Uniswap Delegate Reward Initiative - Cycle 3 Application and Results

[Doo_StableLab]

Uniswap Delegate Reward Initiative - Cycle 3- Results

Summary

Uniswap Delegate Reward Initiative - Cycle 3 passed the Onchain Vote. And the application lasted till the Onchain Vote ended. After examining the Voting Participation, Proposal Authorship, and Community Participation, top 15 delegates are selected. The post outlines the list of top 15 delegates as well as addresses the questions and clarifications. For detailed breakdown in excel, it can be found here

Details

Tie Breakers

The maximum point possible was 11. There were 6 delegates with score of 8 that were competing for last 4 spots.

First Tie Breaker: On Chain Vote. Between 404 DAO, KeyRock, L2BEAT, Tane, Argonaut, and Curia

• 404 DAO, KeyRock, L2BEAT Proceeded

Second Tie Breaker: Most Votes. Between Tane and Agronaut

• Unresolved. Move to Third Tie Breaker

Third Tie Breaker: Earliest Delegate Platform Post. Tane and Agronaut

• Tane proceeded

Note:

• Blockchain at Berkeley and its Voting History

Argonaut has raised a question about the delegate Blockchain at Berkeley and whether their two voting wallets with different voting history should be recorded separately or together. The post can be found here.

Blockchain at Berkeley clarified their wallet usage and set up in the application forum.

@Zeebradoom

Link to Tally onchain voting profile:

Two Wallets:

https://www.tally.xyz/gov/uniswap/delegate/0x7ae109a63ff4dc852e063a673b40bed85d22e585

https://www.tally.xyz/gov/uniswap/delegate/0x458cEec48586a85fCFEb4A179706656eE321730E

(Note:

The second wallet is an EOA wallet initially used at Uniswap DAO’s conception. However, due to legal and security risks, this wallet was not used from 2022-2024. Since then, the first wallet, a multisig, has been the primary wallet to be used. From now on, we will be primarily voting with the first multisig wallet. Future activity tracking for performance should be entirely based on this wallet. We recently used the EOA wallet purely to push some votes above quorum at the request of proposal writers.)

Assessing both sides. We maintain our current decision because of three main reasons

1. Regarding Program Details

-The application has guidance but it realistically can’t lay out literally every “Yes” and “No.” We don’t believe whether one can use one or more wallets is a crucial element that needs to be explicitly laid out, as delegate wallets often change and this situation is rather normal in the space. It is in the domain for us to interpret as needed for the program.

2. Established Presence

-Both of Berkeley’s wallets were long standing public wallets that were able to be identified even before the start of the program and thus we don’t find foul play or malicious intent. This was not an attempt to sybil the program or hedge their voting record. Additionally, going forward, there will only be one wallet used for tracking compensation.

3. Regarding Precedence and Fairness Concerns

-Case of potential delegate recruiting another delegate just for voting history is unlikely but even if so, not a significant concern. Other elements such as Proposal Authorship and Community Participation are considered and Blockchain at Berkeley is a community member who has been known to the community for years.

Other points to note:

• Event Horizon and Submission Deadline

Event Horizon’s application was posted more than 24 hours after the onchain voting closed. We still calculated the points for information, but even if Event Horizon’s points were within top 15, other applicants would be given priority based on the missed deadline.

• Argonaut and Proposal Count

Argonaut in their application requested the proposal “Uniswap Delegate Race Tiebreaker” as a Proposal Authorship. However, a question, a comment, or even a long post not in the form of RFC, does not meet the criteria of “only the sole author or co-authors explicitly mentioned on the proposal will receive credit.”