDigital

Summary

This post outlines the results of Uniswap Delegate Reward Initiative - Cycle 2 application where over 20 candidates applied. Based on the criteria outlined, the following top 15 delegates were selected. Many of the newly qualified delegates joined the DAO less than 4 months ago, which once again, shows how the Delegate Reward Initiative has attracted new active and dedicated contributors. The full details can be found here.

Delegate Name Points Details
1 Michigan Blockchain 10
2 StableLab 10
3 Arana Digital 10
4 PGov 10
5 GFXlabs 10
6 Franklin DAO 9
7 Gauntlet 8.5
8 Karpatkey 8.5
9 404DAO 7
10 0xKeyRock 7
11 KFX (atiselsts.eth) 7
12 L2BEAT 7
13 SEEDGov 7
14 DAOplomats 6 Tie Breaker- Onchain
15 Tané 6 Had to go to 3 tiebreakers: Tie Breaker- Onchain, Tie Breaker- Offchain, Tie Breaker- Forum Activity

Notes

  1. @Bobbay requested to count as co-author of Uniswap Delegate Reward -3 Months-Cycle 1. However, as Bobbay was not explicitly mentioned as a co-author, and since other members of the Uniswap Delegate Reward Working Group such as L2 Beat and karpatkey did not count themselves as a co-author of this proposal, we believe it’s fair to not count it towards the delegate’s points.

  2. @BlockworksResearch requested to count as author of [RFC]: Uniswap Community Calls. As the RFC did not proceed and pass the snapshot vote, as specified in the requirement, we believe it’s fair to not count it.

Thoughts for Cycle 3

We have received feedback from various participants and stakeholders on how the Delegate Reward Initiative can be improved.

For Cycle 3, we will examine incorporating the following elements

  1. Governance Data Platform
  2. Automated Communications and Voting through third party like Karma
  3. Exploring more criteria for full rewards
6 Likes
29

Hello, and thanks for doing this calculation. We’re unsure why we didn’t win the tiebreaker, as our on-chain vote was cast on June 27, 2024, and the only tiebreaker measure approved by governance is:

Tie Breaker

-Ties will be decided by the date of the first on chain vote these applicants casted in order to reward those delegates that have been contributing to Uniswap governance for an extended period.

I want to emphasize the word casted, which clearly refers to the candidate who cast the vote on-chain first.

We don’t think it’s necessary to use an arbitrary tiebreaker that hasn’t been approved by governance, especially since on-chain votes are unlikely to be cast simultaneously. By choosing to modify what has already been approved by governance, there’s a risk it could be seen as using an arbitrary tiebreaker to influence the outcome. We don’t believe that was your intention, but we don’t think it’s fair.

30

So the intention we had in mind when it came to this as the first tiebreaker was it would be who voted first with respect to the vote itself. Because your team and Tane voted in the exact same on chain vote, we moved to the second tiebreaker, which was snapshot. Coincidentally, it was also the exact same vote, so we moved to what was used as a tiebreaker in other elections for Uniswap (Uniswap delegation initiative) which was forum activity, to which Tane had more likes, earlier start date and “forum cred”.

We totally understand the concern as the ambiguity in the wording here is something we should have specified better. We didn’t think these tiebreakers would still not be enough. While, I understand the concern here, we think it wouldn’t make sense to look at the specific block of the vote as it:

  • Doesn’t make sense to encourage behavior to rush in and submit a vote as soon as it goes live. While this can be a discussion for future, this hasn’t been an accepted line of reasoning in Uniswap.
  • Defeats the purpose of a second tiebreaker. As we would never get to the second tiebreaker if we looked at the exact submission block.
  • Snapshot votes as far as I’m aware, are unable to see the block you submitted in and only which specific vote you voted for/didn’t.

Again, we understand the frustration and this is just objectively what we thought was the outcome with the best intentions of the program being in mind, trying to be as unbiased as possible. Would love to hear the community’s opinion. Also, next Tuesday is the community call, we’ll cover this there also if you can join and voice your thoughts?

Thanks for understanding and appreciate the message.

2 Likes
31

Thank you for the quick response and for taking the time to review our case. We understand your point, but unfortunately, the third tiebreaker method you chose seems unfair, considering that the first comment on the [RFC] Uniswap Delegate Reward Initiative - Cycle 2 post was ours, in which we mentioned this:

We also think that doesn’t make sense to encourage behavior to rush in and create an account without setting the proper structure.

We understand and agree with your point; however, the proposal as approved did not specify this, and the tiebreaker method used was not outlined, whereas the method our team is referring to was clearly specified. We believe it sets a concerning precedent for Uniswap governance to adopt a tiebreaker method that hasn’t been officially approved, as it might appear tailored to influence the outcome as you knew the candidates in advance (though we’re not suggesting that happened here). Similarly, as you reviewed some elements for inclusion in Cycle 3, it’s crucial to avoid setting a poor precedent. To maintain transparency and uphold the legitimacy of the proposal, we suggest that this clarification be added to Cycle 3, and for this cycle, the method that the DAO voted on should be respected. We also agree to consider this a tie and share the rewards 50% - 50% with the other candidate.

32

While the tiebreaker we ended up using which was the only similar type of tiebreaker that we found that had been used prior in Uniswap governance was disadvantageous to you, we’d argue that doesn’t make it unfair in nature.

Let’s discuss this topic and the topic of splitting to get more community feedback on the call next Tuesday (10am ET): Link

2 Likes
33

Thank you, we’ll join the call. We would really appreciate finding a solution that allows both candidates to participate, rather than choosing an arbitrary tiebreaker method. We’re open to receiving a reduced amount of rewards if necessary.

We also commit to assisting with the calculations without requiring additional compensation, to avoid adding extra overhead for you.

34

Hello everyone!

Taking the takeaways from the community call just now, we will look to post a snapshot vote in the coming days to sort out the best next steps forward on this situation.

The snapshot options will be regarding who should be included in cycle 2 of the program:

The both option will increase the total delegates to 16 and require a separate on chain vote afterwards for a small increased budget to include them both into the program.

Thanks for everyone’s patience and understanding in this situation!

2 Likes
35

Thank you, everyone, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this during the call. It was a pleasure to participate. We believe the fairest option would be “Both”, and we will support that choice. We also want to apologize to the program organizers for any inconvenience and thank them for considering our perspective

36

First of all, huge thanks to the program managers of the initiative (@PGov Jun, @Doo_StableLab and @AranaDigital Abdullah) for their rigorous, patient and flexible operations on this matter. We are honored and grateful for being chosen based on the criteria that the program managers set and continuing our contributions to the governance further as we started doing so in the forum, online discussions, voting and offsite attendances!

Also thanks to @Argonaut for raising his voice on this matter and providing his perspectives.

While acknowledging potential confusions or possibility of interpreting the wordings in the original proposal differently, considering the purpose of the program which is to attract new delegates being active in the governance, we certainly support the decision flexibly made by the program managers, which is to apply the forum activity as a suitable tie-breaker measurement.

However, we also would like to respect what the DAO has to say about this issue and an outcome to be ratified on a Snapshot vote. We very much appreciate an additional consideration and voting decision from delegates on this matter in advance.

On a different note, we would also like to get involved in discussions to improve the Cycle 3 program by incorporating the feedback and learnings in the process!

3 Likes
37

Voted for both on this. The more delegates rewarded the better, we do think it’s fair for both to be included given that it had to go to multiple tiebrakers.

1 Like
38

As we justified when we cast our vote in our delegation thread:

We understand that there has been a total tie between both applicants @Tane and @Argonaut, for the following considerations:

  • We share with @Pgov statement in that the rule of who voted first should be understood by the proposal on which they have voted and not the precise time and date, as this would encourage undesirable behaviors such as delegates rushing to vote quickly as soon as a proposal is uploaded to be the first to vote, which does not respond to best practices of analyzing the proposals and voting after forming a well-founded opinion within the voting period.
  • We share the @Argonaut opinion that the criteria used for the tiebreaker expressed by @Pgov as “we moved to what was used as a tiebreaker in other elections for Uniswap (Uniswap delegation initiative) which was forum activity, to which Tane had more likes, earlier start date and ‘forum cred’" has not been approved by the governance for this specific case, so it should not be used as a tiebreaker.
  • That tie-breaker criterion detailed above is easily gameable by fake users or bots or even by agreements between delegates to give each other likes and improve this metric in an irregular way, so not only we do not share its use in this case for the reason stated above, but we do not share and discourage to use it in the future for any other selection method.

For the above mentioned, we understand that there has been a total tie between both applicants, not having been foreseen in the proposal how to break a tie of these characteristics.

Given that the proposal approved by the governance has not foreseen tie-breaking criteria for such a case, we understand that there are no elements that allow choosing or prioritizing one over the other applicant, so it would not be a fair solution to make a decision of these characteristics without any parameter to support it.

Our opinion then is that there would be two possible solutions:

  • That both be ranked 15 and receive 50% of the monthly compensation of a delegate each.
  • That both be eligible for full compensation by expanding to a slot of 16 incentivized delegates and increasing the budget for this purpose through a governance decision.

Given that one of the main reasons and objectives taken into account in the proposal to renew the rewards initiative to a cycle 2 has been to incorporate new delegates and increase participation to strengthen governance, we believe that the latter solution would be the fairest and most compatible with these objectives.

Consequently we voted for the option “BOTH (create an extra 16th spot)”.

Given this experience, which should be taken as a learning experience for the future (every experience brings with it a constant learning process that should serve as a basis for future improvement), we are at complete disposal and we want to be part of the working group where opinions are shared and discussions are carried out for the opportunity to decide to renew to a cycle 3. In Arbitrum we are the Program Managers for the Delegates Incentive Program, which started 6 months ago and has generated a very positive impact, so we have the experience and the necessary team that we put at Uniswap’s disposal to make our best contributions to further improve the current incentive program and its eligibility criteria for the future cycle 3.

2 Likes
39

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 both delegates to be included in the second cycle of the delegate rewards by creating a 16th spot.

Delegate rewards should promote and incentivize active governance participation, and not including a delegate because of an arguably arbitrary tiebreaker seems counterintuitive.

3 Likes
40

https://www.tally.xyz/gov/uniswap/proposal/70

The vote to add in the extra 16th delegate spot was the winning outcome of the snapshot and has been included in the on chain vote with the UAC renewal and budget rebalance.

1 Like