I suggest we could kickstart a discussion regarding more general Uniswap yield fund program
based of flipsidecrypto team’s proposal to get $25mil of liquidity to generate yield with 50% management fee
also see dune critic on the proposal
in my head, I think something more robust where various analytical and liquidity managers could all compete to get liquidity and fundings would make sense
I think it would be best to have analytics project proposals go through the Uniswap Grant’s Program first before receiving grants. They are experienced in handling these matters, can ask the necessary questions, and can ensure that the necessary amount of funding is provided. This Uniswap yield fund program could still exist, but its funds would be requested through the proper channels first.
The path you suggest makes sense to me, but as a builder of an analytics project for Uniswap (https://revert.finance), the Uniswap Grants Program has been rather unhelpful, not only in getting funds, but also on getting feedback for the grant applications. We applied three times, didn’t get funded but also received no feedback from the program, even after repeated requests for it.
We should be thinking of the Grants Program as an experiment. How are we evaluating the results of the current decision making process? How do we minimize centralization there? If centralization is inevitable, how do we increase accountability for people running the program and discretionarily deploying DAO funds?
Here’s a simple idea, currently the Grants Program discloses what projects it funds, not doing so would seem preposterous. Perhaps we should think of not disclosing what projects are denied funding equally as preposterous. The idea is that every grant application denial gets published along with the reasons for the denial, unless the applicant decides to withhold the publication. Would be great to read that people selected by the DAO for these important roles are thinking in those terms about their responsibilities.
Another idea would be that the DAO discards completely discretionary allocation of funds, like the Grants Program, and instead increases allocation matching Gitcoin grants for projects building on Uniswap.
I like the transparency about which projects are denied idea. Very good idea.
agree with @wario here, we should definitely make this process more transparent. Show the evaluation process, i.e. why or why not fund a project. Additionally more info on grant numbers and decision making would be helpful. This kinda goes with the quadratic voting idea, but I think we should make sure we have options outside of yes/no for grant funding and allow for allocations of votes for the multiple options.