# Uniswap Delegate Reward Initiative - Cycle 3

**URL:** <https://gov.uniswap.org/t/uniswap-delegate-reward-initiative-cycle-3/25241>\
**Category:** Requests for Comment\
**Created:** [February 11, 2025, 11:42am UTC](https://gov.uniswap.org/t/uniswap-delegate-reward-initiative-cycle-3/25241 "2025-02-11T11:42:31Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 15

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![michiganblockchain](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/gov.uniswap.org/michiganblockchain/32/9079_2.png) [@michiganblockchain](https://gov.uniswap.org/u/michiganblockchain)\
**Post date:** [February 17, 2025, 4:29pm UTC](https://gov.uniswap.org/t/uniswap-delegate-reward-initiative-cycle-3/25241/15 "2025-02-17T16:29:39Z")

</div>

> [@Tane](#):
>
> The value of these rationales diminishes significantly if they are submitted long after the vote, potentially becoming justifications crafted in hindsight rather than reflections of the delegate’s thinking at the time of voting.

We think that the main improvement in this cycle is the emphasis on timely rationale writing. In future cycles we think that delegates should be posting rationale even before the voting period is over to completely eliminate writing rationale in hindsight. Or, at least have the deadline move closer towards the end of the voting period as reward initiative cycles continue.

> [@WeAreAllSatoshiN](#):
>
> rewarding delegates purely based on voting participation without considering the quality of engagement is a flaw

There would need to be a way to measure the quality of delegate contribution in a non-arbitrary way, which is hard to do since some delegates may feel that their contributions/feedback was more important or influential than others’. For example, how do you quantify @SEEDGov recommending the 7 day rational submission, when @pepo previously suggested the 10 day timeline?

---

_[View the full topic](https://gov.uniswap.org/t/uniswap-delegate-reward-initiative-cycle-3/25241)._