This poll serves as a Temperature Check for the four proposals listed below. They were produced as a result of an RFP published on 23 May 2023 which sought ideas from the Uniswap community for ways to allocate ARB granted to the DAO by the Arbitrum Foundation's airdrop.
You can vote for any, all, or none of these proposals. Your full voting power will be allocated to each proposal you select. As a concrete example, say you have 10 UNI delegated to you. If you vote for one proposal, that proposal will receive 10 UNI worth of votes. If you vote for all four proposals, they will all receive 10 UNI worth of votes. If you vote for no proposals, none of them will receive your 10 UNI worth of votes.
Each proposal that garners 10 million UNI worth of votes in this poll will proceed to an on-chain vote.
Proposals and links:
Create a UNI-ARB Working Group - 2,200,000 ARB requested https://gov.uniswap.org/t/temp-check-create-a-uni-arb-working-group
Enabling upfront yield - 200,000 ARB requested https://gov.uniswap.org/t/rfc-flashstake-enabling-upfront-yield-for-uniswap-liquidity-v2-v3
MMA Infrastructure Development - 250,000 ARB requested https://gov.uniswap.org/t/rfc-li-fi-mma-infrastructure-development-for-uniswap
Combined Liquidity Incentives - Up to 2,000,000 ARB requested https://gov.uniswap.org/t/temp-check-combined-liquidity-incentivization-proposal
One note - if it passes, the ARB requested by the liquidity incentives proposal will adjust to the lesser of 2,000,000 ARB and 4,378,187 minus the sum of arb requested by the other proposals that pass. This adjustment will impact the total amount of incentives distributed but not the fixed fees described in the proposal.
This poll serves as a Temperature Check for the four proposals listed below. They were produced as a result of an RFP published on 23 May 2023 which sought ideas from the Uniswap community for ways to allocate ARB granted to the DAO by the Arbitrum Foundation's airdrop.
You can vote for any, all, or none of these proposals. Your full voting power will be allocated to each proposal you select. As a concrete example, say you have 10 UNI delegated to you. If you vote for one proposal, that proposal will receive 10 UNI worth of votes. If you vote for all four proposals, they will all receive 10 UNI worth of votes. If you vote for no proposals, none of them will receive your 10 UNI worth of votes.
Each proposal that garners 10 million UNI worth of votes in this poll will proceed to an on-chain vote.
Proposals and links:
Create a UNI-ARB Working Group - 2,200,000 ARB requested https://gov.uniswap.org/t/temp-check-create-a-uni-arb-working-group
Enabling upfront yield - 200,000 ARB requested https://gov.uniswap.org/t/rfc-flashstake-enabling-upfront-yield-for-uniswap-liquidity-v2-v3
MMA Infrastructure Development - 250,000 ARB requested https://gov.uniswap.org/t/rfc-li-fi-mma-infrastructure-development-for-uniswap
Combined Liquidity Incentives - Up to 2,000,000 ARB requested https://gov.uniswap.org/t/temp-check-combined-liquidity-incentivization-proposal
One note - if it passes, the ARB requested by the liquidity incentives proposal will adjust to the lesser of 2,000,000 ARB and 4,378,187 minus the sum of arb requested by the other proposals that pass. This adjustment will impact the total amount of incentives distributed but not the fixed fees described in the proposal.
Did you guys really just start the incentives program without contacting and updating every protocol that was accepted in the proposal? ehm....
Did you guys really just start the incentives program without contacting and updating every protocol that was accepted in the proposal? ehm....
It is important to have multiple ALM options as that offers more competition and there for more efficient liquidity.
We agreed that the remaining balance should be allocated to the UF's proposal.
It is important to have multiple ALM options as that offers more competition and there for more efficient liquidity.
We agreed that the remaining balance should be allocated to the UF's proposal.
Does this represent genuine decentralized governance? Bigger protocols, such as Arrakis Gamma and others, collaborating to achieve comprehensive distribution, even though neither of them have really invested in the Arbitrum ecosystem and have chosen to provide significant liquidity and support for Optimism instead?
Isn't it unfair and disadvantageous for smaller projects that truly support and contribute to the Arbitrum growth?
Thanks for your response :slight_smile:. How can we make sure the delegates we choose will vote aligned with the Uniswap ecosystem? What's the advantage compared to a council like [RFC] Uniswap Optimism Protocol Delegation Program ? Thank you.
Couple of good proposals covering different aspect of token usages.
uni-arb working group along with focused on liquidity would be best use of token.
I dont think giving token to dev team building on top of uni would be a good move as Arbitrum foundation could be best place for such funding. there are also other method to raise funds.
Couple of good proposals covering different aspect of token usages.
uni-arb working group along with focused on liquidity would be best use of token.
I dont think giving token to dev team building on top of uni would be a good move as Arbitrum foundation could be best place for such funding. there are also other method to raise funds.
Supporting Liquidity, like mentioned above by BP333, will be good for uniswap in general and having a working group would put us, OG and leading multichain dApp, in close collaboration with Arbitrum.
Agreed, we think delegates may need more time to review and discuss proposals. Each response between the author and delegates may take more than a day to reply so it would be in its best interest to postpone the deadline.
Should we still use the 14 June as the final date before the Snapshot period? Most proposals still don't have enough interactions and also the backstop proposal would not cover all ARB allocation.
We at Arrakis agree with this approach and believe that it's probably the best for all of us to support the proposal from Gamma in a joint venture fashion.
We think that Create a UNI-ARB Working Group is complex but beneficial. This proposal offers decentralised decision-making by creating an organisation outside of the Uniswap Foundation specifically for the Uniswap-Arbitrum ecosystem. Therefore, it may include a sub-grant program (ecosystem fund) and protocol delegates which may repeat the Uniswap Foundation.
One question on your suggestion:
We think that Create a UNI-ARB Working Group is complex but beneficial. This proposal offers decentralised decision-making by creating an organisation outside of the Uniswap Foundation specifically for the Uniswap-Arbitrum ecosystem. Therefore, it may include a sub-grant program (ecosystem fund) and protocol delegates which may repeat the Uniswap Foundation.
One question on your suggestion:
Thanks! :smiley:
Does this represent genuine decentralized governance? Bigger protocols, such as Arrakis Gamma and others, collaborating to achieve comprehensive distribution, even though neither of them have really invested in the Arbitrum ecosystem and have chosen to provide significant liquidity and support for Optimism instead?
Isn't it unfair and disadvantageous for smaller projects that truly support and contribute to the Arbitrum growth?
Thanks for your response :slight_smile:. How can we make sure the delegates we choose will vote aligned with the Uniswap ecosystem? What's the advantage compared to a council like [RFC] Uniswap Optimism Protocol Delegation Program ? Thank you.
Couple of good proposals covering different aspect of token usages.
uni-arb working group along with focused on liquidity would be best use of token.
I dont think giving token to dev team building on top of uni would be a good move as Arbitrum foundation could be best place for such funding. there are also other method to raise funds.
Couple of good proposals covering different aspect of token usages.
uni-arb working group along with focused on liquidity would be best use of token.
I dont think giving token to dev team building on top of uni would be a good move as Arbitrum foundation could be best place for such funding. there are also other method to raise funds.
Supporting Liquidity, like mentioned above by BP333, will be good for uniswap in general and having a working group would put us, OG and leading multichain dApp, in close collaboration with Arbitrum.
Agreed, we think delegates may need more time to review and discuss proposals. Each response between the author and delegates may take more than a day to reply so it would be in its best interest to postpone the deadline.
Should we still use the 14 June as the final date before the Snapshot period? Most proposals still don't have enough interactions and also the backstop proposal would not cover all ARB allocation.
We at Arrakis agree with this approach and believe that it's probably the best for all of us to support the proposal from Gamma in a joint venture fashion.
We think that Create a UNI-ARB Working Group is complex but beneficial. This proposal offers decentralised decision-making by creating an organisation outside of the Uniswap Foundation specifically for the Uniswap-Arbitrum ecosystem. Therefore, it may include a sub-grant program (ecosystem fund) and protocol delegates which may repeat the Uniswap Foundation.
One question on your suggestion:
We think that Create a UNI-ARB Working Group is complex but beneficial. This proposal offers decentralised decision-making by creating an organisation outside of the Uniswap Foundation specifically for the Uniswap-Arbitrum ecosystem. Therefore, it may include a sub-grant program (ecosystem fund) and protocol delegates which may repeat the Uniswap Foundation.
One question on your suggestion:
Thanks! :smiley:
Please check out the proposal by DefiEdge at: https://gov.uniswap.org/t/rfc-defiedge-comprehensive-two-phase-liquidity-incentivization-for-long-term-growth-on-uniswap-v3-on-arbitrum/21445
Regarding the above comments, I think it's good to have liquidity incentives and allowing the protocols to distribute accordingly.
Please check out the proposal by DefiEdge at: https://gov.uniswap.org/t/rfc-defiedge-comprehensive-two-phase-liquidity-incentivization-for-long-term-growth-on-uniswap-v3-on-arbitrum/21445
Regarding the above comments, I think it's good to have liquidity incentives and allowing the protocols to distribute accordingly.
Merkl can be beneficial, but would like to see more adoption and the opinion of other protocols on it's choice as well.
And we definitely feel, breaking the LM Incentives into different phases is the way to go as there are some trending projects currently on ARB, but we must account for the changing landscape and incentivize newer projects down the line to give them the initial push usually needed by a growing protocol.
Here LI.FI's proposal to add value to Uniswap and Arbitrum ecosystems on the infrastructure level:
https://gov.uniswap.org/t/rfc-li-fi-mma-infrastructure-development-for-uniswap/21444
Here is the link to the Bunni Dune Dashboard https://dune.com/bored_genius/bunni And a new one will be soon available, you can jump into Discord if you have an idea of what data would help you to make your choice.
I saw some proposals by liquidity managers here, notably this one by Arrakis or the comment from Bunni above.
I expressed my support in the Gamma proposal about the use of Merkl, but I just wanted to highlight the fact that with Merkl there is no need to choose one liquidity manager over another: all of them can naturally be supported within the system. If you provide liquidity through Arrakis on Uniswap V3, then you can be rewarded without having to stake your liquidity anywhere. That's the same as if you provide liquidity on Uniswap directly.
Hey everyone - Alastor and Web3 Studios are collaborating on an ARB Distribution proposal. Abstract below and link with the rest of the details here!
Hey everyone - Alastor and Web3 Studios are collaborating on an ARB Distribution proposal. Abstract below and link with the rest of the details here!
We propose the establishment of the UNI-ARB Working Group, leveraging a substantial allocation of 2.2 million ARB tokens intended to enhance the Uniswap ecosystem within the Arbitrum Protocol. WG0 will work along two major sub-working groups focused on:
Why ?
There is a lack of liquidity for the $UNI token on Arbitrum. For example actually, a 5 ETH swap will have an impact of 1.220% on the price pool.
Why ?
There is a lack of liquidity for the $UNI token on Arbitrum. For example actually, a 5 ETH swap will have an impact of 1.220% on the price pool.
Another benefit for Uniswap would be to create a diversification of the treasury by receiving oLIT token, the call option token for LIT that lets its holder purchase LIT at a discount to the market price. Unlike regular options, oLIT does not expire. oLIT is also a transferable token that could be used as POL.
What is Bunni ?
Bunni is a liquidity engine for Uniswap V3 where projects incentivize veLIT holders to vote on their gauges and direct native oLIT emissions to their LP pair.
Although the project was launched relatively recently, the smart contracts have been audited by yAudit (www.reports.yaudit.dev/reports/08-2022-Bunni/). By leveraging Uni v3 Bunni is more efficient than Curve, for example, the FRAX/USDC pool has processed 259m$ since it was created 3 months ago (Dune /bored_genius/bunni)
How ?
Create two pools on Bunni (bunni.pro), one UNI/ETH and one ARB/ETH. Then bribe this pool with the $ARB allocation token through Quest (app.warden.vote/quest/) or Hidden Hand (hiddenhand.finance).
And part of the $ARB could be also used to enter the ARB/ETH pool and gain some oLIT to diversify the treasury of Uniswap. This could be done threw the Zap option so Uniswap doesn’t need to make a swap before entering the pool.
Also, some other pair could be incentivized with the collaboration of each project.
The plan to bootstrap this liquidity :
Step 1 ) Create the ARB/ETH and UNI/ETH pool on Bunni (bunni.pro/add)
Step 2 ) Create the gauge for these two pools (docs.bunni.pro/docs/guides/deploy-gauge/). A TRC needs to be produced and submitted. There is a template here (gov.timelessfi .com/discussion/9947-trc-gauge-proposal-template) and the Bunni team could help with this step.
Step 3 ) 4 days need to go by after that's produced then anyone with 1% of veLIT can push your TRC to a snapshot vote.
Step 4 ) Once it passes bridge $ARB token allocation to L1
Step 5 ) Bribe the two pools through Quest or Hidden Hand with the $ARB token allocation based on the time/budget defined.
Bonus Step) Enter the ARB/ETH pool to diversify the Uniswap treasury.
Bunni Links :
Bunni Webapp: bunni.pro
Dune analytics: /bored_genius/bunni
Twitter: /timeless_fi
Github: /timeless-fi
Please check out the proposal by DefiEdge at: https://gov.uniswap.org/t/rfc-defiedge-comprehensive-two-phase-liquidity-incentivization-for-long-term-growth-on-uniswap-v3-on-arbitrum/21445
Regarding the above comments, I think it's good to have liquidity incentives and allowing the protocols to distribute accordingly.
Please check out the proposal by DefiEdge at: https://gov.uniswap.org/t/rfc-defiedge-comprehensive-two-phase-liquidity-incentivization-for-long-term-growth-on-uniswap-v3-on-arbitrum/21445
Regarding the above comments, I think it's good to have liquidity incentives and allowing the protocols to distribute accordingly.
Merkl can be beneficial, but would like to see more adoption and the opinion of other protocols on it's choice as well.
And we definitely feel, breaking the LM Incentives into different phases is the way to go as there are some trending projects currently on ARB, but we must account for the changing landscape and incentivize newer projects down the line to give them the initial push usually needed by a growing protocol.
Here LI.FI's proposal to add value to Uniswap and Arbitrum ecosystems on the infrastructure level:
https://gov.uniswap.org/t/rfc-li-fi-mma-infrastructure-development-for-uniswap/21444
Here is the link to the Bunni Dune Dashboard https://dune.com/bored_genius/bunni And a new one will be soon available, you can jump into Discord if you have an idea of what data would help you to make your choice.
I saw some proposals by liquidity managers here, notably this one by Arrakis or the comment from Bunni above.
I expressed my support in the Gamma proposal about the use of Merkl, but I just wanted to highlight the fact that with Merkl there is no need to choose one liquidity manager over another: all of them can naturally be supported within the system. If you provide liquidity through Arrakis on Uniswap V3, then you can be rewarded without having to stake your liquidity anywhere. That's the same as if you provide liquidity on Uniswap directly.
Hey everyone - Alastor and Web3 Studios are collaborating on an ARB Distribution proposal. Abstract below and link with the rest of the details here!
Hey everyone - Alastor and Web3 Studios are collaborating on an ARB Distribution proposal. Abstract below and link with the rest of the details here!
We propose the establishment of the UNI-ARB Working Group, leveraging a substantial allocation of 2.2 million ARB tokens intended to enhance the Uniswap ecosystem within the Arbitrum Protocol. WG0 will work along two major sub-working groups focused on:
Why ?
There is a lack of liquidity for the $UNI token on Arbitrum. For example actually, a 5 ETH swap will have an impact of 1.220% on the price pool.
Why ?
There is a lack of liquidity for the $UNI token on Arbitrum. For example actually, a 5 ETH swap will have an impact of 1.220% on the price pool.
Another benefit for Uniswap would be to create a diversification of the treasury by receiving oLIT token, the call option token for LIT that lets its holder purchase LIT at a discount to the market price. Unlike regular options, oLIT does not expire. oLIT is also a transferable token that could be used as POL.
What is Bunni ?
Bunni is a liquidity engine for Uniswap V3 where projects incentivize veLIT holders to vote on their gauges and direct native oLIT emissions to their LP pair.
Although the project was launched relatively recently, the smart contracts have been audited by yAudit (www.reports.yaudit.dev/reports/08-2022-Bunni/). By leveraging Uni v3 Bunni is more efficient than Curve, for example, the FRAX/USDC pool has processed 259m$ since it was created 3 months ago (Dune /bored_genius/bunni)
How ?
Create two pools on Bunni (bunni.pro), one UNI/ETH and one ARB/ETH. Then bribe this pool with the $ARB allocation token through Quest (app.warden.vote/quest/) or Hidden Hand (hiddenhand.finance).
And part of the $ARB could be also used to enter the ARB/ETH pool and gain some oLIT to diversify the treasury of Uniswap. This could be done threw the Zap option so Uniswap doesn’t need to make a swap before entering the pool.
Also, some other pair could be incentivized with the collaboration of each project.
The plan to bootstrap this liquidity :
Step 1 ) Create the ARB/ETH and UNI/ETH pool on Bunni (bunni.pro/add)
Step 2 ) Create the gauge for these two pools (docs.bunni.pro/docs/guides/deploy-gauge/). A TRC needs to be produced and submitted. There is a template here (gov.timelessfi .com/discussion/9947-trc-gauge-proposal-template) and the Bunni team could help with this step.
Step 3 ) 4 days need to go by after that's produced then anyone with 1% of veLIT can push your TRC to a snapshot vote.
Step 4 ) Once it passes bridge $ARB token allocation to L1
Step 5 ) Bribe the two pools through Quest or Hidden Hand with the $ARB token allocation based on the time/budget defined.
Bonus Step) Enter the ARB/ETH pool to diversify the Uniswap treasury.
Bunni Links :
Bunni Webapp: bunni.pro
Dune analytics: /bored_genius/bunni
Twitter: /timeless_fi
Github: /timeless-fi
I saw some proposals by liquidity managers here, notably this one by Arrakis or the comment from Bunni above.
I expressed my support in the Gamma proposal about the use of Merkl, but I just wanted to highlight the fact that with Merkl there is no need to choose one liquidity manager over another: all of them can naturally be supported within the system. If you provide liquidity through Arrakis on Uniswap V3, then you can be rewarded without having to stake your liquidity anywhere. That's the same as if you provide liquidity on Uniswap directly.
So rather than having liquidity managers competing here, I think Merkl provides a fairer and more inclusive way to deal with ALM competition. There will be no discrimination or no choice to make between different solutions. ALMs will just have to make a difference through the efficiency of their management algorithms, which I think will turn in a healthy and efficient way to boost the efficiency of Uniswap liquidity efficiency.
It’s great to see the Foundation facilitate discussions around allocating Uniswap’s ARB airdrop. Our team has covered nearly a dozen DAO proposals discussing similar strategies for utilizing their ARB airdrop. @ajs and I put together a quick summary of some of the proposed approaches below:
It’s great to see the Foundation facilitate discussions around allocating Uniswap’s ARB airdrop. Our team has covered nearly a dozen DAO proposals discussing similar strategies for utilizing their ARB airdrop. @ajs and I put together a quick summary of some of the proposed approaches below:
Taking inspiration from the proposals above, we examined a few ideas for Uniswap to consider:
Allocating ARB to Uniswap PoL: Balancer's approach of pairing its ARB airdrop with its native token (BAL) for ARB/BAL liquidity might not provide the same benefits for Uniswap, considering <1% of circulating UNI is on Arbitrum and Uniswap's tokenomics demand less UNI L2 liquidity than Balancer's veBAL. Pairing ARB with ETH or USDC makes more sense but might not be optimal since Uniswap already dominates two of the top three ARB DEX pairs on Arbitrum.
Earmark the ARB to Fund Future Deployments: A mutually beneficial strategy for Arbitrum and Uniswap could involve designating a portion of ARB to a Uniswap Deployment Fund. This fund would support the implementation of Uniswap on forthcoming Arbitrum L2/L3 chains, enabling Uniswap to expedite deployments, seed liquidity, or fund incentives on these new chains.
Establish an Arbitrum/Uniswap Grant Program: Uniswap, in collaboration with the Foundation Grants Lead, could allocate ARB (and even match UNI) to fund grants for development on Arbitrum, or L2s in general. Since L2s provide a more efficient execution environment, builders might find avenues for innovation atop the Uniswap V3 protocol. Projects to fund could include deploying derivative protocols or liquidity management strategies (e.g., Infinity Pools, Gamma Strategies) on Arbitrum chains atop Uniswap V3.
Delegation to Uniswap Stakeholders: Uniswap benefits from its delegate ecosystem, a handful of which are active delegates in both Uniswap and Arbitrum. One approach to establishing a Uniswap presence in Arbitrum governance could be to delegate a portion of the ARB towards prominent delegates active in both ecosystems. At a glance, we identified six delegates sitting in the top 100 delegate addresses in Arbitrum and Uniswap.
Alternatively, Uniswap could use its allocation to improve delegate diversity by supporting more minor Arbitrum delegates or establish a meta-governance committee, similar to the proposed approach to Optimisms Protocol Delegation Program, to represent Uniswap as a single voice.
Delegation Now, Allocate Later: Inspired by Hop DAOs recent proposal, Uniswap could also choose to claim and delegate the tokens in the intermediate while empowering the DAO to utilize those tokens later.
We hope these ideas can help spur discussion and look forward to hearing what other community members think!
Is there any progress for the onchain vote?
We at Brincx were part of the proposal team meaning that we should have gotten some allocation or at least some notification about what was to happen. This is not right. Is this fair to just exclude Brincx from this process?
So that’s it no distribution???
Still no progress on the ARB distribution?
Have been waiting for several weeks without a response on the status of this. Can we get some kind of update please @eek637
Hi, what are next steps?
What is the status of this? We have not heard from anyone from the proposal team at all.
Hey again. Following up from my post here https://gov.uniswap.org/t/request-for-proposals-arb-distribution/21287/5?u=dakotah
I am sorry that I missed that I was supposed to create a separate proposal for this. Have we missed the window and therefore have no shot at all? We may be smaller than a lot of the projects listed here but we are a permissionless platform built on top of Uni v3. We dont manage funds or do any of these tasks that involve trust. We pushed a lot of volume from Frax onto Uniswap and plan to continue growing with them and elsewhere. We will be on Arbitrum next month. I request that Bunni isnt left in the dark because of my mistake or not partnering with specific projects just to increase likelihood that we get the grant.. Our fees are only 10% of LP swap fees! We are good for Uniswap!
The Request for Proposal states:
Proposals should provide a clear rationale for how they will add value to the Uniswap ecosystem and they should be focused on the Arbitrum deployment of the protocol.
The Request for Proposal states:
Proposals should provide a clear rationale for how they will add value to the Uniswap ecosystem and they should be focused on the Arbitrum deployment of the protocol.
The value proposition for BrincX: add $ARB to our liquidity vaults which will generate "real APY" deployed entirely to Uniswap v3 liquidity pools on the Arbitrum network. We are not giving away the ARB as liquidity rewards, we are deploying the funds as liquidity to show the DeFi community how "real APYs" are generated right here on Uniswap.
I saw some proposals by liquidity managers here, notably this one by Arrakis or the comment from Bunni above.
I expressed my support in the Gamma proposal about the use of Merkl, but I just wanted to highlight the fact that with Merkl there is no need to choose one liquidity manager over another: all of them can naturally be supported within the system. If you provide liquidity through Arrakis on Uniswap V3, then you can be rewarded without having to stake your liquidity anywhere. That's the same as if you provide liquidity on Uniswap directly.
So rather than having liquidity managers competing here, I think Merkl provides a fairer and more inclusive way to deal with ALM competition. There will be no discrimination or no choice to make between different solutions. ALMs will just have to make a difference through the efficiency of their management algorithms, which I think will turn in a healthy and efficient way to boost the efficiency of Uniswap liquidity efficiency.
It’s great to see the Foundation facilitate discussions around allocating Uniswap’s ARB airdrop. Our team has covered nearly a dozen DAO proposals discussing similar strategies for utilizing their ARB airdrop. @ajs and I put together a quick summary of some of the proposed approaches below:
It’s great to see the Foundation facilitate discussions around allocating Uniswap’s ARB airdrop. Our team has covered nearly a dozen DAO proposals discussing similar strategies for utilizing their ARB airdrop. @ajs and I put together a quick summary of some of the proposed approaches below:
Taking inspiration from the proposals above, we examined a few ideas for Uniswap to consider:
Allocating ARB to Uniswap PoL: Balancer's approach of pairing its ARB airdrop with its native token (BAL) for ARB/BAL liquidity might not provide the same benefits for Uniswap, considering <1% of circulating UNI is on Arbitrum and Uniswap's tokenomics demand less UNI L2 liquidity than Balancer's veBAL. Pairing ARB with ETH or USDC makes more sense but might not be optimal since Uniswap already dominates two of the top three ARB DEX pairs on Arbitrum.
Earmark the ARB to Fund Future Deployments: A mutually beneficial strategy for Arbitrum and Uniswap could involve designating a portion of ARB to a Uniswap Deployment Fund. This fund would support the implementation of Uniswap on forthcoming Arbitrum L2/L3 chains, enabling Uniswap to expedite deployments, seed liquidity, or fund incentives on these new chains.
Establish an Arbitrum/Uniswap Grant Program: Uniswap, in collaboration with the Foundation Grants Lead, could allocate ARB (and even match UNI) to fund grants for development on Arbitrum, or L2s in general. Since L2s provide a more efficient execution environment, builders might find avenues for innovation atop the Uniswap V3 protocol. Projects to fund could include deploying derivative protocols or liquidity management strategies (e.g., Infinity Pools, Gamma Strategies) on Arbitrum chains atop Uniswap V3.
Delegation to Uniswap Stakeholders: Uniswap benefits from its delegate ecosystem, a handful of which are active delegates in both Uniswap and Arbitrum. One approach to establishing a Uniswap presence in Arbitrum governance could be to delegate a portion of the ARB towards prominent delegates active in both ecosystems. At a glance, we identified six delegates sitting in the top 100 delegate addresses in Arbitrum and Uniswap.
Alternatively, Uniswap could use its allocation to improve delegate diversity by supporting more minor Arbitrum delegates or establish a meta-governance committee, similar to the proposed approach to Optimisms Protocol Delegation Program, to represent Uniswap as a single voice.
Delegation Now, Allocate Later: Inspired by Hop DAOs recent proposal, Uniswap could also choose to claim and delegate the tokens in the intermediate while empowering the DAO to utilize those tokens later.
We hope these ideas can help spur discussion and look forward to hearing what other community members think!
Is there any progress for the onchain vote?
We at Brincx were part of the proposal team meaning that we should have gotten some allocation or at least some notification about what was to happen. This is not right. Is this fair to just exclude Brincx from this process?
So that’s it no distribution???
Still no progress on the ARB distribution?
Have been waiting for several weeks without a response on the status of this. Can we get some kind of update please @eek637
Hi, what are next steps?
What is the status of this? We have not heard from anyone from the proposal team at all.
Hey again. Following up from my post here https://gov.uniswap.org/t/request-for-proposals-arb-distribution/21287/5?u=dakotah
I am sorry that I missed that I was supposed to create a separate proposal for this. Have we missed the window and therefore have no shot at all? We may be smaller than a lot of the projects listed here but we are a permissionless platform built on top of Uni v3. We dont manage funds or do any of these tasks that involve trust. We pushed a lot of volume from Frax onto Uniswap and plan to continue growing with them and elsewhere. We will be on Arbitrum next month. I request that Bunni isnt left in the dark because of my mistake or not partnering with specific projects just to increase likelihood that we get the grant.. Our fees are only 10% of LP swap fees! We are good for Uniswap!
The Request for Proposal states:
Proposals should provide a clear rationale for how they will add value to the Uniswap ecosystem and they should be focused on the Arbitrum deployment of the protocol.
The Request for Proposal states:
Proposals should provide a clear rationale for how they will add value to the Uniswap ecosystem and they should be focused on the Arbitrum deployment of the protocol.
The value proposition for BrincX: add $ARB to our liquidity vaults which will generate "real APY" deployed entirely to Uniswap v3 liquidity pools on the Arbitrum network. We are not giving away the ARB as liquidity rewards, we are deploying the funds as liquidity to show the DeFi community how "real APYs" are generated right here on Uniswap.
How will the snapshot work for all the proposals?
With the amount being asked for each proposals it seems only 1 or 2 could be approved. 2 million~ is going towards the Uniswap foundation? Some proposals are asking for 2 million ARB, i.e Gauntlet; while some are asking for 1 million+ ARB.
How will the snapshot work for all the proposals?
With the amount being asked for each proposals it seems only 1 or 2 could be approved. 2 million~ is going towards the Uniswap foundation? Some proposals are asking for 2 million ARB, i.e Gauntlet; while some are asking for 1 million+ ARB.
Will the voting be for each individual proposal or will there be an initial vote of all the proposals with information about each in one poll?
Realistically, this will be tough unless a project submitting the proposal has 2.5 mil UNI or friends with lots of UNI. This is the equivalent of over $10mil. I mean, Arrakis, Gauntlet, and Gamma have that in cash so can easily get their ppl to just vote for their own projects. I hope there can be some consideration to the 2.5mil delegation rule in order to make this more equitable for the smaller projects that need the funds more.
Will the governance process for this ARB Distribution Proposal require: 10m UNI Quorum for the TempCheck; and 2.5 mil delegated for the proposal; and 40 m Quorm for the governance stage? This seems really difficult to do.
Does this mean that new proposals can be posted or is this just giving more time to the existing proposals that were submitted by June 7? Why is editing to our RPC turned off
Greetings from Stanford Blockchain.
Having learned from the bridge selection process, I believe we should establish an agreed-upon decision-making protocol before deciding on individual candidates/ideas.
Greetings from Stanford Blockchain.
Having learned from the bridge selection process, I believe we should establish an agreed-upon decision-making protocol before deciding on individual candidates/ideas.
We would like to emphasize the point raised by @stastny and @t_norm. We also believe a grant program would be the most suitable decision-making body for the $ARB allocation.
Moreover, the foundation has a proven track record of successful grant funding. We believe that this success is mainly due to 1) full-time members, 2) an in-depth understanding of the ecosystem, 3) a well-resourced organization, and 4) adequately compensated personnel.
Nevertheless, we also acknowledge the merits of involving the community in the grant process. The optimal approach would be a foundation-led, community-supported grant program for the $ARB allocation.
This approach has several advantages compared to a pure foundation or community grant program:
With regard to individual proposals, we are not confident that liquidity mining rewards would yield the greatest benefit based on Gauntlet's recent analysis and personal experiences with the LM world.
Gauntlet's analysis suggests that Liquidity Mining (LM) rewards could be advantageous when there is a discernible bootstrapping opportunity. By 'bootstrapping opportunity', we refer to a pool with considerably lower Total Value Locked (TVL) and volume than the overall L2 activities.
However, we do not see the bootstrapping opportunity for the pools proposed.
Its working. Thank you.
s, which I think will turn in a healthy and efficient way to boost the efficiency of Uniswap liquidity efficiency.
There is no liquidity manager on Bunni just an fyi. Funds flow into the UNI pool you send them to & thats it.
@BP333 Approach resonates with fair use of the allocated ARB. Full reasoning on Gamma's RFC.
The main concern was the amount of ARB 1.46~million. A showcase of Merkl and Gamma would allow:
More interested groups to be included in future ARB distributions
Open up opportunities with more initiative co-sponsors pairs.
Evaluate effective liquidity pair's performance metrics
I dont seem to have link capabilities yet. Sorry.. Maybe someone who does can stop by our discord and grab it?
Thanks for posting this!
Hey yall this just came across my desk a few days ago. I have been thinking and I wanna make sure you are aware of what we do at Bunni.pro. We should be able to help in a few different ways.
We are a liquidity engine built on top of Uni v3. In its own rights Uni v3 is very powerful ofc! Our goal is to make LPs and projects as efficient as possible. The main two ways we do this is by lowering gas fees on L1 and adding gauges to the equation for L1 and Soon L2s! Think Curve but for your ecosystem :slight_smile:
Hey yall this just came across my desk a few days ago. I have been thinking and I wanna make sure you are aware of what we do at Bunni.pro. We should be able to help in a few different ways.
We are a liquidity engine built on top of Uni v3. In its own rights Uni v3 is very powerful ofc! Our goal is to make LPs and projects as efficient as possible. The main two ways we do this is by lowering gas fees on L1 and adding gauges to the equation for L1 and Soon L2s! Think Curve but for your ecosystem :slight_smile:
Before incentives, we start saving LPs right away by allowing LPs on Bunni to mint ERC20s instead of the less gas efficient Uni v3 NFTs. Providing valuing from day 1! Next we offer LPs on bunni incentives on top of Uni trading fees! Incentives are paid in oLIT which is an option to buy LIT at a discount. Rn its a 50% discount this can be changed by the community. The other 50% comes from WETH. These are transferable & do not expire. We also have an interesting feature where holders of our gov token get up to 10x boost on those incentives. This is Curve math but with a 10x boost instead of a 2.5x. (TLDR is if your % of the total supply of veLIT matches your % of the LP pool you get max boost). This is subject to change and certain folks would like to see it lowered to increase the non boosted APY (onboarding more TVL). Holders of our gov token direct these incentives via our gauges.
Protocols can bribe voters on Hiddenhand & Warden this is extremely efficient for the protocols participating! As of last epoch it was $1 in bribes = $3 in emissions!
veLIT holders also get 50% rev share including oLIT redemptions which has been pretty profitable
We have a Dune page that you can also see a lot related to us competing with Curve even with much less TVL due to Uni v3 concentrated liquidity.
So imo we could help here by using the ARB to incentivize a UNI pool on Arbitrum! We can do all this on top on Uniswap.
I am here if yall wanna do a community call or just talk shop! Hmu!
How will the snapshot work for all the proposals?
With the amount being asked for each proposals it seems only 1 or 2 could be approved. 2 million~ is going towards the Uniswap foundation? Some proposals are asking for 2 million ARB, i.e Gauntlet; while some are asking for 1 million+ ARB.
How will the snapshot work for all the proposals?
With the amount being asked for each proposals it seems only 1 or 2 could be approved. 2 million~ is going towards the Uniswap foundation? Some proposals are asking for 2 million ARB, i.e Gauntlet; while some are asking for 1 million+ ARB.
Will the voting be for each individual proposal or will there be an initial vote of all the proposals with information about each in one poll?
Realistically, this will be tough unless a project submitting the proposal has 2.5 mil UNI or friends with lots of UNI. This is the equivalent of over $10mil. I mean, Arrakis, Gauntlet, and Gamma have that in cash so can easily get their ppl to just vote for their own projects. I hope there can be some consideration to the 2.5mil delegation rule in order to make this more equitable for the smaller projects that need the funds more.
Will the governance process for this ARB Distribution Proposal require: 10m UNI Quorum for the TempCheck; and 2.5 mil delegated for the proposal; and 40 m Quorm for the governance stage? This seems really difficult to do.
Does this mean that new proposals can be posted or is this just giving more time to the existing proposals that were submitted by June 7? Why is editing to our RPC turned off
Greetings from Stanford Blockchain.
Having learned from the bridge selection process, I believe we should establish an agreed-upon decision-making protocol before deciding on individual candidates/ideas.
Greetings from Stanford Blockchain.
Having learned from the bridge selection process, I believe we should establish an agreed-upon decision-making protocol before deciding on individual candidates/ideas.
We would like to emphasize the point raised by @stastny and @t_norm. We also believe a grant program would be the most suitable decision-making body for the $ARB allocation.
Moreover, the foundation has a proven track record of successful grant funding. We believe that this success is mainly due to 1) full-time members, 2) an in-depth understanding of the ecosystem, 3) a well-resourced organization, and 4) adequately compensated personnel.
Nevertheless, we also acknowledge the merits of involving the community in the grant process. The optimal approach would be a foundation-led, community-supported grant program for the $ARB allocation.
This approach has several advantages compared to a pure foundation or community grant program:
With regard to individual proposals, we are not confident that liquidity mining rewards would yield the greatest benefit based on Gauntlet's recent analysis and personal experiences with the LM world.
Gauntlet's analysis suggests that Liquidity Mining (LM) rewards could be advantageous when there is a discernible bootstrapping opportunity. By 'bootstrapping opportunity', we refer to a pool with considerably lower Total Value Locked (TVL) and volume than the overall L2 activities.
However, we do not see the bootstrapping opportunity for the pools proposed.
Its working. Thank you.
s, which I think will turn in a healthy and efficient way to boost the efficiency of Uniswap liquidity efficiency.
There is no liquidity manager on Bunni just an fyi. Funds flow into the UNI pool you send them to & thats it.
@BP333 Approach resonates with fair use of the allocated ARB. Full reasoning on Gamma's RFC.
The main concern was the amount of ARB 1.46~million. A showcase of Merkl and Gamma would allow:
More interested groups to be included in future ARB distributions
Open up opportunities with more initiative co-sponsors pairs.
Evaluate effective liquidity pair's performance metrics
I dont seem to have link capabilities yet. Sorry.. Maybe someone who does can stop by our discord and grab it?
Thanks for posting this!
Hey yall this just came across my desk a few days ago. I have been thinking and I wanna make sure you are aware of what we do at Bunni.pro. We should be able to help in a few different ways.
We are a liquidity engine built on top of Uni v3. In its own rights Uni v3 is very powerful ofc! Our goal is to make LPs and projects as efficient as possible. The main two ways we do this is by lowering gas fees on L1 and adding gauges to the equation for L1 and Soon L2s! Think Curve but for your ecosystem :slight_smile:
Hey yall this just came across my desk a few days ago. I have been thinking and I wanna make sure you are aware of what we do at Bunni.pro. We should be able to help in a few different ways.
We are a liquidity engine built on top of Uni v3. In its own rights Uni v3 is very powerful ofc! Our goal is to make LPs and projects as efficient as possible. The main two ways we do this is by lowering gas fees on L1 and adding gauges to the equation for L1 and Soon L2s! Think Curve but for your ecosystem :slight_smile:
Before incentives, we start saving LPs right away by allowing LPs on Bunni to mint ERC20s instead of the less gas efficient Uni v3 NFTs. Providing valuing from day 1! Next we offer LPs on bunni incentives on top of Uni trading fees! Incentives are paid in oLIT which is an option to buy LIT at a discount. Rn its a 50% discount this can be changed by the community. The other 50% comes from WETH. These are transferable & do not expire. We also have an interesting feature where holders of our gov token get up to 10x boost on those incentives. This is Curve math but with a 10x boost instead of a 2.5x. (TLDR is if your % of the total supply of veLIT matches your % of the LP pool you get max boost). This is subject to change and certain folks would like to see it lowered to increase the non boosted APY (onboarding more TVL). Holders of our gov token direct these incentives via our gauges.
Protocols can bribe voters on Hiddenhand & Warden this is extremely efficient for the protocols participating! As of last epoch it was $1 in bribes = $3 in emissions!
veLIT holders also get 50% rev share including oLIT redemptions which has been pretty profitable
We have a Dune page that you can also see a lot related to us competing with Curve even with much less TVL due to Uni v3 concentrated liquidity.
So imo we could help here by using the ARB to incentivize a UNI pool on Arbitrum! We can do all this on top on Uniswap.
I am here if yall wanna do a community call or just talk shop! Hmu!
@BP333 Approach resonates with fair use of the allocated ARB. Full reasoning on Gamma's RFC.
The main concern was the amount of ARB 1.46~million. A showcase of Merkl and Gamma would allow:
More interested groups to be included in future ARB distributions
Open up opportunities with more initiative co-sponsors pairs.
Evaluate effective liquidity pair's performance metrics
Also a more concrete timeline of how long incentives last would be helpful.
With account abstraction use cases beginning to take shape it would be advantageous to not use up the ~4.4 million ARB as quickly as possible. As additional incentive structures may emerge that would benefit from ARB distributions.
@BP333 Approach resonates with fair use of the allocated ARB. Full reasoning on Gamma's RFC.
The main concern was the amount of ARB 1.46~million. A showcase of Merkl and Gamma would allow:
More interested groups to be included in future ARB distributions
Open up opportunities with more initiative co-sponsors pairs.
Evaluate effective liquidity pair's performance metrics
Also a more concrete timeline of how long incentives last would be helpful.
With account abstraction use cases beginning to take shape it would be advantageous to not use up the ~4.4 million ARB as quickly as possible. As additional incentive structures may emerge that would benefit from ARB distributions.
@Brincnomics - For advanced notice of future incentive allocations, please DM us, and we'll connect over Telegram to deliver that. This goes for any/all ALMs interested in participating.
@Brincnomics - For advanced notice of future incentive allocations, please DM us, and we'll connect over Telegram to deliver that. This goes for any/all ALMs interested in participating.
We're glad to see this moving forward and have voted in favor of Combined Liquidity Incentives and MMA Infrastructure Development proposals.
We appreciate the collaboration between the complementary Gauntlet and Gamma Strategies proposals and, considering the Architectural Reccomendations in the recent bridge assessment, it is prudent also to support the MMA Infrastructure Development proposal.
We're glad to see this moving forward and have voted in favor of Combined Liquidity Incentives and MMA Infrastructure Development proposals.
We appreciate the collaboration between the complementary Gauntlet and Gamma Strategies proposals and, considering the Architectural Reccomendations in the recent bridge assessment, it is prudent also to support the MMA Infrastructure Development proposal.
A possibility exists that a remainder of ARB will be available when this polling process concludes. If the total balance requested by the passing proposals is significantly less than the ~4.4m ARB available, we would support the remaining balance be allocated to the UF in alignment with the backstop proposal.
Snapshot is posted here and goes live in five hours. Thanks to the proposing teams and good luck!
How can we make sure the delegates we choose will vote aligned with the Uniswap ecosystem?
How can we make sure the delegates we choose will vote aligned with the Uniswap ecosystem?
No matter the strategy, there is no guarantee that delegates will always act in the best interest of either protocol. It is essential to have mechanisms to replace individuals regularly. In this case, scheduled redelegation every x months would achieve this.
This is a good program. The advantage is reduced complexity and governance overhead. The Create a UNI-ARB Working Group appears to be significantly more complex than the Uniswap Optimism Protocol Delegation Program because, as proposed, it requires multiple working group structures.
Hey all, update here. A few of the teams that proposed various forms of liquidity incentives are in the process of seeing whether they can combine their proposals. With that in mind, I'm going to push this back one more week.
Next Wednesday, I'll queue up a Snapshot with each proposal listed as an option. The sum of the ARB requests will be less than or equal to the total amount of the DAO's grant.
Hey all, update here. A few of the teams that proposed various forms of liquidity incentives are in the process of seeing whether they can combine their proposals. With that in mind, I'm going to push this back one more week.
Next Wednesday, I'll queue up a Snapshot with each proposal listed as an option. The sum of the ARB requests will be less than or equal to the total amount of the DAO's grant.
Delegates can vote for any, all, or none of the proposals. Each proposal with > 10m votes will move to the next round of on-chain voting.
We recommend that the UF holds 50% of the ARB, but delegates it within the Uniswap community. The delegate races could be used to select those delegates without adding additional processes to oversee and maintain.
The underlying intention is to ensure a significant amount of the ARB airdrop is mandated for use as a governance instrument. This use aligns with the Arbitrum core values and long-term sustainability of their protocol, which should be a guidepost during this decision-making process.
the vote has been live since last week and the temp check post has been updated to reflect that. the proposers spent 6 weeks working behind the scenes talking to delegates to give it the best chances of passing.
Yes. The process is designed to make sure that proposers have gotten token holders on board. If you look at the profiles on vote.uniswapfoundation.org you can see a bunch of delegates who have the required amount of votes. These delegates are generally who you should be talking to to pitch your proposal. I’ve been trying to get them to weigh in on the forums but you can also reach out to them directly (Twitter or discourse dm).
Sure - ultimately I think we should only send props to Snapshot that have been fully baked in the forums, so I'm happy to see delegates start to weigh in here. Let's change the target to next Wednesday, June 21.
Dunno why editing of your post isn't working - i'll have a look.
Re new proposals - per the initial post the deadline was yesterday, and the next week is to gather feedback from delegates. Prior to today there was very little in the way of substantive commentary on any of the proposals.
Hi all,
First, thanks to the teams and individuals who have submitted proposals. Having written a few of these myself, I appreciate the effort and thoughtfulness that goes into them.
Hi all,
First, thanks to the teams and individuals who have submitted proposals. Having written a few of these myself, I appreciate the effort and thoughtfulness that goes into them.
With that said, the conversation around and scrutiny given to any particular proposal by the delegate community has thus far been fairly light. And that's okay! But without that sort of engagement, sending any proposals to Snapshot seems ill-advised.
Keeping that in mind, I'd ask that Delegates take the next week to read through and comment on proposals that they believe would be value-additive. For those teams that have made proposals, I suggest looking at Delegates' profiles on the new Uniswap Agora and DMing them on Twitter to engage. There are a bunch of new delegates and I'm hoping that they're eager to weigh in. Please keep proposal-specific conversations in their own post.
On Wednesday, June 14, if there are proposals that have garnered conversation and community support, let's take the next step and start sending them to Snapshot. If not - also fine - I've posted a backstop proposal here.
0xPlasma Labs Proposal 👉 https://gov.uniswap.org/t/rfc-quadrat-0xplasma-labs-66-liquidity-farming-33-gas-refund/21413
Hey guys, I'm seeing a few different proposals for liquidity mining with $ARB (Bunni, Arrakis, Angle Merkl). Although I proposed the Angle MERKL proposal under Gamma Strategies, it's not proposing that Gamma be the sole distribution mechanism, but allowing all liquidity providers and managers on Uniswap v3 to be equally eligible for rewards.
How Merkl can be beneficial to Bunni
We understand the value of using the RFP process as a means to gather community feedback; on the other hand, we worry about creating complex sub-layers of governance. The DAO should prioritize simple governing structures that promote transparency and lower the costs of community participation.
Many of the submitted proposals are highly technical and merit further review or have objectives that fall within the key activities of the Uniswap Foundation. The foundation is already well-resourced with contributors, possesses an in-depth understanding of the ecosystem, and has a grants program that would efficiently decide on the best allocation of the ARB airdrop.
Hi all, we've been waiting for multiple proposals and ideas to come through the forum in order to start reviewing. I believe now there is a sufficient amount of ideas to start the review thus maybe such short notice for 14th of June is maybe not the best idea.
It is reasonable that more delegates have the same approach and we would advise some patience to read through all the proposals so everyone can receive feedback.
Distribute at least one-third of the $ARB as liquidity incentives to select liquidity pools on Uniswap (Arbitrum). Use Angle Merkl to distribute the rewards proportionate to the depth of liquidity provided by the LPs. All LPs who provide directly to Uniswap (LP NFT) or through an active manager like Gamma Strategies, Arrakis Finance, and DeFiEdge will be rewarded according to the same criteria. The pools selected will depend on (1) importance to the ecosystem and (2) amount of co-incentives from partners.
link that dune dash!
We're glad to see this moving forward and have voted in favor of Combined Liquidity Incentives and MMA Infrastructure Development proposals.
We appreciate the collaboration between the complementary Gauntlet and Gamma Strategies proposals and, considering the Architectural Reccomendations in the recent bridge assessment, it is prudent also to support the MMA Infrastructure Development proposal.
We're glad to see this moving forward and have voted in favor of Combined Liquidity Incentives and MMA Infrastructure Development proposals.
We appreciate the collaboration between the complementary Gauntlet and Gamma Strategies proposals and, considering the Architectural Reccomendations in the recent bridge assessment, it is prudent also to support the MMA Infrastructure Development proposal.
A possibility exists that a remainder of ARB will be available when this polling process concludes. If the total balance requested by the passing proposals is significantly less than the ~4.4m ARB available, we would support the remaining balance be allocated to the UF in alignment with the backstop proposal.
Snapshot is posted here and goes live in five hours. Thanks to the proposing teams and good luck!
How can we make sure the delegates we choose will vote aligned with the Uniswap ecosystem?
How can we make sure the delegates we choose will vote aligned with the Uniswap ecosystem?
No matter the strategy, there is no guarantee that delegates will always act in the best interest of either protocol. It is essential to have mechanisms to replace individuals regularly. In this case, scheduled redelegation every x months would achieve this.
This is a good program. The advantage is reduced complexity and governance overhead. The Create a UNI-ARB Working Group appears to be significantly more complex than the Uniswap Optimism Protocol Delegation Program because, as proposed, it requires multiple working group structures.
Hey all, update here. A few of the teams that proposed various forms of liquidity incentives are in the process of seeing whether they can combine their proposals. With that in mind, I'm going to push this back one more week.
Next Wednesday, I'll queue up a Snapshot with each proposal listed as an option. The sum of the ARB requests will be less than or equal to the total amount of the DAO's grant.
Hey all, update here. A few of the teams that proposed various forms of liquidity incentives are in the process of seeing whether they can combine their proposals. With that in mind, I'm going to push this back one more week.
Next Wednesday, I'll queue up a Snapshot with each proposal listed as an option. The sum of the ARB requests will be less than or equal to the total amount of the DAO's grant.
Delegates can vote for any, all, or none of the proposals. Each proposal with > 10m votes will move to the next round of on-chain voting.
We recommend that the UF holds 50% of the ARB, but delegates it within the Uniswap community. The delegate races could be used to select those delegates without adding additional processes to oversee and maintain.
The underlying intention is to ensure a significant amount of the ARB airdrop is mandated for use as a governance instrument. This use aligns with the Arbitrum core values and long-term sustainability of their protocol, which should be a guidepost during this decision-making process.
the vote has been live since last week and the temp check post has been updated to reflect that. the proposers spent 6 weeks working behind the scenes talking to delegates to give it the best chances of passing.
Yes. The process is designed to make sure that proposers have gotten token holders on board. If you look at the profiles on vote.uniswapfoundation.org you can see a bunch of delegates who have the required amount of votes. These delegates are generally who you should be talking to to pitch your proposal. I’ve been trying to get them to weigh in on the forums but you can also reach out to them directly (Twitter or discourse dm).
Sure - ultimately I think we should only send props to Snapshot that have been fully baked in the forums, so I'm happy to see delegates start to weigh in here. Let's change the target to next Wednesday, June 21.
Dunno why editing of your post isn't working - i'll have a look.
Re new proposals - per the initial post the deadline was yesterday, and the next week is to gather feedback from delegates. Prior to today there was very little in the way of substantive commentary on any of the proposals.
Hi all,
First, thanks to the teams and individuals who have submitted proposals. Having written a few of these myself, I appreciate the effort and thoughtfulness that goes into them.
Hi all,
First, thanks to the teams and individuals who have submitted proposals. Having written a few of these myself, I appreciate the effort and thoughtfulness that goes into them.
With that said, the conversation around and scrutiny given to any particular proposal by the delegate community has thus far been fairly light. And that's okay! But without that sort of engagement, sending any proposals to Snapshot seems ill-advised.
Keeping that in mind, I'd ask that Delegates take the next week to read through and comment on proposals that they believe would be value-additive. For those teams that have made proposals, I suggest looking at Delegates' profiles on the new Uniswap Agora and DMing them on Twitter to engage. There are a bunch of new delegates and I'm hoping that they're eager to weigh in. Please keep proposal-specific conversations in their own post.
On Wednesday, June 14, if there are proposals that have garnered conversation and community support, let's take the next step and start sending them to Snapshot. If not - also fine - I've posted a backstop proposal here.
0xPlasma Labs Proposal 👉 https://gov.uniswap.org/t/rfc-quadrat-0xplasma-labs-66-liquidity-farming-33-gas-refund/21413
Hey guys, I'm seeing a few different proposals for liquidity mining with $ARB (Bunni, Arrakis, Angle Merkl). Although I proposed the Angle MERKL proposal under Gamma Strategies, it's not proposing that Gamma be the sole distribution mechanism, but allowing all liquidity providers and managers on Uniswap v3 to be equally eligible for rewards.
How Merkl can be beneficial to Bunni
We understand the value of using the RFP process as a means to gather community feedback; on the other hand, we worry about creating complex sub-layers of governance. The DAO should prioritize simple governing structures that promote transparency and lower the costs of community participation.
Many of the submitted proposals are highly technical and merit further review or have objectives that fall within the key activities of the Uniswap Foundation. The foundation is already well-resourced with contributors, possesses an in-depth understanding of the ecosystem, and has a grants program that would efficiently decide on the best allocation of the ARB airdrop.
Hi all, we've been waiting for multiple proposals and ideas to come through the forum in order to start reviewing. I believe now there is a sufficient amount of ideas to start the review thus maybe such short notice for 14th of June is maybe not the best idea.
It is reasonable that more delegates have the same approach and we would advise some patience to read through all the proposals so everyone can receive feedback.
Distribute at least one-third of the $ARB as liquidity incentives to select liquidity pools on Uniswap (Arbitrum). Use Angle Merkl to distribute the rewards proportionate to the depth of liquidity provided by the LPs. All LPs who provide directly to Uniswap (LP NFT) or through an active manager like Gamma Strategies, Arrakis Finance, and DeFiEdge will be rewarded according to the same criteria. The pools selected will depend on (1) importance to the ecosystem and (2) amount of co-incentives from partners.
link that dune dash!
Hey guys, I'm seeing a few different proposals for liquidity mining with $ARB (Bunni, Arrakis, Angle Merkl). Although I proposed the Angle MERKL proposal under Gamma Strategies, it's not proposing that Gamma be the sole distribution mechanism, but allowing all liquidity providers and managers on Uniswap v3 to be equally eligible for rewards.
How Merkl can be beneficial to Bunni
So with Merkl, those who provide to Bunni will be eligible for the same rewards based on the same criteria as every other liquidity provider (ALM or LP NFT provider).
Out-of-range gauges will not receive any $ARB rewards --> There's no need to kill out-of-range gauges (as mentioned here) and potentially waste $ARB rewards on out-of-range positions and no need to depend on others to initiate the process of killing a gauge. Only LPs who provide in-range gauges will be rewarded with $ARB based on the capital efficiency of their positions.
Dynamic incentivization --> Those with the highest earning LP positions will automatically be given more rewards. It reduces the dependency on relying on veLIT voters to rationally make the decision to incentivize according to capital efficiency. Also because each Bunni epoch is 10-days long, it would be impossible to dynamically change the incentives within a 10-day epoch if some gauges perform better than others. With Angle Merkl, the rewards distribution automatically adjusts to the capital efficiency and depth of liquidity of the gauges, without having to relying on the next epoch to adjust the incentives.
How Merkl can be beneficial to Arrakis
With Arrakis's proposal, I haven't seen the methodology of the distribution of 500k $ARB or the pairs that will be incentivized; however, Angle Merkl would be inclusive of their positions regardless.
There's no need to have a separate Arrakis allocation, Gamma allocation, or Bunni allocation or LP NFT allocation. Everyone is incentivized according to the same criteria.
So long as Arrakis provides the deepest liquidity for a pair, they will receive more of the $ARB distribution.
We understand the value of using the RFP process as a means to gather community feedback; on the other hand, we worry about creating complex sub-layers of governance. The DAO should prioritize simple governing structures that promote transparency and lower the costs of community participation.
Many of the submitted proposals are highly technical and merit further review or have objectives that fall within the key activities of the Uniswap Foundation. The foundation is already well-resourced with contributors, possesses an in-depth understanding of the ecosystem, and has a grants program that would efficiently decide on the best allocation of the ARB airdrop.
Given the above, we suggest considering a hybrid approach that transfers the entire ARB airdrop to the Uniswap Foundation’s multisig and subsequently allocates it in the following way:
This approach allows capitalising on the merits of the community’s feedback and shared learnings as well as relying on Uniswap Foundation’s existing accountability and decision-making structures.
Additionally, this approach reduces selling pressure by using ARB as a governance instrument that will align future Arbitrum developments and Uniswap’s best interests in the long term.
Distribute at least one-third of the $ARB as liquidity incentives to select liquidity pools on Uniswap (Arbitrum). Use Angle Merkl to distribute the rewards proportionate to the depth of liquidity provided by the LPs. All LPs who provide directly to Uniswap (LP NFT) or through an active manager like Gamma Strategies, Arrakis Finance, and DeFiEdge will be rewarded according to the same criteria. The pools selected will depend on (1) importance to the ecosystem and (2) amount of co-incentives from partners.
Given the importance of liquidity, we believe that at least a one-third allocation of the total $ARB DAO airdrop towards liquidity incentives would be prudent. It directly benefits the Uniswap ecosystem to have more liquidity and volumes.
Facilitating more volumes towards Uniswap will encourage more builders to Arbitrum and Uniswap. More liquidity would allow other projects to build off Uniswap more easily and increase its reach within the ecosystem. Examples of projects benefitting from deeper Uniswap liquidity include lending projects using Uniswap liquidity pools for liquidations, projects leveraging the Uniswap v3 TWAP oracle which requires liquidity for safety, projects building derivatives on top of Uniswap pools.
More info: https://docs.angle.money/side-products/merkl
The main benefits to using Merkl are the following:
Merkl is based on an off-chain script that computes the rewards for all LPs of these pools according to specific preferences. For example, Uniswap can determine to weight rewards as 90% by fees accrued, 5% by preservation of Token A liquidity, and 5% by preservation of Token B liquidity.
The script aggregates onchain LP NFTs, Gamma LPs, Arrakis LPs, and other Uniswap LP positions and records eligible rewards based on a uniform criteria. It then compresses this information into a Merkle root and posts on-chain allowing LPs to claim their rewards.
Precisely speaking, for a given pool with two tokens (A and B), the script looks into the swaps that took place on the pool during the period for which it is ran and computes a reward score for each position according to:
The pools selected should depend on (1) importance to the ecosystem and (2) amount of co-incentives from partners
For pairs important to the ecosystem:
Potential partners for co-incentives:
Gamma is a protocol designed for non-custodial, automated, and active management of concentrated liquidity.
Gamma uses its automated infrastructure to manage over $100m in assets and 400 liquidity positions. Gamma’s vaults are deployed on six different networks and four different decentralized exchanges.
Gamma has previously worked with the Uniswap Foundation in a liquidity mining program on Optimism. The program is currently in its third phase and distributing 165,000 OP to Gamma as rewards for liquidity providers to select liquidity pools.
https://gov.uniswap.org/t/rfc-the-optimism-uniswap-protocol-liquidity-mining-program/17820
While we do aim to be active participants in this proposal, this proposal is designed to reward all LPs equally in accordance with the same criteria. The general rule is that the deeper liquidity provided, the more rewards earned.
Gamma will also reach out to its partners Lido Finance, Rocket Pool, and others for potential co-incentives.
Hey guys, I'm seeing a few different proposals for liquidity mining with $ARB (Bunni, Arrakis, Angle Merkl). Although I proposed the Angle MERKL proposal under Gamma Strategies, it's not proposing that Gamma be the sole distribution mechanism, but allowing all liquidity providers and managers on Uniswap v3 to be equally eligible for rewards.
How Merkl can be beneficial to Bunni
So with Merkl, those who provide to Bunni will be eligible for the same rewards based on the same criteria as every other liquidity provider (ALM or LP NFT provider).
Out-of-range gauges will not receive any $ARB rewards --> There's no need to kill out-of-range gauges (as mentioned here) and potentially waste $ARB rewards on out-of-range positions and no need to depend on others to initiate the process of killing a gauge. Only LPs who provide in-range gauges will be rewarded with $ARB based on the capital efficiency of their positions.
Dynamic incentivization --> Those with the highest earning LP positions will automatically be given more rewards. It reduces the dependency on relying on veLIT voters to rationally make the decision to incentivize according to capital efficiency. Also because each Bunni epoch is 10-days long, it would be impossible to dynamically change the incentives within a 10-day epoch if some gauges perform better than others. With Angle Merkl, the rewards distribution automatically adjusts to the capital efficiency and depth of liquidity of the gauges, without having to relying on the next epoch to adjust the incentives.
How Merkl can be beneficial to Arrakis
With Arrakis's proposal, I haven't seen the methodology of the distribution of 500k $ARB or the pairs that will be incentivized; however, Angle Merkl would be inclusive of their positions regardless.
There's no need to have a separate Arrakis allocation, Gamma allocation, or Bunni allocation or LP NFT allocation. Everyone is incentivized according to the same criteria.
So long as Arrakis provides the deepest liquidity for a pair, they will receive more of the $ARB distribution.
We understand the value of using the RFP process as a means to gather community feedback; on the other hand, we worry about creating complex sub-layers of governance. The DAO should prioritize simple governing structures that promote transparency and lower the costs of community participation.
Many of the submitted proposals are highly technical and merit further review or have objectives that fall within the key activities of the Uniswap Foundation. The foundation is already well-resourced with contributors, possesses an in-depth understanding of the ecosystem, and has a grants program that would efficiently decide on the best allocation of the ARB airdrop.
Given the above, we suggest considering a hybrid approach that transfers the entire ARB airdrop to the Uniswap Foundation’s multisig and subsequently allocates it in the following way:
This approach allows capitalising on the merits of the community’s feedback and shared learnings as well as relying on Uniswap Foundation’s existing accountability and decision-making structures.
Additionally, this approach reduces selling pressure by using ARB as a governance instrument that will align future Arbitrum developments and Uniswap’s best interests in the long term.
Distribute at least one-third of the $ARB as liquidity incentives to select liquidity pools on Uniswap (Arbitrum). Use Angle Merkl to distribute the rewards proportionate to the depth of liquidity provided by the LPs. All LPs who provide directly to Uniswap (LP NFT) or through an active manager like Gamma Strategies, Arrakis Finance, and DeFiEdge will be rewarded according to the same criteria. The pools selected will depend on (1) importance to the ecosystem and (2) amount of co-incentives from partners.
Given the importance of liquidity, we believe that at least a one-third allocation of the total $ARB DAO airdrop towards liquidity incentives would be prudent. It directly benefits the Uniswap ecosystem to have more liquidity and volumes.
Facilitating more volumes towards Uniswap will encourage more builders to Arbitrum and Uniswap. More liquidity would allow other projects to build off Uniswap more easily and increase its reach within the ecosystem. Examples of projects benefitting from deeper Uniswap liquidity include lending projects using Uniswap liquidity pools for liquidations, projects leveraging the Uniswap v3 TWAP oracle which requires liquidity for safety, projects building derivatives on top of Uniswap pools.
More info: https://docs.angle.money/side-products/merkl
The main benefits to using Merkl are the following:
Merkl is based on an off-chain script that computes the rewards for all LPs of these pools according to specific preferences. For example, Uniswap can determine to weight rewards as 90% by fees accrued, 5% by preservation of Token A liquidity, and 5% by preservation of Token B liquidity.
The script aggregates onchain LP NFTs, Gamma LPs, Arrakis LPs, and other Uniswap LP positions and records eligible rewards based on a uniform criteria. It then compresses this information into a Merkle root and posts on-chain allowing LPs to claim their rewards.
Precisely speaking, for a given pool with two tokens (A and B), the script looks into the swaps that took place on the pool during the period for which it is ran and computes a reward score for each position according to:
The pools selected should depend on (1) importance to the ecosystem and (2) amount of co-incentives from partners
For pairs important to the ecosystem:
Potential partners for co-incentives:
Gamma is a protocol designed for non-custodial, automated, and active management of concentrated liquidity.
Gamma uses its automated infrastructure to manage over $100m in assets and 400 liquidity positions. Gamma’s vaults are deployed on six different networks and four different decentralized exchanges.
Gamma has previously worked with the Uniswap Foundation in a liquidity mining program on Optimism. The program is currently in its third phase and distributing 165,000 OP to Gamma as rewards for liquidity providers to select liquidity pools.
https://gov.uniswap.org/t/rfc-the-optimism-uniswap-protocol-liquidity-mining-program/17820
While we do aim to be active participants in this proposal, this proposal is designed to reward all LPs equally in accordance with the same criteria. The general rule is that the deeper liquidity provided, the more rewards earned.
Gamma will also reach out to its partners Lido Finance, Rocket Pool, and others for potential co-incentives.
