Great, this makes perfect sense to me
[Temp Check] Activate 2, 3, 4 bps fee tiers on Uniswap v3 on Base
Vote: Yes, activate additional tiers
Summary: We support the activation of 2, 3, and 4 bps fee tiers on Uniswap V3 on Base. The proposed analysis is relatively sound and we largely agree with the conclusion. By adding additional fee tiers we are able to further experiment and adapt to different market environments.
1 Like
[Temp Check] Uniswap Delegate Reward Initiative - Cycle 2
Vote: Yes
Summary: We are in favour of an extension (Cycle 2) and while we wouldâve liked to have seen some level of alignment/POW to make delegates eligible we are looking forward to seeing if looser requirements invite more delegates. After Cycle 2 we would also like to see a bit more of a deep dive into the success of both cycles.
1 Like
Hello Wintermute, Nice to see you over here. Been a long time old friends.
[Temp Check] - Ethereum Foundation Attackathon Sponsorship
Vote: Abstain
Summary: We have supported this initiative across other DAOs specifically L2s given their synergies. However, we donât see how this fits into the Uniswap DAO and struggle to see how the value accrues to the DAO in this case. Overall, we think the initiative is fine but will abstain from voting given our support across other DAOs.
UAC Renewal S3
Vote: Renew UAC
Summary: UAC has played a pivotal role in ensuring vital initiatives are handled smoothly on behalf of the DAO. Given their increased work load, we support their renewal under the proposed budget.
Approved Budgets Rebalancing
Vote: Approved Rebalance
Summary: We support the rebalance to ensure all liabilities can be met.
Uniswap Delegate Race Tiebreaker
Vote: #1 Both, #2 Tane, # 3Argonaut
Summary: Given how close both Tane and Argonaut were leading to a 3rd tie breaker assessment, we think it is completely reasonable to create a 16th spot. If one of them is considered fit for delegate compensation there is no reason not to include the other given how close they are. Our second and third options have no relevance and were merely picked given we had to put extra preferences down.
Uniswap Growth Program Trial
Vote: In Support
Summary: We have worked with the AlphaGrowth team as a Compound Delegate and theyâve done a good job in growth and promotional efforts for the protocol in a time when it felt like Compound was almost forgotten about.
We are pretty receptive to this proposal and we agree that Uniswap has certainly missed out on various grants across different ecosystems. Even if these ecosystems are extremely inactive in comparison to major chains, this is a missed opportunity with little to no cost for the DAO (assuming no co-incentives). Furthermore, we can very much see the need for additional marketing + creating awareness for various incentives across chains
One concern we did have is that driving attention, liquidity, and volume to AMMs is very different to money markets and arguably a lot harder. Itâs also a lot easier to waste incentives.
1 Like
[TEMP CHECK] - Tally Uniswap Proposal
Vote: For
Summary: As an avid user of Tally for some time now, we strongly support this proposal.
We are happy with the proposed roadmap and believe the pricing is fair. We specifically think having the ability for the DAO to actively shape the governance portal for Uniswap is great and something the DAO should certainly take advantage of over the next 2 years.
[TEMP CHECK] Uniswap DAO Principles
Vote: For
Summary: We support the proposed Uniswap DAO Principles and will strive to abide by them throughout our duties as a Uniswap Delegate.
[Temp Check] - Adopt The SEAL Safe Harbor Agreement
Vote: For
Summary: We are in support of such an initiative! Fostering a proactive environment that gives the correct accessibility to whitehack hackers is super important.
[TEMP CHECK] Scale Uniswap Liquidity on Celo
Vote: For
Summary: Initially, we were hesitant to support incentives for Celo purely given the fact that Uniswap already remains the dominant DEX on the chain by a large margin. However, one aspect of these incentives is to ensure that Uniswap retains dominance for the foreseeable future and therefore, we are supportive of $250k in incentives. Itâs very reasonable for these new stables to migrate to new dexes with incentives and therefore, we must remain vigilant in securing new markets.
[TEMP CHECK] Metal L2: Bridging TradFi and DeFi Through Uniswap V3
Vote: Against
Summary: Unfortunately Metal L2 lacks in TVL and onchain activity to justify expenditure from the DAO at this point. While we welcome the incentives from their side, we are not supportive of the selected pools as they heavily incentivise pools with their native token MTL.
Discretionary Budget from UAC for Co-Incentive Campaigns
Vote: Allow UAC Surplus Spending
Summary: We are supportive of this initiative and itâs the exact reason why setups like UAC are created. However, we do reiterate the need for transparency here for all internal votes and their budgets.
Incentive Package for Sonic (Formerly Fantom)
Vote: $250k Incentive Match
Summary: We support a $250k incentive match for Sonic, given the history of Fantom and its previous success in bootstrapping chain activity. Sonicâs new architecture as described, delivers high performance with some nice incentive mechanisms that could benefit Uniswap. Thus, we believe itâs important to capture market share early.
[Temp Check] Uniswap Delegate Reward Initiative - Cycle 3
Vote: Yes
Summary: While we have voted in support of this proposal, weâd once again like to reiterate our position that there should be some form of accounting/scoring/eligibility associated with a Delegateâs voting power and/or the amount of UNI they hold.
As described above, this proposal places a large emphasis on the importance of onchain/offchain voting and talks about utilising Delegatesâ voting power. Yet there is no quality control in place for this? A Delegate with 10 UNI VP is valued the same as a Delegate with 2.5M UNI, yet the latter provides significantly more economic security to the DAO.
One major pushback about enforcing eligibility requirements based on VP is that it makes it harder for smaller delegates. This is completely fair and we recognise that contributions to DAOs are more than just VP. But there is currently 0 recognition of VP.
A solution to this is to add another category that awards points to Delegates based on some scoring metric of either VP or the impact of their relative VP. Thus, as a Delegate you can still apply with minimal VP however, you will be less competitive than another Delegate with the same performance yet has a larger VP.
[Temp Check] Saga Uniswap v3 Liquidity Incentives
Vote: Against
Summary: While Saga presents an interesting and new design space, there is unfortunately just not enough data available for us to recommend spending incentives on what seems to be a new ecosystem. Furthermore, there are 3 SAGA/X LP pools being incentivised, which is not something the DAO should be funding. Funds should be focused on core pools.