This Proposal is for chain selection feedback for the ongoing proposal https://snapshot.box/#/s:uniswapgovernance.eth/proposal/0x675c9697cc6c8d1cab27e1cffab3fdc7740b3e978eb37d8b6dcce76d1726670f so it depends on whether the proposal Analytics Hub for Uniswap’s Revitalization and Growth Program passes.
For Unichain option, as the incentive is ongoing but as there’s a lot of interest, it’s listed as an option so that the community can see level of interest but from ranking for Forse for this proposal, it won’t be counted. So even if Unichain is among the top 4, it will skip it to include the next one into top 4. But Unichain related proposal could become its own RFC in the future if it's highly in demand.
This Proposal is for chain selection feedback for the ongoing proposal https://snapshot.box/#/s:uniswapgovernance.eth/proposal/0x675c9697cc6c8d1cab27e1cffab3fdc7740b3e978eb37d8b6dcce76d1726670f so it depends on whether the proposal Analytics Hub for Uniswap’s Revitalization and Growth Program passes.
For Unichain option, as the incentive is ongoing but as there’s a lot of interest, it’s listed as an option so that the community can see level of interest but from ranking for Forse for this proposal, it won’t be counted. So even if Unichain is among the top 4, it will skip it to include the next one into top 4. But Unichain related proposal could become its own RFC in the future if it's highly in demand.
https://gov.uniswap.org/t/rfc-analytics-hub-for-uniswaps-revitalization-and-growth-program/25493/9
https://gov.uniswap.org/t/rfc-analytics-hub-for-uniswaps-revitalization-and-growth-program/25493/9
https://gov.uniswap.org/t/rfc-analytics-hub-for-uniswaps-revitalization-and-growth-program/25493/9
https://gov.uniswap.org/t/rfc-analytics-hub-for-uniswaps-revitalization-and-growth-program/25493/9
I’m voting yes on this proposal to expand the Uniswap V4 dashboard to cover four new chains for a $60,000 budget. The last dashboard, built for the same amount, delivered solid insights on major chains like Arbitrum and Base, so this feels like a fair ask to keep the momentum going. Those chains are big but haven’t run incentives lately, which makes it smart to shift focus to younger, fast-growing ones with active or recent incentive programs—exactly what this proposal targets.
I’m particularly stoked about including Linea and ZKsync. Linea’s got a lot of buzz with airdrop expectations driving engagement, and ZKsync’s Ignition program is still fresh, boosting its TVL and activity. Expanding the dashboard to chains like these makes sense to track where Uniswap V4 can gain traction. StableLab’s proven they can deliver on time, and the budget aligns with the last proposal’s scope. This is a practical move to stay ahead in a competitive space, and I think it’s worth supporting.
I’m voting yes on this proposal to expand the Uniswap V4 dashboard to cover four new chains for a $60,000 budget. The last dashboard, built for the same amount, delivered solid insights on major chains like Arbitrum and Base, so this feels like a fair ask to keep the momentum going. Those chains are big but haven’t run incentives lately, which makes it smart to shift focus to younger, fast-growing ones with active or recent incentive programs—exactly what this proposal targets.
I’m particularly stoked about including Linea and ZKsync. Linea’s got a lot of buzz with airdrop expectations driving engagement, and ZKsync’s Ignition program is still fresh, boosting its TVL and activity. Expanding the dashboard to chains like these makes sense to track where Uniswap V4 can gain traction. StableLab’s proven they can deliver on time, and the budget aligns with the last proposal’s scope. This is a practical move to stay ahead in a competitive space, and I think it’s worth supporting.
Thank you @Doo_StableLab, we very much appreciate StableLab's continued engagement and work delivered in the initial proposal and terminal. Admittedly, we have not dug deep into the numbers but recognise this has provided valuable initial insights into the incentive programs and their effectiveness. Extending this analysis to additional chains now that we have the terminal up and running makes sense to provide a broader dataset across different chain environments and to keep refining future strategies to optimise the use of DAO resources.
However, we do have a couple of points that we'd like further clarity on before we are comfortable backing the proposal fully onchain. For now, we’ll abstain on the temp check but remain open to support a revised proposal that addresses these points with greater clarity.
Thank you @Doo_StableLab, we very much appreciate StableLab's continued engagement and work delivered in the initial proposal and terminal. Admittedly, we have not dug deep into the numbers but recognise this has provided valuable initial insights into the incentive programs and their effectiveness. Extending this analysis to additional chains now that we have the terminal up and running makes sense to provide a broader dataset across different chain environments and to keep refining future strategies to optimise the use of DAO resources.
However, we do have a couple of points that we'd like further clarity on before we are comfortable backing the proposal fully onchain. For now, we’ll abstain on the temp check but remain open to support a revised proposal that addresses these points with greater clarity.
Ideally, we think the DAO should first assess the utility of the initial output before funding more of the same. To what extent has the DAO used the terminal, i.e. have the recommendations started informing discussions or decisions?
We’ve seen differing views on the value of analysing chains with lower DeFi TVL. Our perspective is that this depends heavily on the DAO's specific strategic objectives – whether the goal is to maximise immediate TVL on large chains or understanding performance across a spectrum of ecosystem “maturities” and potential growth areas. Any thoughts here?
Thank you!
This proposal itself explicitly excludes Unichain. But even if it was for unichain, there can be different ways to assess and analyze
The snapshots are now live.
For Proposal that will decide whether it proceeds is this https://snapshot.box/#/s:uniswapgovernance.eth/proposal/0x675c9697cc6c8d1cab27e1cffab3fdc7740b3e978eb37d8b6dcce76d1726670f
And this is for chain selection feedback https://snapshot.box/#/s:uniswapgovernance.eth/proposal/0xd0e154ab11dfeed1fb652c4a4db011937ffa7dd3333847936c09a668b5e5e804
Thanks for the questions. First part is it helped to visualize and see impacts from the campaigns. As some chains were able to do better than others, and some pairs performed better than others. And it helped to show rooms for improvements. And ironically but in fairness, it's being as an example to showcase how some campaigns have underperformed. So we have sparked more conversations to have better methods to target incentives.
Another key point was what users are doing with UNI incentives they get, and we have showcased that most are indeed getting sold or bridged over, and this is encouraging more to think of better methods once again.
But overall we do understand and hear that the community might prefer to see incentive optimization rather than retro incentive analysis. We are happy to collaborate with other parties that utilize incentives such as @GFXlabs and @Gauntlet
Also, thanks all for participation, and we like to note that we will give ourselves time to reflect on feedback and suggestions before moving to onchain. The end proposal itself could look different or could even be a joint proposal.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @kaereste, @Sinkas, and @Manugotsuka, and it’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
We decided to vote AGAINST.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @kaereste, @Sinkas, and @Manugotsuka, and it’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
We decided to vote AGAINST.
First, we’d like to thank the StableLab team for the time and effort put into this proposal. The Forse dashboards you’ve built are clear, well‑structured, and helpful for anyone tracking the first round of incentive campaigns.
We have nothing against Forse—it's a solid tool—but we haven’t seen tangible outcomes that would help us justify funding integrations for four more chains. Before extending the coverage for additional chains it would be good to understand better what value does the current dashboard bring and how it can be used most effectively. If usage grows and the dashboard proves more value to the DAO, we’d be happy to revisit the idea in the future.
Hi @Doo_StableLab we’ve noticed that the Uniswap Foundation and Gauntlet have committed to providing a dashboard with the results of the incentives launched on Unichain. Don’t you think there’s some overlap here with Force’s proposal for Unichain?
We support adding four other chains to the analytics as it gives a more complete picture, and the insights from the terminal have been helpful for understanding how incentives impact growth (ex: sticking with high-utility pairs, reward time-weighted liquidity, delaying or vesting incentives).
Current TVL on these other chains listed as options is very low, would be helpful to understand if there were any sudden withdrawals (like incentives ending) or if it happened slowly over time.
There will be two snapshot proposals.
One would be regarding Forse proposal for four chains which the answers would be between Yes, No, Abstain.
Another will be weight voting between Linea Mantle Zksync Sei Manta Moonbeam Polygon zkEVM Unichain No Abstain.
Thank you @Doo_StableLab, we very much appreciate StableLab's continued engagement and work delivered in the initial proposal and terminal. Admittedly, we have not dug deep into the numbers but recognise this has provided valuable initial insights into the incentive programs and their effectiveness. Extending this analysis to additional chains now that we have the terminal up and running makes sense to provide a broader dataset across different chain environments and to keep refining future strategies to optimise the use of DAO resources.
However, we do have a couple of points that we'd like further clarity on before we are comfortable backing the proposal fully onchain. For now, we’ll abstain on the temp check but remain open to support a revised proposal that addresses these points with greater clarity.
Thank you @Doo_StableLab, we very much appreciate StableLab's continued engagement and work delivered in the initial proposal and terminal. Admittedly, we have not dug deep into the numbers but recognise this has provided valuable initial insights into the incentive programs and their effectiveness. Extending this analysis to additional chains now that we have the terminal up and running makes sense to provide a broader dataset across different chain environments and to keep refining future strategies to optimise the use of DAO resources.
However, we do have a couple of points that we'd like further clarity on before we are comfortable backing the proposal fully onchain. For now, we’ll abstain on the temp check but remain open to support a revised proposal that addresses these points with greater clarity.
Ideally, we think the DAO should first assess the utility of the initial output before funding more of the same. To what extent has the DAO used the terminal, i.e. have the recommendations started informing discussions or decisions?
We’ve seen differing views on the value of analysing chains with lower DeFi TVL. Our perspective is that this depends heavily on the DAO's specific strategic objectives – whether the goal is to maximise immediate TVL on large chains or understanding performance across a spectrum of ecosystem “maturities” and potential growth areas. Any thoughts here?
Thank you!
This proposal itself explicitly excludes Unichain. But even if it was for unichain, there can be different ways to assess and analyze
The snapshots are now live.
For Proposal that will decide whether it proceeds is this https://snapshot.box/#/s:uniswapgovernance.eth/proposal/0x675c9697cc6c8d1cab27e1cffab3fdc7740b3e978eb37d8b6dcce76d1726670f
And this is for chain selection feedback https://snapshot.box/#/s:uniswapgovernance.eth/proposal/0xd0e154ab11dfeed1fb652c4a4db011937ffa7dd3333847936c09a668b5e5e804
Thanks for the questions. First part is it helped to visualize and see impacts from the campaigns. As some chains were able to do better than others, and some pairs performed better than others. And it helped to show rooms for improvements. And ironically but in fairness, it's being as an example to showcase how some campaigns have underperformed. So we have sparked more conversations to have better methods to target incentives.
Another key point was what users are doing with UNI incentives they get, and we have showcased that most are indeed getting sold or bridged over, and this is encouraging more to think of better methods once again.
But overall we do understand and hear that the community might prefer to see incentive optimization rather than retro incentive analysis. We are happy to collaborate with other parties that utilize incentives such as @GFXlabs and @Gauntlet
Also, thanks all for participation, and we like to note that we will give ourselves time to reflect on feedback and suggestions before moving to onchain. The end proposal itself could look different or could even be a joint proposal.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @kaereste, @Sinkas, and @Manugotsuka, and it’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
We decided to vote AGAINST.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @kaereste, @Sinkas, and @Manugotsuka, and it’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
We decided to vote AGAINST.
First, we’d like to thank the StableLab team for the time and effort put into this proposal. The Forse dashboards you’ve built are clear, well‑structured, and helpful for anyone tracking the first round of incentive campaigns.
We have nothing against Forse—it's a solid tool—but we haven’t seen tangible outcomes that would help us justify funding integrations for four more chains. Before extending the coverage for additional chains it would be good to understand better what value does the current dashboard bring and how it can be used most effectively. If usage grows and the dashboard proves more value to the DAO, we’d be happy to revisit the idea in the future.
Hi @Doo_StableLab we’ve noticed that the Uniswap Foundation and Gauntlet have committed to providing a dashboard with the results of the incentives launched on Unichain. Don’t you think there’s some overlap here with Force’s proposal for Unichain?
We support adding four other chains to the analytics as it gives a more complete picture, and the insights from the terminal have been helpful for understanding how incentives impact growth (ex: sticking with high-utility pairs, reward time-weighted liquidity, delaying or vesting incentives).
Current TVL on these other chains listed as options is very low, would be helpful to understand if there were any sudden withdrawals (like incentives ending) or if it happened slowly over time.
There will be two snapshot proposals.
One would be regarding Forse proposal for four chains which the answers would be between Yes, No, Abstain.
Another will be weight voting between Linea Mantle Zksync Sei Manta Moonbeam Polygon zkEVM Unichain No Abstain.
Hi @Doo_StableLab we’ve noticed that the Uniswap Foundation and Gauntlet have committed to providing a dashboard with the results of the incentives launched on Unichain. Don’t you think there’s some overlap here with Force’s proposal for Unichain?
Over the next six months, the UF is targeting a notional migration of $32.8B rolling 30-day volume to v4 on target chains (this number is subject to change due to major shifts in macro conditions). Migration will be incentivized by offering LPs on v4 a higher yield than they would receive on v3 by incentivizing certain liquidity pools. To determine the budget to meet this goal, Gauntlet identified top-volume pools on each network and calculated the additional yield required to make migration a financially attractive option. Based on those calculations, a $24m budget is a conservative estimate for a 6-month timeframe and accounts for various degrees of organic demand for v4.
The campaign will be adjusted every two weeks based on market conditions. These adjustments will include choosing which pools receive what amount of incentives. The pools currently receiving incentives will be viewable on the Merkl website, and the program’s results will be viewable on a public dashboard maintained by Gauntlet within approximately one month of the program’s launch.
We support adding four other chains to the analytics as it gives a more complete picture, and the insights from the terminal have been helpful for understanding how incentives impact growth (ex: sticking with high-utility pairs, reward time-weighted liquidity, delaying or vesting incentives).
Current TVL on these other chains listed as options is very low, would be helpful to understand if there were any sudden withdrawals (like incentives ending) or if it happened slowly over time.
We didn't include Unichain in our picks but we would definitely like to see a dedicated RFC for Unichain as it's the most interesting deployment worth deeply understanding right now.
Curious @alphagrowth have you shown these dashboards to the chains you are talking about as a way for them to better design their incentives?
There will be two snapshot proposals.
One would be regarding Forse proposal for four chains which the answers would be between Yes, No, Abstain.
Another will be weight voting between Linea Mantle Zksync Sei Manta Moonbeam Polygon zkEVM Unichain No Abstain.
For Proposal 2, it is for chain selection feedback for the ongoing proposal https://snapshot.box/#/s:uniswapgovernance.eth/proposal/0x675c9697cc6c8d1cab27e1cffab3fdc7740b3e978eb37d8b6dcce76d1726670f so it depends on whether the proposal Analytics Hub for Uniswap’s Revitalization and Growth Program passes.
For Unichain option, as the incentive is ongoing but as there’s a lot of interest, it’s listed as an option so that the community can see level of interest but from ranking for Forse for this proposal, it won’t be counted. So even if Unichain is among the top 4, it will skip it to include the next one into top 4. But Unichain related proposal could become its own RFC in the future if it's highly in demand.
Curious @alphagrowth have you shown these dashboards to the chains you are talking about as a way for them to better design their incentives?
I don't think we have discussed with Alpha Growth team about these dashboards but I think it could be interesting for them and UAC to utilize to better discuss incentive campaigns .
Hi @Doo_StableLab we’ve noticed that the Uniswap Foundation and Gauntlet have committed to providing a dashboard with the results of the incentives launched on Unichain. Don’t you think there’s some overlap here with Force’s proposal for Unichain?
Over the next six months, the UF is targeting a notional migration of $32.8B rolling 30-day volume to v4 on target chains (this number is subject to change due to major shifts in macro conditions). Migration will be incentivized by offering LPs on v4 a higher yield than they would receive on v3 by incentivizing certain liquidity pools. To determine the budget to meet this goal, Gauntlet identified top-volume pools on each network and calculated the additional yield required to make migration a financially attractive option. Based on those calculations, a $24m budget is a conservative estimate for a 6-month timeframe and accounts for various degrees of organic demand for v4.
The campaign will be adjusted every two weeks based on market conditions. These adjustments will include choosing which pools receive what amount of incentives. The pools currently receiving incentives will be viewable on the Merkl website, and the program’s results will be viewable on a public dashboard maintained by Gauntlet within approximately one month of the program’s launch.
We support adding four other chains to the analytics as it gives a more complete picture, and the insights from the terminal have been helpful for understanding how incentives impact growth (ex: sticking with high-utility pairs, reward time-weighted liquidity, delaying or vesting incentives).
Current TVL on these other chains listed as options is very low, would be helpful to understand if there were any sudden withdrawals (like incentives ending) or if it happened slowly over time.
We didn't include Unichain in our picks but we would definitely like to see a dedicated RFC for Unichain as it's the most interesting deployment worth deeply understanding right now.
Curious @alphagrowth have you shown these dashboards to the chains you are talking about as a way for them to better design their incentives?
There will be two snapshot proposals.
One would be regarding Forse proposal for four chains which the answers would be between Yes, No, Abstain.
Another will be weight voting between Linea Mantle Zksync Sei Manta Moonbeam Polygon zkEVM Unichain No Abstain.
For Proposal 2, it is for chain selection feedback for the ongoing proposal https://snapshot.box/#/s:uniswapgovernance.eth/proposal/0x675c9697cc6c8d1cab27e1cffab3fdc7740b3e978eb37d8b6dcce76d1726670f so it depends on whether the proposal Analytics Hub for Uniswap’s Revitalization and Growth Program passes.
For Unichain option, as the incentive is ongoing but as there’s a lot of interest, it’s listed as an option so that the community can see level of interest but from ranking for Forse for this proposal, it won’t be counted. So even if Unichain is among the top 4, it will skip it to include the next one into top 4. But Unichain related proposal could become its own RFC in the future if it's highly in demand.
Curious @alphagrowth have you shown these dashboards to the chains you are talking about as a way for them to better design their incentives?
I don't think we have discussed with Alpha Growth team about these dashboards but I think it could be interesting for them and UAC to utilize to better discuss incentive campaigns .
