Tally has been actively supporting Uniswap DAO since December 2020, less than 3 months after the UNI token was launched in September 2020. We are excited to continue building for the Uniswap DAO by enhancing the governance experience and rolling out key developments to further strengthen the Uniswap DAO’s onchain governance infrastructure. To continue providing these services and pursue future improvements, we are requesting $250,000 annually for 2 years.
Tally is the leading interface for Uniswap DAO’s onchain governance. Over the past 6 months, 75% of Uniswap DAO’s proposals were created on Tally with an average of 55.2% of onchain votes being cast on Tally.
Tally has been deeply engaged with the Uniswap DAO, providing essential governance infrastructure that has enabled its success. Our goal is to further enhance Uniswap’s governance capabilities and create an even better experience for the community.
Tally’s importance has grown over time, as Uniswap Labs has stopped maintaining Sybil.org and removed voting from the app.uniswap.org interface. We believe it’s important for the decentralization of the DAO to have many great interfaces for governance. The best way to ensure that is to fund them.
We believe the DAO should have the flexibility to allocate resources to the governance platform that best serves the DAO’s needs. Many DAO contributors and delegates have expressed support for using multiple governance interfaces. The Uniswap Foundation engaged Agora for a similar-sized grant. Tally plays a critical role in Uniswap DAO governance—currently it is the only platform that allows for the creation of proposals in the Uniswap DAO (all other proposals are created via command line). Tally’s no-code proposal tools, including the ability to create private drafts of proposals to be shared and edited among delegates, are highly popular with Uniswap proposal creators.
We are seeking this grant to:
Our focus is on the future. With this grant, we plan to build out features that will create a deeper, more robust governance experience—one that scales with Uniswap’s growth and helps contributors make impactful decisions.
For complete body of this proposal, please read the Forum Post
Tally has been actively supporting Uniswap DAO since December 2020, less than 3 months after the UNI token was launched in September 2020. We are excited to continue building for the Uniswap DAO by enhancing the governance experience and rolling out key developments to further strengthen the Uniswap DAO’s onchain governance infrastructure. To continue providing these services and pursue future improvements, we are requesting $250,000 annually for 2 years.
Tally is the leading interface for Uniswap DAO’s onchain governance. Over the past 6 months, 75% of Uniswap DAO’s proposals were created on Tally with an average of 55.2% of onchain votes being cast on Tally.
Tally has been deeply engaged with the Uniswap DAO, providing essential governance infrastructure that has enabled its success. Our goal is to further enhance Uniswap’s governance capabilities and create an even better experience for the community.
Tally’s importance has grown over time, as Uniswap Labs has stopped maintaining Sybil.org and removed voting from the app.uniswap.org interface. We believe it’s important for the decentralization of the DAO to have many great interfaces for governance. The best way to ensure that is to fund them.
We believe the DAO should have the flexibility to allocate resources to the governance platform that best serves the DAO’s needs. Many DAO contributors and delegates have expressed support for using multiple governance interfaces. The Uniswap Foundation engaged Agora for a similar-sized grant. Tally plays a critical role in Uniswap DAO governance—currently it is the only platform that allows for the creation of proposals in the Uniswap DAO (all other proposals are created via command line). Tally’s no-code proposal tools, including the ability to create private drafts of proposals to be shared and edited among delegates, are highly popular with Uniswap proposal creators.
We are seeking this grant to:
Our focus is on the future. With this grant, we plan to build out features that will create a deeper, more robust governance experience—one that scales with Uniswap’s growth and helps contributors make impactful decisions.
For complete body of this proposal, please read the Forum Post
https://gov.uniswap.org/t/rfc-supporting-tally-s-continued-development-and-enhancements-for-uniswap-dao-governance/24748/28
https://gov.uniswap.org/t/rfc-supporting-tally-s-continued-development-and-enhancements-for-uniswap-dao-governance/24748/28
Tally is our go-to platform and we see great value in deepening partnership, but some concerns left to be clarified before the onchain vote
Tally is our go-to platform and we see great value in deepening partnership, but some concerns left to be clarified before the onchain vote
looking at the vote results, it seems that some conversations are taking place in a more private place. The major voters did not participate in the discussion and tried to explain which option was their favor. More so, non of them felt the need to answer any critical questions about the justification to spend $500k on a solution with no clear roadmap.
Good luck to Tally and I hope they prove us wrong with the stellar solution they will build from here on.
looking at the vote results, it seems that some conversations are taking place in a more private place. The major voters did not participate in the discussion and tried to explain which option was their favor. More so, non of them felt the need to answer any critical questions about the justification to spend $500k on a solution with no clear roadmap.
Good luck to Tally and I hope they prove us wrong with the stellar solution they will build from here on.
Does this mean that the grant is expected to cover the full cost of operation for Tally over the next 2 years? This does not sound like a service provider where the DAO is a client (one of many).
If the grant is truly expected to cover the full operational costs:
Does this mean that the grant is expected to cover the full cost of operation for Tally over the next 2 years? This does not sound like a service provider where the DAO is a client (one of many).
If the grant is truly expected to cover the full operational costs:
tbh, there is always place for another great service provider but it sounds as if this is not a service provider but a team hire (to the point that the grant should be considered as fundraising against equity for example).
Thanks for the extra bit of information shared by @Sinkas on this matter. However, there is no clear explanation to why uniswap dao should pay $250,000 per year for the next 2 years (i.e. $500,000) for this service. This amount is pretty steep and therefore require valid justification. More so, it seems that part of the justification is "to support Tally's development for the community", which sounds more in the lines of paying Tally so they stay alive and benefit other daos.
I'm in favor of this proposal! Tally has proven its value with so many DAOs using it for on-chain voting. I have no issues with the requested budget, but it would be great if the proposal could outline the new features planned and how they will enhance the governance experience.
completely agree with @cp0x.
@dennisonb, perhaps before you initiate your work towards putting up the onchain proposal, you can further explain the reasons for the 2 years budget and the justification for it being $250k per year.
Does this mean that the grant is expected to cover the full cost of operation for Tally over the next 2 years? This does not sound like a service provider where the DAO is a client (one of many).
If the grant is truly expected to cover the full operational costs:
Does this mean that the grant is expected to cover the full cost of operation for Tally over the next 2 years? This does not sound like a service provider where the DAO is a client (one of many).
If the grant is truly expected to cover the full operational costs:
tbh, there is always place for another great service provider but it sounds as if this is not a service provider but a team hire (to the point that the grant should be considered as fundraising against equity for example).
Thanks for the extra bit of information shared by @Sinkas on this matter. However, there is no clear explanation to why uniswap dao should pay $250,000 per year for the next 2 years (i.e. $500,000) for this service. This amount is pretty steep and therefore require valid justification. More so, it seems that part of the justification is "to support Tally's development for the community", which sounds more in the lines of paying Tally so they stay alive and benefit other daos.
I'm in favor of this proposal! Tally has proven its value with so many DAOs using it for on-chain voting. I have no issues with the requested budget, but it would be great if the proposal could outline the new features planned and how they will enhance the governance experience.
completely agree with @cp0x.
@dennisonb, perhaps before you initiate your work towards putting up the onchain proposal, you can further explain the reasons for the 2 years budget and the justification for it being $250k per year.
numerous deficiencies that have not been addressed after the offchain vote.
didn’t meet the merits of a fundraising proposal
Quoted from SamSmithneed to answer any critical questions about the justification to spend $500k on a solution with no clear roadmap
Whilst I've no comments on the project/deliverables, I'd point out a compromise which is a riff off Singapore's govt programmable money.
I'd note that in ICT, the cost of training people to use new software roughly same ballpark of developing the software. The above courseware rebate allows a) productivity as KPI, not feature set = actual users to pick the proposal software that best meets their skill level ... Not everyone is a MSword power user and googleDocs templates + a few polls + hackMD/charmVerse might be 80% of desired functionality at 20% of the cost b) development escrow there is a known sum (time-limited) for upskilling, so if a roadmap feature is perceived to lead to uptake in a), the risk is on the developer side, not the payment c) contestable ... The list of permissible redemption can be expanded over time to allow for more diversity provided data export between platforms is mandatory. Since the total sum is known in b) what % goes to which project is based on usability merits as determined by delegates, not squeakiest wheel.
Stepping back, one should ask given $500k (which is not insignificant) is it the best deployment in context of the treasury working group 2 objectives
The total ask is as per proposal but what is the value? The nominated approach focuses on productivity of delegates (which has their own submetrics). Sustainability is under my point c) that cost sharing (the programmable money can spread to other DAOs and their delegates) will foster improved governance (more transparent working groups) whilst attempting higher participation (greater familiarity with the proposal process including Uniswap Foundation applications). I note that the participation is ~10% from highs of 35+%.
Appreciate the extra information. In the proposal, you clearly indicate several points which are "red flag":
Appreciate the extra information. In the proposal, you clearly indicate several points which are "red flag":
aside of the fact that this is a bull run moment in time where the industry is "richer" and therefore might be more loose with its funds, I do not see any justification to paying $500,000 for a gov system facilitating 67 proposals in total since 2021.
rough calculation, historically there was a proposal every ~20 days. At this pace, there are expected to be about 36 future proposals in the next 24months, which means about $14,000 per proposal. a bit expensive.
How can one justify a $250k spend per year with a 2 years commitment for a 3rd party service? At the same time, other services in crypto are free or very cheap due to the competitive nature of the industry at this stage.
Tally can be the best service in the world but this cost is not cheap at all in any means.
Therefore my questions are:
How can one justify a $250k spend per year with a 2 years commitment for a 3rd party service? At the same time, other services in crypto are free or very cheap due to the competitive nature of the industry at this stage.
Tally can be the best service in the world but this cost is not cheap at all in any means.
Therefore my questions are:
Thanks for the time :slight_smile:
Big fan of Tally and my go-to when voting for @Avantgarde. My experience with the Tally support has also only been very positive, so I thank the team for this proposal. Keen to support this as a next step to strengthen the relationship between Tally and Uniswap further. As @_JoJo mentions, would be interesting to explore more custom, Uni-specific developments in the future. Optimistic governance is something I personally find quite interesting as a concept.
Also appreciate the addition of KPIs and clearer reporting framework to the prop, but I do think @Userisky and @SEEDGov make important points on the funding and exclusivity, however, that I don't think have been properly addressed yet.
numerous deficiencies that have not been addressed after the offchain vote.
didn’t meet the merits of a fundraising proposal
Quoted from SamSmithneed to answer any critical questions about the justification to spend $500k on a solution with no clear roadmap
Whilst I've no comments on the project/deliverables, I'd point out a compromise which is a riff off Singapore's govt programmable money.
I'd note that in ICT, the cost of training people to use new software roughly same ballpark of developing the software. The above courseware rebate allows a) productivity as KPI, not feature set = actual users to pick the proposal software that best meets their skill level ... Not everyone is a MSword power user and googleDocs templates + a few polls + hackMD/charmVerse might be 80% of desired functionality at 20% of the cost b) development escrow there is a known sum (time-limited) for upskilling, so if a roadmap feature is perceived to lead to uptake in a), the risk is on the developer side, not the payment c) contestable ... The list of permissible redemption can be expanded over time to allow for more diversity provided data export between platforms is mandatory. Since the total sum is known in b) what % goes to which project is based on usability merits as determined by delegates, not squeakiest wheel.
Stepping back, one should ask given $500k (which is not insignificant) is it the best deployment in context of the treasury working group 2 objectives
The total ask is as per proposal but what is the value? The nominated approach focuses on productivity of delegates (which has their own submetrics). Sustainability is under my point c) that cost sharing (the programmable money can spread to other DAOs and their delegates) will foster improved governance (more transparent working groups) whilst attempting higher participation (greater familiarity with the proposal process including Uniswap Foundation applications). I note that the participation is ~10% from highs of 35+%.
Appreciate the extra information. In the proposal, you clearly indicate several points which are "red flag":
Appreciate the extra information. In the proposal, you clearly indicate several points which are "red flag":
aside of the fact that this is a bull run moment in time where the industry is "richer" and therefore might be more loose with its funds, I do not see any justification to paying $500,000 for a gov system facilitating 67 proposals in total since 2021.
rough calculation, historically there was a proposal every ~20 days. At this pace, there are expected to be about 36 future proposals in the next 24months, which means about $14,000 per proposal. a bit expensive.
How can one justify a $250k spend per year with a 2 years commitment for a 3rd party service? At the same time, other services in crypto are free or very cheap due to the competitive nature of the industry at this stage.
Tally can be the best service in the world but this cost is not cheap at all in any means.
Therefore my questions are:
How can one justify a $250k spend per year with a 2 years commitment for a 3rd party service? At the same time, other services in crypto are free or very cheap due to the competitive nature of the industry at this stage.
Tally can be the best service in the world but this cost is not cheap at all in any means.
Therefore my questions are:
Thanks for the time :slight_smile:
Big fan of Tally and my go-to when voting for @Avantgarde. My experience with the Tally support has also only been very positive, so I thank the team for this proposal. Keen to support this as a next step to strengthen the relationship between Tally and Uniswap further. As @_JoJo mentions, would be interesting to explore more custom, Uni-specific developments in the future. Optimistic governance is something I personally find quite interesting as a concept.
Also appreciate the addition of KPIs and clearer reporting framework to the prop, but I do think @Userisky and @SEEDGov make important points on the funding and exclusivity, however, that I don't think have been properly addressed yet.
Thanks folks, this is really exciting! We're digesting feedback as we prepare for the onchain vote. Thank you for your support!
Thanks folks, this is really exciting! We're digesting feedback as we prepare for the onchain vote. Thank you for your support!
Hello Folks!
Back from Devcon, what a great event. Really nice to meet so many folks at Uniday!
@cp0x @SamSmith I think i was able to address all of your questions further up in the thread.
Thanks to @Getty who has put the proposal up onchain, so it will go live for voting on Saturday!
Hey folks just a quick update. We're at DevCon this week, we're going to work towards putting up the onchain proposal after DevCon finishes so folks don't have to worry about having their keys with them while traveling.
Hello Folks!
Back from Devcon, what a great event. Really nice to meet so many folks at Uniday!
@cp0x @SamSmith I think i was able to address all of your questions further up in the thread.
Thanks to @Getty who has put the proposal up onchain, so it will go live for voting on Saturday!
Hey folks just a quick update. We're at DevCon this week, we're going to work towards putting up the onchain proposal after DevCon finishes so folks don't have to worry about having their keys with them while traveling.
@SEEDGov @Tane @jayyu23
We would like to persuade you to support this proposal as a service agreement for software that we have built and will continue to develop, rather than as a grant or RFP. Meaning: we would like to be evaluated on the value we provide.
@SEEDGov @Tane @jayyu23
We would like to persuade you to support this proposal as a service agreement for software that we have built and will continue to develop, rather than as a grant or RFP. Meaning: we would like to be evaluated on the value we provide.
We firmly believe that in order for DAO's to succeed we need the economics of building the best tooling to work, and that involves eventually building a business that can at the very least sustain itself. We prefer if the proposal is evaluated on the question of "Is Tally worth this amount? Do they drive this much value?". If the value we are providing the Uniswap community is not evident, I would encourage delegates to vote "no" on our proposal as clearly we have failed in our attempt to build valuable software.
About us: In general we are about 15 people, mostly engineers. We pay folks health insurance, family leave (5 teammates have started families since joining Tally), state mandated unemployment insurance, legal bills, and taxes. Engineers rotate between building new features, refactoring software, security testing, and doing research and development on new feature ideas. Non-engineers work in customer management, client services, planning and sales. As the UF and other delegates can attest, we sometimes spend many hours working directly with delegates on crafting proposals and reviewing executable code. The fee we're requesting equates to about $20k per month, which to put into perspective, is far less than the salary of a single senior level software engineer in the United States. (Yes I know some parts of the world are cheaper, but senior engineers are valuable everywhere, and again, the team that builds Tally is based in the USA).
I firmly support an RFP process, but we're making a separate pitch here: we build many of these features for DAOs because we think they are valuable. We invest our own time and resources to do the research and pay for development. Because we are a platform and serve many orgs, we can be independent and build great software for everyone, and enable many of the delegates here to effectively operate across the ecosystem with the same great tools.
Our focus on building a business we think will also lead to better DAO outcomes (we think it already has!). Despite Uniswap funding numerous DAO interfaces (Including Agora at nearly the same price as we are requesting, and Sybil which is no longer used), Tally remains the most feature rich and popular tool in Uniswap, and the ecosystem at large.
This is all to say, I recognize your concern on ensuring funds are spent well. I would ask you to take a look at Tally, its contributions to the Uniswap ecosystem, and the wider Ethereum ecosystem, and DAOs in general, and support this proposal on the basis that it's providing the value we think it is.
Exclusivity:
Many of the features we build and distribute to everyone in the ecosystem, we believe strongly that a "rising tide raises all boats".
The Uniswap DAO has never asked us not to share work we've developed with any other DAO, and currently Uniswap benefits from a large number of features originally developed for other teams. I'm not clear why the Uniswap DAO would want to prevent another DAO from using features that they developed. The Uniswap DAO isn't in competition with any other DAO.
If the DAO wants to prevent another team from using something we custom develop, that can certainly be part of a custom scope agreement, but again, this service agreement would support us continuing to support Uniswap and bring it new features that are on our roadmap. These features on our roadmap are intended to help the entire ecosystem grow and prosper.
@jayyu23 - "multi-dipping"
As we move towards being a business that is self-sustaining, we will eventually offer a paid service tier to all of our communities. To be clear, no one client of Tally actually covers anywhere near the total operational cost of Tally. We're endeavoring to get there, but we're not there yet. We already have enterprise agreements with a number of DAOs, and for the teams with whom we don't, we will be creating proposals directly to their DAOs.
Gm, gm! :sparkles:
The results are in for the [TEMP CHECK] - Tally Uniswap Proposal off-chain proposal.
See how the community voted and more Uniswap stats: https://dhive.io/proposal/1486
@AbdullahUmar - We would prefer to be paid at the start of each quarter. The funds of this proposal go directly into salaries and operational costs which are paid out in real time, so it's important. The Uniswap Accountability Committee would be responsible for holding us accountable and we will provide metrics and reports so they clearly understand our progress.
Some future feature requests may surpass the current budget or simply cost more than anticipated. In such an event, would Tally return to the DAO with a revised budget or a one-off grant?
@AbdullahUmar - We would prefer to be paid at the start of each quarter. The funds of this proposal go directly into salaries and operational costs which are paid out in real time, so it's important. The Uniswap Accountability Committee would be responsible for holding us accountable and we will provide metrics and reports so they clearly understand our progress.
Some future feature requests may surpass the current budget or simply cost more than anticipated. In such an event, would Tally return to the DAO with a revised budget or a one-off grant?
Excellent question: It's very possible there will be feature requests that exceed our ability to implement within the scope of this document. In this case we would build a comprehensive proposal and implementation plan with budget to present to the DAO as a separate scope.
@justErik - Happy to address any specific questions. Tally services the entire DAO ecosystem, we're not an exclusive tool and indeed many of the delegates here use our tool across many DAOs. Uniswap Foundation funds several other tools, including VC backed tools. This is the first time Tally is requesting funding and we're really excited to create a relationship with the community.
Hello folks! Thanks for all the engagement- to answer a few more questions:
@GFXlabs - Yes we intend on making similar request to other major DAO's for the use of the interface. We're largely moving to find better alignment with our user base in a way that allows us to continue to reinvest and grow with the community.
Hello folks! Thanks for all the engagement- to answer a few more questions:
@GFXlabs - Yes we intend on making similar request to other major DAO's for the use of the interface. We're largely moving to find better alignment with our user base in a way that allows us to continue to reinvest and grow with the community.
@jengajojo - The Foundation currently funds Agora, see @eek637 comment above. Our request is about the same financially. Re: investment, we'll followup with the UF to see what appetite there might be for that.
@404DAO - Thanks for the suggestion to integrate Discourse profiles and Snapshot. Thats something I've personally wanted for a while so we'll put it on our list.
It’s a significant investment for Tally to maintain best in class support for the Uniswap DAO. Generally our revenue goes towards:
I've updated the proposal at the top to include more detail around metrics and reporting! EDIT: I can't find the edit functionality on my initial post, so I'll share here:
KPIs
Tally will provide a quarterly report for the Uniswap DAO, detailing key achievements, including uptime metrics, notes from Community Calls, support metrics, as well as enhancements to the Uniswap DAO’s governance on Tally (as outlined above).
Tally usage
Roadmap feature usage
Monthly office hours
Uptime and Availability
Response and Resolution Time
Maintenance and Support
Hey folks! Thank you everyone for your engagement. Give us a couple days, and we'll get back to you early next week with new responses!
Thank you!
hello @Userisky, Agora has raised Venture capital. I don't know the exact amount but it's substantial. I don't want to comment on their business though.
However, if Uniswap is contributing $500k in UNI over two years, it’s important to recognize that Tally would be benefiting significantly from the Uniswap brand,
hello @Userisky, Agora has raised Venture capital. I don't know the exact amount but it's substantial. I don't want to comment on their business though.
However, if Uniswap is contributing $500k in UNI over two years, it’s important to recognize that Tally would be benefiting significantly from the Uniswap brand,
I would hope that the feeling is mutual! Our goal is to make DAO's succeed, without whom, we don't have a business. I think we're pretty aligned in driving value both ways. Here we are requesting financial support for the service we're providing: providing value to the Uniswap DAO. The way we've structured the proposal, we only get paid if we continue to provide value!
Given this context, the Uniswap DAO should hold equal standing with the other DAOs that have provided funding in future token or equity discussions.
We wouldn't have it any other way. :heart_eyes: (Note: for legal reasons I can't actually talk about things like future tokens in a public forum. Happy to chat privately...)
I would support this proposal if it included language about fundraising, positioning the Uniswap DAO on similar footing with The LAO, FireEyes DAO, and MetaCartel Ventures.
All three of these DAO's have invested in Tally. We would be happy to discuss a Uniswap investment as well, but because you're not allowed to "solicit in public" that would have to be a very different discussion, with different stakeholder, most likely with the UF.
We would still want to pursue this proposal however, as the goal of this proposal is not investment, but a business relationship for products and services. If Uniswap feels Tally is a strategic resource (which we certainly feel it is!) happy to discuss investment separately with the UF, who would be the only qualified org (I think) we could technically discuss with. BTW: I AM NOT A LAWYER and this should not be considered legal advice nor solicitation. (Just answering a question Gensler!)
Hello @SEEDGov Thanks for the questions!
but we want to understand if these proposed improvements are essential and justify the 500k expense
As a software business we're continuously improving the product, testing the product, adding new features and security. It's not really possible for us to ship the best tool in the space and not make improvements. We've shown that the community continues to value the new features we ship as we add them as the product is used more and more. The $500k is over 24 months, which is quite a long time. (Half the DAO's lifespan thus far?) And the DAO maintains control over these funds with the ability to cancel them if at any point it feels Tally no longer contributes.
@kfx gassless voting security risks
This is an optional feature that was part of attempts to drive more participation among voters who otherwise won't participate due to gas costs.
We built a decentralized version of this system three years ago: Gas Refunder specifically to address these concerns, but we didn't find any market demand for it. It's exciting to hear that this is a concern, and happy to address this as a separate scope if there is interest in it.
@eek637 Thank you for your support! We're always happy to help in the proposal process.
Metrics + Accountability
We would be happy to provide metrics an accountability on a quarterly basis. As we mature as a business, we are also moving to move data driven decisions and we would be happy to share a version of that with the DAO. With think that data provides not only accountability but also helps inform our roadmap and the roadmap of the DAO's we work with. Usage and feedback is probably the most salient metric that we could provide. Some of the larger products on our Tally roadmap (Staking and Optimistic Governance) will involve participation from the Uniswap Community to help sheppard success, and we would be happy to lead some of these work streams if it would help.
Tally is my go-to platform for voting in DAOs. I agree with the proposal's premise and see the value that Tally provides. As you mentioned, Agora has received similar grant funding; however, to my knowledge, Agora has not raised equity capital. There’s a distinction between providing grants to teams in need of funding versus giving grants to well-funded companies.
Tally has raised at least $6 million from VCs and other DAOs, and I have no issue with fundraising. However, if Uniswap is contributing $500k in UNI over two years, it’s important to recognize that Tally would be benefiting significantly from the Uniswap brand, its user base, and the financial support aimed at helping Tally innovate its DAO-first features. This partnership should also reinforce the technical innovations that Tally offers, potentially setting standards for other DAOs on the platform. Given this context, the Uniswap DAO should hold equal standing with the other DAOs that have provided funding in future token or equity discussions.
All great questions @drllau_LexDAO. The Foundation does fund new governance work, but Tally largely serves the DAO and delegates themselves. Delegates frequently ask for new features, and we try to prioritize them as possible and as resources allow.
As a note: I think Uniswap should use the decentralized ddocs by the Fileverse and Filecoin teams. No need to sell our privacy to Alphabet.
All great questions @drllau_LexDAO. The Foundation does fund new governance work, but Tally largely serves the DAO and delegates themselves. Delegates frequently ask for new features, and we try to prioritize them as possible and as resources allow.
As a note: I think Uniswap should use the decentralized ddocs by the Fileverse and Filecoin teams. No need to sell our privacy to Alphabet.
For contestability, the DAO can simply stop paying for it. The Foundation has funded numerous other tools in the past and continues to do so. Tally is not the only DAO tool in Uniswap.
@Juanbug - Optimistic Governance is highly requested feature and we would be happy to talk more about it. Its very helpful in allowing governance to move at a higher rate and might be ideal for situations like new deployments on other chains where perhaps it's not necessary to convene the full DAO each time.
@kfx - We're totally aligned with you. Your worst case scenarios are very much top of mind for us. We prefer this proposal to look less like a grant and more like an on going relationship. Uniswap has provided grants previously for interfaces like Sybil but the grants structure is a poor design for ongoing relationships, and indeed Sybil itself no longer works.
We definitely think Tally Zero is ripe for funding as it's an insurance policy against centralization and censorship, but as @_JoJo alludes, the scope for it is quite large and we would prefer to break that out as a separate project if the DAO is excited about it.
Additionally a way to think about this proposal is that by having an ongoing agreement, streaming the funds, having the funds held via the UAC, makes a strong system of accountability of Tally to the Uniswap DAO itself. We have concrete plans to open source much, if not all, of the Tally stack in the near future, so that should address other concerns, although frankly it would probably be more practical for folks to operate a Tally Zero than the complete Tally stack.
@SEEDGov @Tane @jayyu23
We would like to persuade you to support this proposal as a service agreement for software that we have built and will continue to develop, rather than as a grant or RFP. Meaning: we would like to be evaluated on the value we provide.
@SEEDGov @Tane @jayyu23
We would like to persuade you to support this proposal as a service agreement for software that we have built and will continue to develop, rather than as a grant or RFP. Meaning: we would like to be evaluated on the value we provide.
We firmly believe that in order for DAO's to succeed we need the economics of building the best tooling to work, and that involves eventually building a business that can at the very least sustain itself. We prefer if the proposal is evaluated on the question of "Is Tally worth this amount? Do they drive this much value?". If the value we are providing the Uniswap community is not evident, I would encourage delegates to vote "no" on our proposal as clearly we have failed in our attempt to build valuable software.
About us: In general we are about 15 people, mostly engineers. We pay folks health insurance, family leave (5 teammates have started families since joining Tally), state mandated unemployment insurance, legal bills, and taxes. Engineers rotate between building new features, refactoring software, security testing, and doing research and development on new feature ideas. Non-engineers work in customer management, client services, planning and sales. As the UF and other delegates can attest, we sometimes spend many hours working directly with delegates on crafting proposals and reviewing executable code. The fee we're requesting equates to about $20k per month, which to put into perspective, is far less than the salary of a single senior level software engineer in the United States. (Yes I know some parts of the world are cheaper, but senior engineers are valuable everywhere, and again, the team that builds Tally is based in the USA).
I firmly support an RFP process, but we're making a separate pitch here: we build many of these features for DAOs because we think they are valuable. We invest our own time and resources to do the research and pay for development. Because we are a platform and serve many orgs, we can be independent and build great software for everyone, and enable many of the delegates here to effectively operate across the ecosystem with the same great tools.
Our focus on building a business we think will also lead to better DAO outcomes (we think it already has!). Despite Uniswap funding numerous DAO interfaces (Including Agora at nearly the same price as we are requesting, and Sybil which is no longer used), Tally remains the most feature rich and popular tool in Uniswap, and the ecosystem at large.
This is all to say, I recognize your concern on ensuring funds are spent well. I would ask you to take a look at Tally, its contributions to the Uniswap ecosystem, and the wider Ethereum ecosystem, and DAOs in general, and support this proposal on the basis that it's providing the value we think it is.
Exclusivity:
Many of the features we build and distribute to everyone in the ecosystem, we believe strongly that a "rising tide raises all boats".
The Uniswap DAO has never asked us not to share work we've developed with any other DAO, and currently Uniswap benefits from a large number of features originally developed for other teams. I'm not clear why the Uniswap DAO would want to prevent another DAO from using features that they developed. The Uniswap DAO isn't in competition with any other DAO.
If the DAO wants to prevent another team from using something we custom develop, that can certainly be part of a custom scope agreement, but again, this service agreement would support us continuing to support Uniswap and bring it new features that are on our roadmap. These features on our roadmap are intended to help the entire ecosystem grow and prosper.
@jayyu23 - "multi-dipping"
As we move towards being a business that is self-sustaining, we will eventually offer a paid service tier to all of our communities. To be clear, no one client of Tally actually covers anywhere near the total operational cost of Tally. We're endeavoring to get there, but we're not there yet. We already have enterprise agreements with a number of DAOs, and for the teams with whom we don't, we will be creating proposals directly to their DAOs.
Gm, gm! :sparkles:
The results are in for the [TEMP CHECK] - Tally Uniswap Proposal off-chain proposal.
See how the community voted and more Uniswap stats: https://dhive.io/proposal/1486
@AbdullahUmar - We would prefer to be paid at the start of each quarter. The funds of this proposal go directly into salaries and operational costs which are paid out in real time, so it's important. The Uniswap Accountability Committee would be responsible for holding us accountable and we will provide metrics and reports so they clearly understand our progress.
Some future feature requests may surpass the current budget or simply cost more than anticipated. In such an event, would Tally return to the DAO with a revised budget or a one-off grant?
@AbdullahUmar - We would prefer to be paid at the start of each quarter. The funds of this proposal go directly into salaries and operational costs which are paid out in real time, so it's important. The Uniswap Accountability Committee would be responsible for holding us accountable and we will provide metrics and reports so they clearly understand our progress.
Some future feature requests may surpass the current budget or simply cost more than anticipated. In such an event, would Tally return to the DAO with a revised budget or a one-off grant?
Excellent question: It's very possible there will be feature requests that exceed our ability to implement within the scope of this document. In this case we would build a comprehensive proposal and implementation plan with budget to present to the DAO as a separate scope.
@justErik - Happy to address any specific questions. Tally services the entire DAO ecosystem, we're not an exclusive tool and indeed many of the delegates here use our tool across many DAOs. Uniswap Foundation funds several other tools, including VC backed tools. This is the first time Tally is requesting funding and we're really excited to create a relationship with the community.
Hello folks! Thanks for all the engagement- to answer a few more questions:
@GFXlabs - Yes we intend on making similar request to other major DAO's for the use of the interface. We're largely moving to find better alignment with our user base in a way that allows us to continue to reinvest and grow with the community.
Hello folks! Thanks for all the engagement- to answer a few more questions:
@GFXlabs - Yes we intend on making similar request to other major DAO's for the use of the interface. We're largely moving to find better alignment with our user base in a way that allows us to continue to reinvest and grow with the community.
@jengajojo - The Foundation currently funds Agora, see @eek637 comment above. Our request is about the same financially. Re: investment, we'll followup with the UF to see what appetite there might be for that.
@404DAO - Thanks for the suggestion to integrate Discourse profiles and Snapshot. Thats something I've personally wanted for a while so we'll put it on our list.
It’s a significant investment for Tally to maintain best in class support for the Uniswap DAO. Generally our revenue goes towards:
I've updated the proposal at the top to include more detail around metrics and reporting! EDIT: I can't find the edit functionality on my initial post, so I'll share here:
KPIs
Tally will provide a quarterly report for the Uniswap DAO, detailing key achievements, including uptime metrics, notes from Community Calls, support metrics, as well as enhancements to the Uniswap DAO’s governance on Tally (as outlined above).
Tally usage
Roadmap feature usage
Monthly office hours
Uptime and Availability
Response and Resolution Time
Maintenance and Support
Hey folks! Thank you everyone for your engagement. Give us a couple days, and we'll get back to you early next week with new responses!
Thank you!
hello @Userisky, Agora has raised Venture capital. I don't know the exact amount but it's substantial. I don't want to comment on their business though.
However, if Uniswap is contributing $500k in UNI over two years, it’s important to recognize that Tally would be benefiting significantly from the Uniswap brand,
hello @Userisky, Agora has raised Venture capital. I don't know the exact amount but it's substantial. I don't want to comment on their business though.
However, if Uniswap is contributing $500k in UNI over two years, it’s important to recognize that Tally would be benefiting significantly from the Uniswap brand,
I would hope that the feeling is mutual! Our goal is to make DAO's succeed, without whom, we don't have a business. I think we're pretty aligned in driving value both ways. Here we are requesting financial support for the service we're providing: providing value to the Uniswap DAO. The way we've structured the proposal, we only get paid if we continue to provide value!
Given this context, the Uniswap DAO should hold equal standing with the other DAOs that have provided funding in future token or equity discussions.
We wouldn't have it any other way. :heart_eyes: (Note: for legal reasons I can't actually talk about things like future tokens in a public forum. Happy to chat privately...)
I would support this proposal if it included language about fundraising, positioning the Uniswap DAO on similar footing with The LAO, FireEyes DAO, and MetaCartel Ventures.
All three of these DAO's have invested in Tally. We would be happy to discuss a Uniswap investment as well, but because you're not allowed to "solicit in public" that would have to be a very different discussion, with different stakeholder, most likely with the UF.
We would still want to pursue this proposal however, as the goal of this proposal is not investment, but a business relationship for products and services. If Uniswap feels Tally is a strategic resource (which we certainly feel it is!) happy to discuss investment separately with the UF, who would be the only qualified org (I think) we could technically discuss with. BTW: I AM NOT A LAWYER and this should not be considered legal advice nor solicitation. (Just answering a question Gensler!)
Hello @SEEDGov Thanks for the questions!
but we want to understand if these proposed improvements are essential and justify the 500k expense
As a software business we're continuously improving the product, testing the product, adding new features and security. It's not really possible for us to ship the best tool in the space and not make improvements. We've shown that the community continues to value the new features we ship as we add them as the product is used more and more. The $500k is over 24 months, which is quite a long time. (Half the DAO's lifespan thus far?) And the DAO maintains control over these funds with the ability to cancel them if at any point it feels Tally no longer contributes.
@kfx gassless voting security risks
This is an optional feature that was part of attempts to drive more participation among voters who otherwise won't participate due to gas costs.
We built a decentralized version of this system three years ago: Gas Refunder specifically to address these concerns, but we didn't find any market demand for it. It's exciting to hear that this is a concern, and happy to address this as a separate scope if there is interest in it.
@eek637 Thank you for your support! We're always happy to help in the proposal process.
Metrics + Accountability
We would be happy to provide metrics an accountability on a quarterly basis. As we mature as a business, we are also moving to move data driven decisions and we would be happy to share a version of that with the DAO. With think that data provides not only accountability but also helps inform our roadmap and the roadmap of the DAO's we work with. Usage and feedback is probably the most salient metric that we could provide. Some of the larger products on our Tally roadmap (Staking and Optimistic Governance) will involve participation from the Uniswap Community to help sheppard success, and we would be happy to lead some of these work streams if it would help.
Tally is my go-to platform for voting in DAOs. I agree with the proposal's premise and see the value that Tally provides. As you mentioned, Agora has received similar grant funding; however, to my knowledge, Agora has not raised equity capital. There’s a distinction between providing grants to teams in need of funding versus giving grants to well-funded companies.
Tally has raised at least $6 million from VCs and other DAOs, and I have no issue with fundraising. However, if Uniswap is contributing $500k in UNI over two years, it’s important to recognize that Tally would be benefiting significantly from the Uniswap brand, its user base, and the financial support aimed at helping Tally innovate its DAO-first features. This partnership should also reinforce the technical innovations that Tally offers, potentially setting standards for other DAOs on the platform. Given this context, the Uniswap DAO should hold equal standing with the other DAOs that have provided funding in future token or equity discussions.
All great questions @drllau_LexDAO. The Foundation does fund new governance work, but Tally largely serves the DAO and delegates themselves. Delegates frequently ask for new features, and we try to prioritize them as possible and as resources allow.
As a note: I think Uniswap should use the decentralized ddocs by the Fileverse and Filecoin teams. No need to sell our privacy to Alphabet.
All great questions @drllau_LexDAO. The Foundation does fund new governance work, but Tally largely serves the DAO and delegates themselves. Delegates frequently ask for new features, and we try to prioritize them as possible and as resources allow.
As a note: I think Uniswap should use the decentralized ddocs by the Fileverse and Filecoin teams. No need to sell our privacy to Alphabet.
For contestability, the DAO can simply stop paying for it. The Foundation has funded numerous other tools in the past and continues to do so. Tally is not the only DAO tool in Uniswap.
@Juanbug - Optimistic Governance is highly requested feature and we would be happy to talk more about it. Its very helpful in allowing governance to move at a higher rate and might be ideal for situations like new deployments on other chains where perhaps it's not necessary to convene the full DAO each time.
@kfx - We're totally aligned with you. Your worst case scenarios are very much top of mind for us. We prefer this proposal to look less like a grant and more like an on going relationship. Uniswap has provided grants previously for interfaces like Sybil but the grants structure is a poor design for ongoing relationships, and indeed Sybil itself no longer works.
We definitely think Tally Zero is ripe for funding as it's an insurance policy against centralization and censorship, but as @_JoJo alludes, the scope for it is quite large and we would prefer to break that out as a separate project if the DAO is excited about it.
Additionally a way to think about this proposal is that by having an ongoing agreement, streaming the funds, having the funds held via the UAC, makes a strong system of accountability of Tally to the Uniswap DAO itself. We have concrete plans to open source much, if not all, of the Tally stack in the near future, so that should address other concerns, although frankly it would probably be more practical for folks to operate a Tally Zero than the complete Tally stack.
Tally is my go-to platform for voting in DAOs. I agree with the proposal's premise and see the value that Tally provides. As you mentioned, Agora has received similar grant funding; however, to my knowledge, Agora has not raised equity capital. There’s a distinction between providing grants to teams in need of funding versus giving grants to well-funded companies.
Tally has raised at least $6 million from VCs and other DAOs, and I have no issue with fundraising. However, if Uniswap is contributing $500k in UNI over two years, it’s important to recognize that Tally would be benefiting significantly from the Uniswap brand, its user base, and the financial support aimed at helping Tally innovate its DAO-first features. This partnership should also reinforce the technical innovations that Tally offers, potentially setting standards for other DAOs on the platform. Given this context, the Uniswap DAO should hold equal standing with the other DAOs that have provided funding in future token or equity discussions.
While this may change the nature of the proposal from a "grant," it seems inappropriate to favor equity holders, such as VCs and other DAOs, at the expense of the UNI community. I believe in value alignment, especially when the costs are borne by the UNI community.
I would support this proposal if it included language about fundraising, positioning the Uniswap DAO on similar footing with The LAO, FireEyes DAO, and MetaCartel Ventures.
$250k / 10 proposals = $25k each (albeit less than full year).
Tally is my go-to platform for voting in DAOs. I agree with the proposal's premise and see the value that Tally provides. As you mentioned, Agora has received similar grant funding; however, to my knowledge, Agora has not raised equity capital. There’s a distinction between providing grants to teams in need of funding versus giving grants to well-funded companies.
Tally has raised at least $6 million from VCs and other DAOs, and I have no issue with fundraising. However, if Uniswap is contributing $500k in UNI over two years, it’s important to recognize that Tally would be benefiting significantly from the Uniswap brand, its user base, and the financial support aimed at helping Tally innovate its DAO-first features. This partnership should also reinforce the technical innovations that Tally offers, potentially setting standards for other DAOs on the platform. Given this context, the Uniswap DAO should hold equal standing with the other DAOs that have provided funding in future token or equity discussions.
While this may change the nature of the proposal from a "grant," it seems inappropriate to favor equity holders, such as VCs and other DAOs, at the expense of the UNI community. I believe in value alignment, especially when the costs are borne by the UNI community.
I would support this proposal if it included language about fundraising, positioning the Uniswap DAO on similar footing with The LAO, FireEyes DAO, and MetaCartel Ventures.
$250k / 10 proposals = $25k each (albeit less than full year).
Although we consider Tally as a key piece in decentralized governance in general and in Uniswap in particular, we unfortunately voted against this proposal because we believe it contains numerous deficiencies that have not been addressed after the offchain vote. Once these have been addressed and the issues clarified, we will undoubtedly support a proposal to support Tally from Uniswap.
You can read our rationale in our delegation thread:
Although we consider Tally as a key piece in decentralized governance in general and in Uniswap in particular, we unfortunately voted against this proposal because we believe it contains numerous deficiencies that have not been addressed after the offchain vote. Once these have been addressed and the issues clarified, we will undoubtedly support a proposal to support Tally from Uniswap.
You can read our rationale in our delegation thread:
We understand that the final proposal has serious deficiencies that prevent us from supporting it:
Therefore, we request the proponent @dennisonb to reformulate the proposal, to clarify and detail the issues raised.
And in the event that the proposal is approved, we strongly urge the UAC -CC: @AbdullahUmar- to be extremely diligent in analyzing quarterly reports, reporting KPIs and approving payments.
I am also grateful to Tally for developing their platform.
However, I partially agree with the previous speakers:
I am also grateful to Tally for developing their platform.
However, I partially agree with the previous speakers:
About us: In general we are about 15 people, mostly engineers. We pay folks health insurance, family leave (5 teammates have started families since joining Tally), state mandated unemployment insurance, legal bills, and taxes. Engineers rotate between building new features, refactoring software, security testing, and doing research and development on new feature ideas. Non-engineers work in customer management, client services, planning and sales. As the UF and other delegates can attest, we sometimes spend many hours working directly with delegates on crafting proposals and reviewing executable code. The fee we’re requesting equates to about $20k per month, which to put into perspective, is far less than the salary of a single senior level software engineer in the United States. (Yes I know some parts of the world are cheaper, but senior engineers are valuable everywhere, and again, the team that builds Tally is based in the USA).
This comment by @dennisonb might be what you're looking for.
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 the proposal.
Following our support during temp-check, we’re also voting in favor of Tally’s proposal during the onchain vote.
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 the proposal.
Following our support during temp-check, we’re also voting in favor of Tally’s proposal during the onchain vote.
While we have seen the discussion in the comments above and the concerns raised, we don't think they are severe enough to vote against this initiative. However, we encourage Tally to make an effort to address any concerns if the proposal is passed.
Hey everyone, First of all, congratulations on passing the proposal!
I truly respect the effort and dedication you've put into the Uniswap DAO. Personally, I voted against the proposal because I felt it didn’t meet the merits of a fundraising proposal. If it had been formatted as a service agreement, I likely would have voted in favor, all things considered.
Hey everyone, First of all, congratulations on passing the proposal!
I truly respect the effort and dedication you've put into the Uniswap DAO. Personally, I voted against the proposal because I felt it didn’t meet the merits of a fundraising proposal. If it had been formatted as a service agreement, I likely would have voted in favor, all things considered.
That said, I’d love to understand when the roadmap is expected to be announced.
Tally needs you, the DAO participant, to help shape the future of Uniswap DAO’s governance tooling. We would like to offer a monthly office hours as an open feedback session for Uniswap DAO contributors to suggest new features and contribute to our roadmap. We receive a lot of inbound from Uniswap DAO contributors in informal settings and we would like to open this process up to the DAO in a more formal way.
Having clarity on this would greatly enhance the ability of the UAC and delegates to assess whether the proposal is progressing towards completion or if it has become stagnant (stagnant meaning inactive or reduced to a simple service agreement).
Tally has been an essential tool with a user-friendly interface for Uniswap governance, we support this proposal to ensure Tally can continue upgrading and maintaining its platform, which has proven valuable for the Uniswap community.
After reviewing the discussion, particularly @dennisonb's response to @justErik regarding Tally’s commitment to serving the broader DAO ecosystem rather than being an exclusive tool, we see this proposal as a public good. As @Doo_StableLab mentioned, this funding is less about exclusivity and more about supporting a resource that benefits Uniswap.
Tally has been an essential tool with a user-friendly interface for Uniswap governance, we support this proposal to ensure Tally can continue upgrading and maintaining its platform, which has proven valuable for the Uniswap community.
After reviewing the discussion, particularly @dennisonb's response to @justErik regarding Tally’s commitment to serving the broader DAO ecosystem rather than being an exclusive tool, we see this proposal as a public good. As @Doo_StableLab mentioned, this funding is less about exclusivity and more about supporting a resource that benefits Uniswap.
While we support this initiative as a public good, it would be prudent to set conditions to protect Uniswap’s interests. We also believe that establishing clear KPIs and commitments for ongoing support would enhance Tally’s accountability. For instance, if Tally were to discontinue the platform immediately after the two-year of funding period (which we believe is unlikely), safeguards against premature closure would be beneficial. Open-sourcing portions of the funded code could provide continuity for the community should circumstances change post-funding.
We believe the funding amount requested by Tally is reasonable, especially considering their proven track record and consistent contributions to Uniswap governance. Additionally, this amount aligns with previous Uniswap Foundation grants, such as the similar-sized grant provided to Agora, which was also aimed at supporting a tool integral to our governance framework.
We voted in favour of this snapshot proposal, although we have some concerns that we believe should be resolved before the onchain vote. You can read our rationale in our delegation thread:
GFX will vote in favor of Tally's proposal because we believe Tally should be a core service provider to the DAO. They have been our go-to governance interface since 2021 and have always supported us and other delegates in making proposals and researching governance activity.
As far as we know, this is the first time Tally has made this sort of request to a DAO. Does Tally plan on making similar requests to other major DAOs on its interface?
Thanks @dennisonb for the RFC. Tally has been instrumental to Uniswap's governance infrastructure, and we unequivocally support this proposal. However, to maximize value for both parties, several critical points must be addressed:
Gauntlet has voted in favor of the Snapshot. Tally has been an invaluable tooling provider in the DAO space for years. That said, we do believe KPIs and Deliverables are important to any grant. We also understand it's difficult to foresee what development priorities will arise. Still, the more specific the scope of any grant, the easier it will be to ensure the DAO receives appropriate services.
An additional area we'd love to see Tally explore is the front-end integration of the greater DAO tooling stack. The UAC integration is a great example, but it's an encouraging vision for future integrations to have immediate financial support, whether it's tooling in treasury management, grant programs, administration, or offchain voting.
As the usage data show, and as the above comments have illustrated, Tally is the go-to voting platform for many—our team is no exception. We will therefore be supporting this proposal.
Before moving forward, there should be an explicit statement regarding whether or not the UAC pays out a distribution after a particular quarter. In other words, if this proposal is voted in, is the default option of the UAC to simply pay out quarterly distributions? In this case, if the platform is maintained well without hiccups, Tally gets paid. Or is the UAC meant to pay Tally based on quarterly metrics and deliverables? The latter option seems less reasonable from an upkeep perspective, but product-based accountability, like delivering on optimistic governance, would require the UAC to ensure timelines are met. It would be nice to outline this roadmap more explicitly, if possible. We understand that some feature requests will be introduced as a need arises.
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.
We believe this proposal is overdue as Tally has been a important governance infrastructure Uniswap governance relies on and yet does not get as much support as it should. As a delegate myself, Tally has been easier to use as well as more responsive to feedback.
Tally in our perspective is a public good that directly benefits Uniswap and with this proposal, believe that there can be more collaboration and focus on supporting uniswap governance from Tally side.
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 are voting FOR the proposal.
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 are voting FOR the proposal.
We recognize and value the contributions Tally has made to Uniswap and the broader Ethereum ecosystem, particularly in the DAO landscape. As delegates in multiple protocols, we’ve crossed paths with Tally numerous times and frequently use their voting platform, even in cases like Uniswap, where multiple front-ends exist.
In general, we’re supportive of proposals that enable and support the development of DAO infrastructure and tooling, as we understand the difficulty of building them. While, as some other delegates pointed out, Tally has received support from other protocols (and might receive it again in the future), we must not disregard the time and resources it takes to develop features across chains or for different protocols.
Tally having received a grant to develop a feature for Protocol A doesn’t necessarily translate to Protocol B being able to ‘plug-and-play’ with the same feature. For this reason, we are looking at this proposal and assessing it based simply on its merit within Uniswap, and we do not seek to compare it to Tally’s presence elsewhere.
Having said that, we believe the scope of work outlined in the proposal and the funding request is reasonable and that Tally is well-positioned to deliver value that will be well worth the funds.
One thing we’d like to mention, however, is that there should be some sort of oversight and ownership counterparty to ensure that a) the funds are being used correctly, b) will work with Tally to ensure that features developed, align with the needs and direction of the DAO, and c) Tally meets the KPIs they’ve set forward and delivers the new features or shows concrete progress towards their completion.
We believe the most suitable entity for that oversight to be either the Uniswap Foundation, or the UAC.
Although we consider Tally as a key piece in decentralized governance in general and in Uniswap in particular, we unfortunately voted against this proposal because we believe it contains numerous deficiencies that have not been addressed after the offchain vote. Once these have been addressed and the issues clarified, we will undoubtedly support a proposal to support Tally from Uniswap.
You can read our rationale in our delegation thread:
Although we consider Tally as a key piece in decentralized governance in general and in Uniswap in particular, we unfortunately voted against this proposal because we believe it contains numerous deficiencies that have not been addressed after the offchain vote. Once these have been addressed and the issues clarified, we will undoubtedly support a proposal to support Tally from Uniswap.
You can read our rationale in our delegation thread:
We understand that the final proposal has serious deficiencies that prevent us from supporting it:
Therefore, we request the proponent @dennisonb to reformulate the proposal, to clarify and detail the issues raised.
And in the event that the proposal is approved, we strongly urge the UAC -CC: @AbdullahUmar- to be extremely diligent in analyzing quarterly reports, reporting KPIs and approving payments.
I am also grateful to Tally for developing their platform.
However, I partially agree with the previous speakers:
I am also grateful to Tally for developing their platform.
However, I partially agree with the previous speakers:
About us: In general we are about 15 people, mostly engineers. We pay folks health insurance, family leave (5 teammates have started families since joining Tally), state mandated unemployment insurance, legal bills, and taxes. Engineers rotate between building new features, refactoring software, security testing, and doing research and development on new feature ideas. Non-engineers work in customer management, client services, planning and sales. As the UF and other delegates can attest, we sometimes spend many hours working directly with delegates on crafting proposals and reviewing executable code. The fee we’re requesting equates to about $20k per month, which to put into perspective, is far less than the salary of a single senior level software engineer in the United States. (Yes I know some parts of the world are cheaper, but senior engineers are valuable everywhere, and again, the team that builds Tally is based in the USA).
This comment by @dennisonb might be what you're looking for.
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 the proposal.
Following our support during temp-check, we’re also voting in favor of Tally’s proposal during the onchain vote.
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 the proposal.
Following our support during temp-check, we’re also voting in favor of Tally’s proposal during the onchain vote.
While we have seen the discussion in the comments above and the concerns raised, we don't think they are severe enough to vote against this initiative. However, we encourage Tally to make an effort to address any concerns if the proposal is passed.
Hey everyone, First of all, congratulations on passing the proposal!
I truly respect the effort and dedication you've put into the Uniswap DAO. Personally, I voted against the proposal because I felt it didn’t meet the merits of a fundraising proposal. If it had been formatted as a service agreement, I likely would have voted in favor, all things considered.
Hey everyone, First of all, congratulations on passing the proposal!
I truly respect the effort and dedication you've put into the Uniswap DAO. Personally, I voted against the proposal because I felt it didn’t meet the merits of a fundraising proposal. If it had been formatted as a service agreement, I likely would have voted in favor, all things considered.
That said, I’d love to understand when the roadmap is expected to be announced.
Tally needs you, the DAO participant, to help shape the future of Uniswap DAO’s governance tooling. We would like to offer a monthly office hours as an open feedback session for Uniswap DAO contributors to suggest new features and contribute to our roadmap. We receive a lot of inbound from Uniswap DAO contributors in informal settings and we would like to open this process up to the DAO in a more formal way.
Having clarity on this would greatly enhance the ability of the UAC and delegates to assess whether the proposal is progressing towards completion or if it has become stagnant (stagnant meaning inactive or reduced to a simple service agreement).
Tally has been an essential tool with a user-friendly interface for Uniswap governance, we support this proposal to ensure Tally can continue upgrading and maintaining its platform, which has proven valuable for the Uniswap community.
After reviewing the discussion, particularly @dennisonb's response to @justErik regarding Tally’s commitment to serving the broader DAO ecosystem rather than being an exclusive tool, we see this proposal as a public good. As @Doo_StableLab mentioned, this funding is less about exclusivity and more about supporting a resource that benefits Uniswap.
Tally has been an essential tool with a user-friendly interface for Uniswap governance, we support this proposal to ensure Tally can continue upgrading and maintaining its platform, which has proven valuable for the Uniswap community.
After reviewing the discussion, particularly @dennisonb's response to @justErik regarding Tally’s commitment to serving the broader DAO ecosystem rather than being an exclusive tool, we see this proposal as a public good. As @Doo_StableLab mentioned, this funding is less about exclusivity and more about supporting a resource that benefits Uniswap.
While we support this initiative as a public good, it would be prudent to set conditions to protect Uniswap’s interests. We also believe that establishing clear KPIs and commitments for ongoing support would enhance Tally’s accountability. For instance, if Tally were to discontinue the platform immediately after the two-year of funding period (which we believe is unlikely), safeguards against premature closure would be beneficial. Open-sourcing portions of the funded code could provide continuity for the community should circumstances change post-funding.
We believe the funding amount requested by Tally is reasonable, especially considering their proven track record and consistent contributions to Uniswap governance. Additionally, this amount aligns with previous Uniswap Foundation grants, such as the similar-sized grant provided to Agora, which was also aimed at supporting a tool integral to our governance framework.
We voted in favour of this snapshot proposal, although we have some concerns that we believe should be resolved before the onchain vote. You can read our rationale in our delegation thread:
GFX will vote in favor of Tally's proposal because we believe Tally should be a core service provider to the DAO. They have been our go-to governance interface since 2021 and have always supported us and other delegates in making proposals and researching governance activity.
As far as we know, this is the first time Tally has made this sort of request to a DAO. Does Tally plan on making similar requests to other major DAOs on its interface?
Thanks @dennisonb for the RFC. Tally has been instrumental to Uniswap's governance infrastructure, and we unequivocally support this proposal. However, to maximize value for both parties, several critical points must be addressed:
Gauntlet has voted in favor of the Snapshot. Tally has been an invaluable tooling provider in the DAO space for years. That said, we do believe KPIs and Deliverables are important to any grant. We also understand it's difficult to foresee what development priorities will arise. Still, the more specific the scope of any grant, the easier it will be to ensure the DAO receives appropriate services.
An additional area we'd love to see Tally explore is the front-end integration of the greater DAO tooling stack. The UAC integration is a great example, but it's an encouraging vision for future integrations to have immediate financial support, whether it's tooling in treasury management, grant programs, administration, or offchain voting.
As the usage data show, and as the above comments have illustrated, Tally is the go-to voting platform for many—our team is no exception. We will therefore be supporting this proposal.
Before moving forward, there should be an explicit statement regarding whether or not the UAC pays out a distribution after a particular quarter. In other words, if this proposal is voted in, is the default option of the UAC to simply pay out quarterly distributions? In this case, if the platform is maintained well without hiccups, Tally gets paid. Or is the UAC meant to pay Tally based on quarterly metrics and deliverables? The latter option seems less reasonable from an upkeep perspective, but product-based accountability, like delivering on optimistic governance, would require the UAC to ensure timelines are met. It would be nice to outline this roadmap more explicitly, if possible. We understand that some feature requests will be introduced as a need arises.
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.
We believe this proposal is overdue as Tally has been a important governance infrastructure Uniswap governance relies on and yet does not get as much support as it should. As a delegate myself, Tally has been easier to use as well as more responsive to feedback.
Tally in our perspective is a public good that directly benefits Uniswap and with this proposal, believe that there can be more collaboration and focus on supporting uniswap governance from Tally side.
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 are voting FOR the proposal.
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 are voting FOR the proposal.
We recognize and value the contributions Tally has made to Uniswap and the broader Ethereum ecosystem, particularly in the DAO landscape. As delegates in multiple protocols, we’ve crossed paths with Tally numerous times and frequently use their voting platform, even in cases like Uniswap, where multiple front-ends exist.
In general, we’re supportive of proposals that enable and support the development of DAO infrastructure and tooling, as we understand the difficulty of building them. While, as some other delegates pointed out, Tally has received support from other protocols (and might receive it again in the future), we must not disregard the time and resources it takes to develop features across chains or for different protocols.
Tally having received a grant to develop a feature for Protocol A doesn’t necessarily translate to Protocol B being able to ‘plug-and-play’ with the same feature. For this reason, we are looking at this proposal and assessing it based simply on its merit within Uniswap, and we do not seek to compare it to Tally’s presence elsewhere.
Having said that, we believe the scope of work outlined in the proposal and the funding request is reasonable and that Tally is well-positioned to deliver value that will be well worth the funds.
One thing we’d like to mention, however, is that there should be some sort of oversight and ownership counterparty to ensure that a) the funds are being used correctly, b) will work with Tally to ensure that features developed, align with the needs and direction of the DAO, and c) Tally meets the KPIs they’ve set forward and delivers the new features or shows concrete progress towards their completion.
We believe the most suitable entity for that oversight to be either the Uniswap Foundation, or the UAC.
We voted in favour of this snapshot proposal, although we have some concerns that we believe should be resolved before the onchain vote. You can read our rationale in our delegation thread:
However, we strongly encourage the proposer @dennisonb, if the snapshot proposal is approved, to clarify and deepen some issues raised by other delegates, such as all the suggestions and questions made by @tane, which we consider very important to be resolved before the on-chain vote, and even the question we asked that has not been answered, in the sense of clarifying whether the improvements and new features proposed in the roadmap to be financed by Uniswap will be exclusive and specifically developed tailor-made for Uniswap or whether they will be general features offered to any other user/DAO and, if so, which other users/DAOs besides Uniswap will finance them.
Thanks @dennisonb for the RFC. Tally has been instrumental to Uniswap's governance infrastructure, and we unequivocally support this proposal. However, to maximize value for both parties, several critical points must be addressed:
Given Tally's proven track record in advancing Uniswap governance, we advocate establishing a sustainable funding framework to ensure their continued partnership. Their expertise remains valuable, but funding decisions must align with proper governance protocols.
Gauntlet has voted in favor of the Snapshot. Tally has been an invaluable tooling provider in the DAO space for years. That said, we do believe KPIs and Deliverables are important to any grant. We also understand it's difficult to foresee what development priorities will arise. Still, the more specific the scope of any grant, the easier it will be to ensure the DAO receives appropriate services.
An additional area we'd love to see Tally explore is the front-end integration of the greater DAO tooling stack. The UAC integration is a great example, but it's an encouraging vision for future integrations to have immediate financial support, whether it's tooling in treasury management, grant programs, administration, or offchain voting.
Tally certainly has the potential to serve as a decentralized "operational hub" for Uniswap beyond just voting; as more onchain solutions become integrated with the Uniswap governance stack, it's a natural fit for Tally to have the financial resources to help integrate those tools into the Tally front-end so both delegates and stakeholders can have a seamless experience exploring the DAOs activities, operations, and governance.
As the usage data show, and as the above comments have illustrated, Tally is the go-to voting platform for many—our team is no exception. We will therefore be supporting this proposal.
Before moving forward, there should be an explicit statement regarding whether or not the UAC pays out a distribution after a particular quarter. In other words, if this proposal is voted in, is the default option of the UAC to simply pay out quarterly distributions? In this case, if the platform is maintained well without hiccups, Tally gets paid. Or is the UAC meant to pay Tally based on quarterly metrics and deliverables? The latter option seems less reasonable from an upkeep perspective, but product-based accountability, like delivering on optimistic governance, would require the UAC to ensure timelines are met. It would be nice to outline this roadmap more explicitly, if possible. We understand that some feature requests will be introduced as a need arises.
We are also assuming that a part of the $62.5k essentially amortizes costs associated with higher R&D workload during certain quarters, while other quarters may primarily be composed of regular operations and upkeep. If this is the case, it would be nice for the DAO to have a guarantee that all costs associated with prospective developments will be included in this current cost structure. Some future feature requests may surpass the current budget or simply cost more than anticipated. In such an event, would Tally return to the DAO with a revised budget or a one-off grant? Ideally, if this proposal passes, the $500k across 2 years is fixed to prevent governance overhead.
I agree with the opinions of other delegates when it comes to acknowledging and thanking tally for their participation and contribution to the DAO. At the same time I do agree that this is a legitimate concern:
We don’t want to end up in a situation where Tally becomes the de facto only method for interacting with governance, and a DoS attack or geofencing of Tally’s servers makes the DAO inoperational. (Considering worst-case scenarios here)
I agree with the opinions of other delegates when it comes to acknowledging and thanking tally for their participation and contribution to the DAO. At the same time I do agree that this is a legitimate concern:
We don’t want to end up in a situation where Tally becomes the de facto only method for interacting with governance, and a DoS attack or geofencing of Tally’s servers makes the DAO inoperational. (Considering worst-case scenarios here)
Perhaps the DAO/Foundation should consider funding alternative service providers along with tally to mitigate this risk.
We would be happy to discuss a Uniswap investment as well, but because you’re not allowed to “solicit in public” that would have to be a very different discussion, with different stakeholder, most likely with the UF.
For a request of this size, we would like to see a cost breakdown —this would help delegates more effectively evaluate the proposal. Additionally, echoing Erin’s comment, we would like to see KPIs to measure success and hold the team accountable.
As many DAO delegates have written previously, Tally has become an indispensable service provider for our daily tasks on on-chain voting, and we're fully supportive of this funding request.
However, we do share some of the "multi-dipping" considerations that other delegates have mentioned. Can we have more clarity on approximately how many other DAOs Tally seeks to ask for funding and the overall distribution? I also second Tane's suggestion that it would also be great to understand how "exclusive" the Uniswap DAO funds are to Tally's development on Uniswap vs. DAOs in general.
We would like to thank @dennisonb for posting this RFC. Tally has proven to be a critical infrastructure tool for Uniswap governance, and we are excited to see a formal business relationship take shape. Beyond Tally's technical value, what truly stands out is the team's customer support. Every time that we have reached out with a product question, the Tally team is quick to respond and address our needs, consistently providing white-glove support.
With that said, we would like to request some additional information. For a request of this size, we would like to see a cost breakdown —this would help delegates more effectively evaluate the proposal. Additionally, echoing Erin’s comment, we would like to see KPIs to measure success and hold the team accountable.
We would like to thank @dennisonb for posting this RFC. Tally has proven to be a critical infrastructure tool for Uniswap governance, and we are excited to see a formal business relationship take shape. Beyond Tally's technical value, what truly stands out is the team's customer support. Every time that we have reached out with a product question, the Tally team is quick to respond and address our needs, consistently providing white-glove support.
With that said, we would like to request some additional information. For a request of this size, we would like to see a cost breakdown —this would help delegates more effectively evaluate the proposal. Additionally, echoing Erin’s comment, we would like to see KPIs to measure success and hold the team accountable.
In closing, we've been considering governance improvements that Tally could help implement. One idea we'd love to see is UI/UX enhancements for delegate profile pages. For instance, integrating Discourse and Snapshot could allow anyone to easily view a delegate’s full voting rationale, helping to reduce information fragmentation.
The UF does not fund Tally. We've given a grant to Agora for their work on vote.uniswapfoundation.org.
I am supportive of this proposal for a lot of the reasons mentioned above, and because the Tally team has a long history of supporting Uniswap governance ops. I have personally likely consumed many of their engineering hours debugging a couple of complex proposals last winter.
The UF does not fund Tally. We've given a grant to Agora for their work on vote.uniswapfoundation.org.
I am supportive of this proposal for a lot of the reasons mentioned above, and because the Tally team has a long history of supporting Uniswap governance ops. I have personally likely consumed many of their engineering hours debugging a couple of complex proposals last winter.
I'd also just note that this is a nascent category, and teams are iterating quickly to figure out which features add value. Different teams will take different approaches to customer discovery and development. Having lots of talented builders in this space is good for decentralized governance generally and having them focus on Uniswap is good for us specifically.
One thing that'd be good to add is a process for accountability as it relates to the roadmap and milestones, and to come up with some KPIs that accompany whatever that process looks like. If Tally delivers the 5 things listed on the roadmap, what will that impact and how will we know? Could be just that quarterly report, but i think it's important to tie the features to metrics (i don't know what those metrics are, but sure the tally team's thought about it).
We do not doubt the value that Tally brings to Uniswap and to all governance where the tool is used, but we want to understand if these proposed improvements are essential and justify the 500k expense, and even if the proposed improvements are tailor-made for Uniswap or if they are for general purposes, in which case they should not be exclusively funded by Uniswap.
...
For contestability, the DAO can simply stop paying for it. The Foundation has funded numerous other tools in the past and continues to do so. Tally is not the only DAO tool in Uniswap.
On this point, we would like to ask a specific question. Does the Foundation currently fund Tally? In what amount and for what period of time? @eek637, can you please give us some details on this? If the answer is yes, we understand that there could be double funding if it receives funds from the Foundation and from the DAO.
In my view, gasless voting through Tally’s relayer introduces a significant security risk. Relayers can censor or delay votes (including due to technical problems – faults, not frauds). While delegates can always resubmit their votes using on-chain transactions, this may require considerable diligence on the part of the voter, and if the DAO vote is contentious, it could lead to problematic situations.
This is important to us. Could you please give us some more details on this?
We strongly support this proposal.
Tally is a valuable platform that is effectively enabling governance for Uniswap DAO and other leading DAOs. Additionally, its team members are active participants in Uniswap DAO - this both contributes to the continuous improvement of Tally (with them experiencing using Tally for voting first hand) and to creating a healthy Uniswap DAO ecosystem. Finally, we always had a positive experience with the team in our interactions with them. They are open to dialogue, and receptive to promptly solving issues.
Excited to see this; taking a step back, the increased prevalence and use of Tally is impressive but not at all surprising. It seems like the go to wording used whenever we or anyone we know proposes a vote on Uni.
Glassless voting would be nice, and we're interested in more regarding optimistic governance and the role of a council. Since that isn't something Uni has done yet, would be interested in seeing how this could play out, especially with some other DAOs seemingly implementing it pretty well.
Excited to see this; taking a step back, the increased prevalence and use of Tally is impressive but not at all surprising. It seems like the go to wording used whenever we or anyone we know proposes a vote on Uni.
Glassless voting would be nice, and we're interested in more regarding optimistic governance and the role of a council. Since that isn't something Uni has done yet, would be interested in seeing how this could play out, especially with some other DAOs seemingly implementing it pretty well.
With respect to sending funding to UAC, the quarterly payout makes sense; not sure if the 50% buffer is needed. The UAC conducts payments and budgets in $ terms and if the price of UNI falls such that the allocated budgets run out of funding, the team will request a buffer repayment, as most recently per vote 70.
Overall, we are definitely interested in Tally getting official "DAO support" and think they def deserve some sort of "grant' for continued operations and increased features.
I strongly support funding Tally. It has been essential to the DAO.
However, a grant could also be a good opportunity to shape the work somewhat.
I strongly support funding Tally. It has been essential to the DAO.
However, a grant could also be a good opportunity to shape the work somewhat.
We don't want to end up in a situation where Tally becomes the de facto only method for interacting with governance, and a DoS attack or geofencing of Tally's servers makes the DAO inoperational. (Considering worst-case scenarios here)
In my view, gasless voting through Tally's relayer introduces a significant security risk. Relayers can censor or delay votes (including due to technical problems – faults, not frauds). While delegates can always resubmit their votes using on-chain transactions, this may require considerable diligence on the part of the voter, and if the DAO vote is contentious, it could lead to problematic situations.
It would be great if critical parts of Tally's code, such as the relayer, are open source and sufficiently documented to be auditable and forkable by third parties, so that community or DAO-controlled backup interface and/or relayer can be run. As a minimum, the Tally relayer should be designed in a way that makes verifying their votes on a block explorer easy and part of the standard workflow for delegates. (Ultimately, as better solution in the long term could be to simply move the voting to an L2 with low gas fees.)
Tally is becoming the de facto platform for on chain governance. This is good, because we literally have people from tally actively contributing in uniswap, and in other daos.
On a very general level, i think there should be coordination and support between Uniswap and Tally: this should translate both in custom developments if needed specifically tailored for this ecosystem, and in a broader support.
Tally is becoming the de facto platform for on chain governance. This is good, because we literally have people from tally actively contributing in uniswap, and in other daos.
On a very general level, i think there should be coordination and support between Uniswap and Tally: this should translate both in custom developments if needed specifically tailored for this ecosystem, and in a broader support.
I also support what posted by @kfx but in a broader spectrum.
the Tally relayer should be designed in a way that makes verifying their votes on a block explorer easy and part of the standard workflow for delegates.
This is related, and we discussed in other places about it, as Tally as critical infrastructure of the DAO. There should be a general push for robustness: tally zero is good, but is not widely known and used. Making it easier to reach, making it as close as possible on the experience of the normal front end of tally, and even producing materials on how to use it is becoming more and more important; making actions and txs going through tally easy to read in an explorer for non savvy users, as well important.
We voted in favour of this snapshot proposal, although we have some concerns that we believe should be resolved before the onchain vote. You can read our rationale in our delegation thread:
However, we strongly encourage the proposer @dennisonb, if the snapshot proposal is approved, to clarify and deepen some issues raised by other delegates, such as all the suggestions and questions made by @tane, which we consider very important to be resolved before the on-chain vote, and even the question we asked that has not been answered, in the sense of clarifying whether the improvements and new features proposed in the roadmap to be financed by Uniswap will be exclusive and specifically developed tailor-made for Uniswap or whether they will be general features offered to any other user/DAO and, if so, which other users/DAOs besides Uniswap will finance them.
Thanks @dennisonb for the RFC. Tally has been instrumental to Uniswap's governance infrastructure, and we unequivocally support this proposal. However, to maximize value for both parties, several critical points must be addressed:
Given Tally's proven track record in advancing Uniswap governance, we advocate establishing a sustainable funding framework to ensure their continued partnership. Their expertise remains valuable, but funding decisions must align with proper governance protocols.
Gauntlet has voted in favor of the Snapshot. Tally has been an invaluable tooling provider in the DAO space for years. That said, we do believe KPIs and Deliverables are important to any grant. We also understand it's difficult to foresee what development priorities will arise. Still, the more specific the scope of any grant, the easier it will be to ensure the DAO receives appropriate services.
An additional area we'd love to see Tally explore is the front-end integration of the greater DAO tooling stack. The UAC integration is a great example, but it's an encouraging vision for future integrations to have immediate financial support, whether it's tooling in treasury management, grant programs, administration, or offchain voting.
Tally certainly has the potential to serve as a decentralized "operational hub" for Uniswap beyond just voting; as more onchain solutions become integrated with the Uniswap governance stack, it's a natural fit for Tally to have the financial resources to help integrate those tools into the Tally front-end so both delegates and stakeholders can have a seamless experience exploring the DAOs activities, operations, and governance.
As the usage data show, and as the above comments have illustrated, Tally is the go-to voting platform for many—our team is no exception. We will therefore be supporting this proposal.
Before moving forward, there should be an explicit statement regarding whether or not the UAC pays out a distribution after a particular quarter. In other words, if this proposal is voted in, is the default option of the UAC to simply pay out quarterly distributions? In this case, if the platform is maintained well without hiccups, Tally gets paid. Or is the UAC meant to pay Tally based on quarterly metrics and deliverables? The latter option seems less reasonable from an upkeep perspective, but product-based accountability, like delivering on optimistic governance, would require the UAC to ensure timelines are met. It would be nice to outline this roadmap more explicitly, if possible. We understand that some feature requests will be introduced as a need arises.
We are also assuming that a part of the $62.5k essentially amortizes costs associated with higher R&D workload during certain quarters, while other quarters may primarily be composed of regular operations and upkeep. If this is the case, it would be nice for the DAO to have a guarantee that all costs associated with prospective developments will be included in this current cost structure. Some future feature requests may surpass the current budget or simply cost more than anticipated. In such an event, would Tally return to the DAO with a revised budget or a one-off grant? Ideally, if this proposal passes, the $500k across 2 years is fixed to prevent governance overhead.
I agree with the opinions of other delegates when it comes to acknowledging and thanking tally for their participation and contribution to the DAO. At the same time I do agree that this is a legitimate concern:
We don’t want to end up in a situation where Tally becomes the de facto only method for interacting with governance, and a DoS attack or geofencing of Tally’s servers makes the DAO inoperational. (Considering worst-case scenarios here)
I agree with the opinions of other delegates when it comes to acknowledging and thanking tally for their participation and contribution to the DAO. At the same time I do agree that this is a legitimate concern:
We don’t want to end up in a situation where Tally becomes the de facto only method for interacting with governance, and a DoS attack or geofencing of Tally’s servers makes the DAO inoperational. (Considering worst-case scenarios here)
Perhaps the DAO/Foundation should consider funding alternative service providers along with tally to mitigate this risk.
We would be happy to discuss a Uniswap investment as well, but because you’re not allowed to “solicit in public” that would have to be a very different discussion, with different stakeholder, most likely with the UF.
For a request of this size, we would like to see a cost breakdown —this would help delegates more effectively evaluate the proposal. Additionally, echoing Erin’s comment, we would like to see KPIs to measure success and hold the team accountable.
As many DAO delegates have written previously, Tally has become an indispensable service provider for our daily tasks on on-chain voting, and we're fully supportive of this funding request.
However, we do share some of the "multi-dipping" considerations that other delegates have mentioned. Can we have more clarity on approximately how many other DAOs Tally seeks to ask for funding and the overall distribution? I also second Tane's suggestion that it would also be great to understand how "exclusive" the Uniswap DAO funds are to Tally's development on Uniswap vs. DAOs in general.
We would like to thank @dennisonb for posting this RFC. Tally has proven to be a critical infrastructure tool for Uniswap governance, and we are excited to see a formal business relationship take shape. Beyond Tally's technical value, what truly stands out is the team's customer support. Every time that we have reached out with a product question, the Tally team is quick to respond and address our needs, consistently providing white-glove support.
With that said, we would like to request some additional information. For a request of this size, we would like to see a cost breakdown —this would help delegates more effectively evaluate the proposal. Additionally, echoing Erin’s comment, we would like to see KPIs to measure success and hold the team accountable.
We would like to thank @dennisonb for posting this RFC. Tally has proven to be a critical infrastructure tool for Uniswap governance, and we are excited to see a formal business relationship take shape. Beyond Tally's technical value, what truly stands out is the team's customer support. Every time that we have reached out with a product question, the Tally team is quick to respond and address our needs, consistently providing white-glove support.
With that said, we would like to request some additional information. For a request of this size, we would like to see a cost breakdown —this would help delegates more effectively evaluate the proposal. Additionally, echoing Erin’s comment, we would like to see KPIs to measure success and hold the team accountable.
In closing, we've been considering governance improvements that Tally could help implement. One idea we'd love to see is UI/UX enhancements for delegate profile pages. For instance, integrating Discourse and Snapshot could allow anyone to easily view a delegate’s full voting rationale, helping to reduce information fragmentation.
The UF does not fund Tally. We've given a grant to Agora for their work on vote.uniswapfoundation.org.
I am supportive of this proposal for a lot of the reasons mentioned above, and because the Tally team has a long history of supporting Uniswap governance ops. I have personally likely consumed many of their engineering hours debugging a couple of complex proposals last winter.
The UF does not fund Tally. We've given a grant to Agora for their work on vote.uniswapfoundation.org.
I am supportive of this proposal for a lot of the reasons mentioned above, and because the Tally team has a long history of supporting Uniswap governance ops. I have personally likely consumed many of their engineering hours debugging a couple of complex proposals last winter.
I'd also just note that this is a nascent category, and teams are iterating quickly to figure out which features add value. Different teams will take different approaches to customer discovery and development. Having lots of talented builders in this space is good for decentralized governance generally and having them focus on Uniswap is good for us specifically.
One thing that'd be good to add is a process for accountability as it relates to the roadmap and milestones, and to come up with some KPIs that accompany whatever that process looks like. If Tally delivers the 5 things listed on the roadmap, what will that impact and how will we know? Could be just that quarterly report, but i think it's important to tie the features to metrics (i don't know what those metrics are, but sure the tally team's thought about it).
We do not doubt the value that Tally brings to Uniswap and to all governance where the tool is used, but we want to understand if these proposed improvements are essential and justify the 500k expense, and even if the proposed improvements are tailor-made for Uniswap or if they are for general purposes, in which case they should not be exclusively funded by Uniswap.
...
For contestability, the DAO can simply stop paying for it. The Foundation has funded numerous other tools in the past and continues to do so. Tally is not the only DAO tool in Uniswap.
On this point, we would like to ask a specific question. Does the Foundation currently fund Tally? In what amount and for what period of time? @eek637, can you please give us some details on this? If the answer is yes, we understand that there could be double funding if it receives funds from the Foundation and from the DAO.
In my view, gasless voting through Tally’s relayer introduces a significant security risk. Relayers can censor or delay votes (including due to technical problems – faults, not frauds). While delegates can always resubmit their votes using on-chain transactions, this may require considerable diligence on the part of the voter, and if the DAO vote is contentious, it could lead to problematic situations.
This is important to us. Could you please give us some more details on this?
We strongly support this proposal.
Tally is a valuable platform that is effectively enabling governance for Uniswap DAO and other leading DAOs. Additionally, its team members are active participants in Uniswap DAO - this both contributes to the continuous improvement of Tally (with them experiencing using Tally for voting first hand) and to creating a healthy Uniswap DAO ecosystem. Finally, we always had a positive experience with the team in our interactions with them. They are open to dialogue, and receptive to promptly solving issues.
Excited to see this; taking a step back, the increased prevalence and use of Tally is impressive but not at all surprising. It seems like the go to wording used whenever we or anyone we know proposes a vote on Uni.
Glassless voting would be nice, and we're interested in more regarding optimistic governance and the role of a council. Since that isn't something Uni has done yet, would be interested in seeing how this could play out, especially with some other DAOs seemingly implementing it pretty well.
Excited to see this; taking a step back, the increased prevalence and use of Tally is impressive but not at all surprising. It seems like the go to wording used whenever we or anyone we know proposes a vote on Uni.
Glassless voting would be nice, and we're interested in more regarding optimistic governance and the role of a council. Since that isn't something Uni has done yet, would be interested in seeing how this could play out, especially with some other DAOs seemingly implementing it pretty well.
With respect to sending funding to UAC, the quarterly payout makes sense; not sure if the 50% buffer is needed. The UAC conducts payments and budgets in $ terms and if the price of UNI falls such that the allocated budgets run out of funding, the team will request a buffer repayment, as most recently per vote 70.
Overall, we are definitely interested in Tally getting official "DAO support" and think they def deserve some sort of "grant' for continued operations and increased features.
I strongly support funding Tally. It has been essential to the DAO.
However, a grant could also be a good opportunity to shape the work somewhat.
I strongly support funding Tally. It has been essential to the DAO.
However, a grant could also be a good opportunity to shape the work somewhat.
We don't want to end up in a situation where Tally becomes the de facto only method for interacting with governance, and a DoS attack or geofencing of Tally's servers makes the DAO inoperational. (Considering worst-case scenarios here)
In my view, gasless voting through Tally's relayer introduces a significant security risk. Relayers can censor or delay votes (including due to technical problems – faults, not frauds). While delegates can always resubmit their votes using on-chain transactions, this may require considerable diligence on the part of the voter, and if the DAO vote is contentious, it could lead to problematic situations.
It would be great if critical parts of Tally's code, such as the relayer, are open source and sufficiently documented to be auditable and forkable by third parties, so that community or DAO-controlled backup interface and/or relayer can be run. As a minimum, the Tally relayer should be designed in a way that makes verifying their votes on a block explorer easy and part of the standard workflow for delegates. (Ultimately, as better solution in the long term could be to simply move the voting to an L2 with low gas fees.)
Tally is becoming the de facto platform for on chain governance. This is good, because we literally have people from tally actively contributing in uniswap, and in other daos.
On a very general level, i think there should be coordination and support between Uniswap and Tally: this should translate both in custom developments if needed specifically tailored for this ecosystem, and in a broader support.
Tally is becoming the de facto platform for on chain governance. This is good, because we literally have people from tally actively contributing in uniswap, and in other daos.
On a very general level, i think there should be coordination and support between Uniswap and Tally: this should translate both in custom developments if needed specifically tailored for this ecosystem, and in a broader support.
I also support what posted by @kfx but in a broader spectrum.
the Tally relayer should be designed in a way that makes verifying their votes on a block explorer easy and part of the standard workflow for delegates.
This is related, and we discussed in other places about it, as Tally as critical infrastructure of the DAO. There should be a general push for robustness: tally zero is good, but is not widely known and used. Making it easier to reach, making it as close as possible on the experience of the normal front end of tally, and even producing materials on how to use it is becoming more and more important; making actions and txs going through tally easy to read in an explorer for non savvy users, as well important.
