Proposal Authors: Uniswap Accountability Committee (@abdullahumar, @juanbug, @alicecorsini)
[Disclaimer - This proposal is powered by the Uniswap Accountability Committee. kpk did not receive compensation for posting this proposal.]
Uniswap DAO successfully expanded v3 to an aggregate 40 chains. It streamlined the deployment process with help from partners like Oku and Reservoir, who have set up v3 instances and user interfaces for LPs and traders. These deployments have been supplemented with incentive programs and growth initiatives, all of which have been initiated by the DAO and its target chain partners.
With Uniswap v4 having launched in February and the Business Source License (BSL) in place, the DAO has an opportunity to maximize v4’s impact using the lessons it has learned from v3 expansion. As the BSL represents a competitive advantage for Uniswap, the DAO needs to prioritize driving adoption of v4 pools and hooks over the coming months, in supplement with the programs that the UF is actively pursuing. The first step in growing Uniswap v4 across multiple chains begins with laying the operational groundwork around the BSL.
Uniswap v4’s potential is tied to its flexible hook-driven architecture, which can reshape the DEX landscape and further strengthen Uniswap’s dominance. If v4 reaches a critical mass of hooks and liquidity, it could outcompete standalone applications by integrating their features into Uniswap’s ecosystem, acting as a sink for liquidity and talent.
This also means that, as opposed to previous versions, v4’s success depends not just on the core AMM design but also on external developers building useful hooks. In this context, strong incentives for developers and liquidity providers are key to success.
Uniswap v4 presents two main challenges:
While it is less apparent with v3, v4’s success depends heavily on timing. For Uniswap to dominate across chains, adoption needs to happen quickly and broadly. For this reason, we propose to deploy v4 on as many chains as early as possible. This allows us to tackle a broader audience and enables hook developers to compete and innovate across different ecosystems rather than being limited to just one.
Hooks that gain traction on Ethereum or Arbitrum might look different from those that succeed on chains like Ink, Sonic, or Celo. Smaller or newer chains provide a testing ground for developers to experiment without directly competing with established hooks on larger networks. On the other hand, larger ecosystems provide access to a broader and more varied audience. Over time, similar hooks may emerge in different environments but appeal to their users in unique ways.
For example, Uniswap v3 often struggles to compete with native DEXs on new chains. But v4 is different—it can work as a behind-the-scenes platform, allowing native projects to build their own branded hooks on top of it. By partnering with new chains early and encouraging developers to build on v4 from the start, Uniswap has a much better chance of becoming the dominant DEX across multiple ecosystems.
To accelerate v4 adoption across as many chains as possible, we need to act promptly. DAO-affiliated groups like the Foundation, UAC, and external teams like Oku and Reservoir—if they choose to partake in v4 growth—have the opportunity to drive this initiative.
The v4 license is effectively a strategic advantage. With v3, cross-chain growth only took off after the BSL expired. This time, we should use the license to maintain a competitive edge before it eventually transitions to an open-source MIT license.
The first step is setting up a clear process for managing deployments, including a system for granting license exemptions to launch official v4 instances. Details follow.
Uniswap v4 is governed by the Business Source License (BSL) 1.1, which is a temporary source-available license that allows users to view, modify, and experiment with the code but restricts commercial use unless explicitly permitted by the licensor. Over time, BSL-covered software transitions into an open-source license, in this case, MIT, meaning that after a predetermined period, the software will be freely usable by anyone.
We see no reason to enact an early transition to MIT, but if the DAO were to decide this to be the best route, we’d have to create an onchain proposal to deploy a subdomain titled “v4-core-license-date.uniswap.eth” detailing the early conversion date. This present proposal will not be deploying the change date subdomain.
Uniswap v4’s BSL provides an essential competitive advantage by limiting unauthorized commercial use of the protocol. This creates a temporary moat in several key ways:
The BSL offers a temporary advantage, and its effectiveness will diminish over time due to the following factors:
In this proposal, we put forward:
Adopting parlance from the v3 process, we propose using the following text for v4 license exemptions:
[Entity Name] is granted an Additional Use Grant to use the Uniswap V4 Core software code (which is made available to [Entity Name] subject to the license available at** https://github.com/Uniswap/v4-core/blob/main/licenses/BUSL_LICENSE (the “Uniswap Code”)). As part of this additional use grant, [Entity Name] receives a license to use the Uniswap Code for the purposes of a full deployment of the Uniswap Protocol v4 onto the [Blockchain Name] blockchain. [Entity Name] is permitted to use subcontractors to execute this deployment. This license is conditional on [Entity Name] complying with the terms of the Business Source License 1.1, made available at** https://github.com/Uniswap/v4-core/blob/main/licenses/BUSL_LICENSE.
The above text will be utilized for one-off license exemptions. In other words, this given verbiage for the purpose of granting a deployer the permission to launch the v4 contract on a SINGULAR target chain. We expect this to be used in rare circumstances.
Additionally, we propose that the DAO reserve the ability to grant blanket exemptions to select entities in charge of deploying v4 across ANY DAO-approved EVM ecosystem.
Below is the text to be used for blanket exemptions:
[Entity Name] is granted an Additional Use Grant to allow [Entity Name] to use the Uniswap V4 Core software code (which is made available to [Entity Name] subject to the license available at https://github.com/Uniswap/v4-core/blob/main/licenses/BUSL_LICENSE (the “Uniswap Code”)).
As part of this additional use grant, [Entity Name] receives a limited worldwide license to use the Uniswap Code for the purposes of creating, deploying and making available aspects of the Uniswap Protocol v4 (the “AMM”); to modify and update the AMM over time; and deploy the AMM as smart contracts on blockchain-based applications and protocols.
The [Entity Name] is permitted to use subcontractors to do this work. This license is conditional on the [Entity Name] complying with the terms of the Business Source License 1.1, made available at https://github.com/Uniswap/v4-core/blob/main/licenses/BUSL_LICENSE.
For certain entities, blanket exemptions would optimise the process by reducing governance overhead. The selection of target chains will follow the optimistic approval process currently present with v3 deployments, thereby reducing the need for a vote. The assumption is that v4 deployments will largely be conducted by a select few entities, like the UF and potential front-end providers, not by individual organizations, so a blanket exemption is prudent.
This proposal calls for the DAO to grant its first blanket license exemption to the Uniswap Foundation so that they may be able to assist target chains with contract deployments as soon as possible.
We would also like to help teams that have worked closely with the DAO to assist with v3 deployments, in particular those who are also able to provide front-end compatibility for v4, receive license exemptions. At a later date, the UAC will create a rolling RFP forum post where front-end providers and deployers can post their proposition for attaining a license exemption from the DAO.
At the end of each quarter, the DAO can vote on which RFP candidates should be granted a license exemption via a Snapshot vote. Winners of this election process will proceed to an onchain vote, which will formally alter the text record, granting the given entity an Additional Use Grant. These onchain proposals will also bundle together any funding request that the given applicants may have posited. A future RFC will be posted outlining this process further.
The v4-core-license-grants.uniswap.eth subdomain will be owned and managed solely by the timelock address, so it may only be altered through a governance vote. The Accountability Committee will not have the authority to write to this subdomain due to the delicate legal underpinnings regarding the BSL.
In this proposal, we ask the DAO to grant the Accountability Committee management rights over the v4deployments.uniswap.eth domain, allowing for the team to update the text record once a deployment has been approved by the DAO.
To ensure transparency and consistency in the deployment of Uniswap v4, we propose to establish a dedicated ENS subdomain at v4deployments.uniswap.eth. This subdomain will serve as a canonical registry for all official v4 deployments that have been approved by the DAO. While the BSL is in effect, only deployments conducted by an entity with a license exemption—or Uniswap Labs—will be added to this registry.
By maintaining an authoritative list of official v4 deployments, this registry will provide the community, developers, and liquidity providers with a trusted source of information regarding which v4 instances are recognized and aligned with Uniswap governance. This subdomain will effectively mimic the existing v3deployments.uniswap.eth. Accordingly, as this present proposal will create the v4deployments.uniswap.eth domain, it will also grant the Accountability Committee management rights over it, allowing for the team to update the text record once a deployment has been approved by the DAO.
The text records for this domain will be formatted such that the key is the network number of the chain in question and the value is a string with the address of the bridge sender contract on mainnet associated with the deployment followed by the PoolManager address on the destination chain, and finally the owner contract of the PoolManager, each separated by a space and a comma. PoolManager.sol, the Singleton contract, will act as the replacement for the v3Factory address used for v3 text records.
For example, the v4 deployment details on Base are as follows:
Chain ID: 8453
PoolManager: 0x498581ff718922c3f8e6a244956af099b2652b2b
Sender Contract for Base: 0x866E82a600A1414e583f7F13623F1aC5d58b0Afa
Base PoolManager Owner: 0x31FAfd4889FA1269F7a13A66eE0fB458f27D72A9
ENS Subdomain Text: 0x866E82a600A1414e583f7F13623F1aC5d58b0Afa, 0x498581ff718922c3f8e6a244956af099b2652b2b, 0x31FAfd4889FA1269F7a13A66eE0fB458f27D72A9
Proposal Authors: Uniswap Accountability Committee (@abdullahumar, @juanbug, @alicecorsini)
[Disclaimer - This proposal is powered by the Uniswap Accountability Committee. kpk did not receive compensation for posting this proposal.]
Uniswap DAO successfully expanded v3 to an aggregate 40 chains. It streamlined the deployment process with help from partners like Oku and Reservoir, who have set up v3 instances and user interfaces for LPs and traders. These deployments have been supplemented with incentive programs and growth initiatives, all of which have been initiated by the DAO and its target chain partners.
With Uniswap v4 having launched in February and the Business Source License (BSL) in place, the DAO has an opportunity to maximize v4’s impact using the lessons it has learned from v3 expansion. As the BSL represents a competitive advantage for Uniswap, the DAO needs to prioritize driving adoption of v4 pools and hooks over the coming months, in supplement with the programs that the UF is actively pursuing. The first step in growing Uniswap v4 across multiple chains begins with laying the operational groundwork around the BSL.
Uniswap v4’s potential is tied to its flexible hook-driven architecture, which can reshape the DEX landscape and further strengthen Uniswap’s dominance. If v4 reaches a critical mass of hooks and liquidity, it could outcompete standalone applications by integrating their features into Uniswap’s ecosystem, acting as a sink for liquidity and talent.
This also means that, as opposed to previous versions, v4’s success depends not just on the core AMM design but also on external developers building useful hooks. In this context, strong incentives for developers and liquidity providers are key to success.
Uniswap v4 presents two main challenges:
While it is less apparent with v3, v4’s success depends heavily on timing. For Uniswap to dominate across chains, adoption needs to happen quickly and broadly. For this reason, we propose to deploy v4 on as many chains as early as possible. This allows us to tackle a broader audience and enables hook developers to compete and innovate across different ecosystems rather than being limited to just one.
Hooks that gain traction on Ethereum or Arbitrum might look different from those that succeed on chains like Ink, Sonic, or Celo. Smaller or newer chains provide a testing ground for developers to experiment without directly competing with established hooks on larger networks. On the other hand, larger ecosystems provide access to a broader and more varied audience. Over time, similar hooks may emerge in different environments but appeal to their users in unique ways.
For example, Uniswap v3 often struggles to compete with native DEXs on new chains. But v4 is different—it can work as a behind-the-scenes platform, allowing native projects to build their own branded hooks on top of it. By partnering with new chains early and encouraging developers to build on v4 from the start, Uniswap has a much better chance of becoming the dominant DEX across multiple ecosystems.
To accelerate v4 adoption across as many chains as possible, we need to act promptly. DAO-affiliated groups like the Foundation, UAC, and external teams like Oku and Reservoir—if they choose to partake in v4 growth—have the opportunity to drive this initiative.
The v4 license is effectively a strategic advantage. With v3, cross-chain growth only took off after the BSL expired. This time, we should use the license to maintain a competitive edge before it eventually transitions to an open-source MIT license.
The first step is setting up a clear process for managing deployments, including a system for granting license exemptions to launch official v4 instances. Details follow.
Uniswap v4 is governed by the Business Source License (BSL) 1.1, which is a temporary source-available license that allows users to view, modify, and experiment with the code but restricts commercial use unless explicitly permitted by the licensor. Over time, BSL-covered software transitions into an open-source license, in this case, MIT, meaning that after a predetermined period, the software will be freely usable by anyone.
We see no reason to enact an early transition to MIT, but if the DAO were to decide this to be the best route, we’d have to create an onchain proposal to deploy a subdomain titled “v4-core-license-date.uniswap.eth” detailing the early conversion date. This present proposal will not be deploying the change date subdomain.
Uniswap v4’s BSL provides an essential competitive advantage by limiting unauthorized commercial use of the protocol. This creates a temporary moat in several key ways:
The BSL offers a temporary advantage, and its effectiveness will diminish over time due to the following factors:
In this proposal, we put forward:
Adopting parlance from the v3 process, we propose using the following text for v4 license exemptions:
[Entity Name] is granted an Additional Use Grant to use the Uniswap V4 Core software code (which is made available to [Entity Name] subject to the license available at** https://github.com/Uniswap/v4-core/blob/main/licenses/BUSL_LICENSE (the “Uniswap Code”)). As part of this additional use grant, [Entity Name] receives a license to use the Uniswap Code for the purposes of a full deployment of the Uniswap Protocol v4 onto the [Blockchain Name] blockchain. [Entity Name] is permitted to use subcontractors to execute this deployment. This license is conditional on [Entity Name] complying with the terms of the Business Source License 1.1, made available at** https://github.com/Uniswap/v4-core/blob/main/licenses/BUSL_LICENSE.
The above text will be utilized for one-off license exemptions. In other words, this given verbiage for the purpose of granting a deployer the permission to launch the v4 contract on a SINGULAR target chain. We expect this to be used in rare circumstances.
Additionally, we propose that the DAO reserve the ability to grant blanket exemptions to select entities in charge of deploying v4 across ANY DAO-approved EVM ecosystem.
Below is the text to be used for blanket exemptions:
[Entity Name] is granted an Additional Use Grant to allow [Entity Name] to use the Uniswap V4 Core software code (which is made available to [Entity Name] subject to the license available at https://github.com/Uniswap/v4-core/blob/main/licenses/BUSL_LICENSE (the “Uniswap Code”)).
As part of this additional use grant, [Entity Name] receives a limited worldwide license to use the Uniswap Code for the purposes of creating, deploying and making available aspects of the Uniswap Protocol v4 (the “AMM”); to modify and update the AMM over time; and deploy the AMM as smart contracts on blockchain-based applications and protocols.
The [Entity Name] is permitted to use subcontractors to do this work. This license is conditional on the [Entity Name] complying with the terms of the Business Source License 1.1, made available at https://github.com/Uniswap/v4-core/blob/main/licenses/BUSL_LICENSE.
For certain entities, blanket exemptions would optimise the process by reducing governance overhead. The selection of target chains will follow the optimistic approval process currently present with v3 deployments, thereby reducing the need for a vote. The assumption is that v4 deployments will largely be conducted by a select few entities, like the UF and potential front-end providers, not by individual organizations, so a blanket exemption is prudent.
This proposal calls for the DAO to grant its first blanket license exemption to the Uniswap Foundation so that they may be able to assist target chains with contract deployments as soon as possible.
We would also like to help teams that have worked closely with the DAO to assist with v3 deployments, in particular those who are also able to provide front-end compatibility for v4, receive license exemptions. At a later date, the UAC will create a rolling RFP forum post where front-end providers and deployers can post their proposition for attaining a license exemption from the DAO.
At the end of each quarter, the DAO can vote on which RFP candidates should be granted a license exemption via a Snapshot vote. Winners of this election process will proceed to an onchain vote, which will formally alter the text record, granting the given entity an Additional Use Grant. These onchain proposals will also bundle together any funding request that the given applicants may have posited. A future RFC will be posted outlining this process further.
The v4-core-license-grants.uniswap.eth subdomain will be owned and managed solely by the timelock address, so it may only be altered through a governance vote. The Accountability Committee will not have the authority to write to this subdomain due to the delicate legal underpinnings regarding the BSL.
In this proposal, we ask the DAO to grant the Accountability Committee management rights over the v4deployments.uniswap.eth domain, allowing for the team to update the text record once a deployment has been approved by the DAO.
To ensure transparency and consistency in the deployment of Uniswap v4, we propose to establish a dedicated ENS subdomain at v4deployments.uniswap.eth. This subdomain will serve as a canonical registry for all official v4 deployments that have been approved by the DAO. While the BSL is in effect, only deployments conducted by an entity with a license exemption—or Uniswap Labs—will be added to this registry.
By maintaining an authoritative list of official v4 deployments, this registry will provide the community, developers, and liquidity providers with a trusted source of information regarding which v4 instances are recognized and aligned with Uniswap governance. This subdomain will effectively mimic the existing v3deployments.uniswap.eth. Accordingly, as this present proposal will create the v4deployments.uniswap.eth domain, it will also grant the Accountability Committee management rights over it, allowing for the team to update the text record once a deployment has been approved by the DAO.
The text records for this domain will be formatted such that the key is the network number of the chain in question and the value is a string with the address of the bridge sender contract on mainnet associated with the deployment followed by the PoolManager address on the destination chain, and finally the owner contract of the PoolManager, each separated by a space and a comma. PoolManager.sol, the Singleton contract, will act as the replacement for the v3Factory address used for v3 text records.
For example, the v4 deployment details on Base are as follows:
Chain ID: 8453
PoolManager: 0x498581ff718922c3f8e6a244956af099b2652b2b
Sender Contract for Base: 0x866E82a600A1414e583f7F13623F1aC5d58b0Afa
Base PoolManager Owner: 0x31FAfd4889FA1269F7a13A66eE0fB458f27D72A9
ENS Subdomain Text: 0x866E82a600A1414e583f7F13623F1aC5d58b0Afa, 0x498581ff718922c3f8e6a244956af099b2652b2b, 0x31FAfd4889FA1269F7a13A66eE0fB458f27D72A9
https://gov.uniswap.org/t/l2beat-delegate-platform/22449/11
https://gov.uniswap.org/t/l2beat-delegate-platform/22449/11
Let me divague here and suppose that UF won't deliver any of those OKRs... Does the protocol would suffer any kind of impact? I mean, 74M doesn't seem to be an expressive amount of capital to Uniswap.
Wouldthe protocol losses its credibility with the community if something like that happen? And if it's yes, why would it lose if UF have nothing to do with Uni Labs?
What if the biannual report turns into a trimestral report? For me it would provide more expectative allignment with the community.
Hey @Brenner - great to see you here!
One quick bit of additional context that I'll surface here - VCs also see personal upside from their deployment of capital through carry. This usually serves as a significant source of compensation, in addition to the management fee.
Hey @Brenner - great to see you here!
One quick bit of additional context that I'll surface here - VCs also see personal upside from their deployment of capital through carry. This usually serves as a significant source of compensation, in addition to the management fee.
Uniswap Foundation members wouldn't have access to this - as they deploy non-dilutive capital to projects in the ecosystem. In order to make sure that the Foundation is able to retain specialized talent and isn't plagued by the turnover and instability other projects in the space are facing, $10.3M for 12 staff over 3 years is very reasonable. In fact - it's not uncommon for other projects in the space to allocate more to their founding team members.
Also, as @Fishbiscuit mentioned, the roles UF is hiring for aren't all in capital deployment - with roles in governance, community, partnerships, and devrel.
Considering Uniswap's position in the ecosystem and the sheer extensibility of a DEX, the Uniswap Foundation has an incredible opportunity to drive decentralized growth, advocate for the protocol, and reinvigorate governance - creating massive additional value for all of Uniswap's stakeholders in the process. The sky is truly the limit when it comes to Uniswap's future.
That being said - I fully trust @devinwalsh and @kenneth that these 12 roles will help the Uniswap Foundation propel the Uniswap ecosystem forward. Thank you both for the months of intentionality and preparation that came before this proposal. It was a joy to read and I'm excited to share my support for the Uniswap Foundation.
Heya @Brenner sharing a perspective -
1. The Foundation does more than just disburse grants Looking at the jobs posted, there are also roles involved that do not only manage the 'fund' such as governance, community, devrel.
About 3 roles (1/4) are directly managing the grants disbursement which if we simply take that as a guidance would be about $3.5M of the operating budget. 6% of $60M is $3.6M.
That's a notable difference, thank you @enti for calling that out.
I don't know much about what a typical Foundation's operating expenses are relative to the amount of capital they're overseeing, but would be curious to see the comparisons (I do understand there would be differences)
You can't compare a Foundation with VCs, it's just not the same type and amount of work.
The UF, if I understood this post correctly, will help steward the Uniswap Protocol with monetary and non-monetary support to whoever may need it as well as identify other areas with potential and make recommendations. All of that without necessarily taking a stake in those investments.
nice piece, putting it the way they are, please drop more to educate who wants to learn
The ask is $14M to manage $60m over 3 years.
19% of total funds going toward management over 3 years.
VCs charge 2%/year management fees (6% for 3 years).
Why does UF need to charge a higher percent for capital management than VCs do?
We support the proposal to form the Uniswap Foundation.
Having a foundation that has the necessary resources to attract top talent and build out a growing ecosystem of Uniswap products is key to the decentralization of the protocol and its continued growth.
We know Devin and the advisors/team members here, and believe they are the right people to take this initiative forward.
Let me divague here and suppose that UF won't deliver any of those OKRs... Does the protocol would suffer any kind of impact? I mean, 74M doesn't seem to be an expressive amount of capital to Uniswap.
Wouldthe protocol losses its credibility with the community if something like that happen? And if it's yes, why would it lose if UF have nothing to do with Uni Labs?
What if the biannual report turns into a trimestral report? For me it would provide more expectative allignment with the community.
Hey @Brenner - great to see you here!
One quick bit of additional context that I'll surface here - VCs also see personal upside from their deployment of capital through carry. This usually serves as a significant source of compensation, in addition to the management fee.
Hey @Brenner - great to see you here!
One quick bit of additional context that I'll surface here - VCs also see personal upside from their deployment of capital through carry. This usually serves as a significant source of compensation, in addition to the management fee.
Uniswap Foundation members wouldn't have access to this - as they deploy non-dilutive capital to projects in the ecosystem. In order to make sure that the Foundation is able to retain specialized talent and isn't plagued by the turnover and instability other projects in the space are facing, $10.3M for 12 staff over 3 years is very reasonable. In fact - it's not uncommon for other projects in the space to allocate more to their founding team members.
Also, as @Fishbiscuit mentioned, the roles UF is hiring for aren't all in capital deployment - with roles in governance, community, partnerships, and devrel.
Considering Uniswap's position in the ecosystem and the sheer extensibility of a DEX, the Uniswap Foundation has an incredible opportunity to drive decentralized growth, advocate for the protocol, and reinvigorate governance - creating massive additional value for all of Uniswap's stakeholders in the process. The sky is truly the limit when it comes to Uniswap's future.
That being said - I fully trust @devinwalsh and @kenneth that these 12 roles will help the Uniswap Foundation propel the Uniswap ecosystem forward. Thank you both for the months of intentionality and preparation that came before this proposal. It was a joy to read and I'm excited to share my support for the Uniswap Foundation.
Heya @Brenner sharing a perspective -
1. The Foundation does more than just disburse grants Looking at the jobs posted, there are also roles involved that do not only manage the 'fund' such as governance, community, devrel.
About 3 roles (1/4) are directly managing the grants disbursement which if we simply take that as a guidance would be about $3.5M of the operating budget. 6% of $60M is $3.6M.
That's a notable difference, thank you @enti for calling that out.
I don't know much about what a typical Foundation's operating expenses are relative to the amount of capital they're overseeing, but would be curious to see the comparisons (I do understand there would be differences)
You can't compare a Foundation with VCs, it's just not the same type and amount of work.
The UF, if I understood this post correctly, will help steward the Uniswap Protocol with monetary and non-monetary support to whoever may need it as well as identify other areas with potential and make recommendations. All of that without necessarily taking a stake in those investments.
nice piece, putting it the way they are, please drop more to educate who wants to learn
The ask is $14M to manage $60m over 3 years.
19% of total funds going toward management over 3 years.
VCs charge 2%/year management fees (6% for 3 years).
Why does UF need to charge a higher percent for capital management than VCs do?
We support the proposal to form the Uniswap Foundation.
Having a foundation that has the necessary resources to attract top talent and build out a growing ecosystem of Uniswap products is key to the decentralization of the protocol and its continued growth.
We know Devin and the advisors/team members here, and believe they are the right people to take this initiative forward.
Heya @Brenner sharing a perspective -
1. The Foundation does more than just disburse grants Looking at the jobs posted, there are also roles involved that do not only manage the 'fund' such as governance, community, devrel.
About 3 roles (1/4) are directly managing the grants disbursement which if we simply take that as a guidance would be about $3.5M of the operating budget. 6% of $60M is $3.6M.
As @devinwalsh pointed out in this reply here, there's a lot more than goes on in a Foundation than just disbursing grants.
2. The pay is reasonable when looking at existing nonprofits Just very quickly, searching up a report on salaries for nonprofits - the level of pay for a disbursement > $50M is about 280k annually for VP-level staff. 280k * 12 staff * 3 years leads us to $10.08M. The budget allocated for salaries is $10.3M which is very close. Considering that running a foundation in Web3 requires specialised skillsets, I'd say that the foundation could definitely afford to pay more.
We support the proposal to form the Uniswap Foundation.
Having a foundation that has the necessary resources to attract top talent and build out a growing ecosystem of Uniswap products is key to the decentralization of the protocol and its continued growth.
We know Devin and the advisors/team members here, and believe they are the right people to take this initiative forward.
This is a step that aligns with our Delegation Platform pitch and is a good next step in UNI token holders becoming more active in the ecosystem. It will take a lot of work and motivated UNI holders/delegates to make the best of these resources and we are excited to contribute.
The creation of the Uniswap Foundation is the natural progression of 1) further decentralization of the protocol and 2) formalization of an effective grant issuing entity to benefit the community.
DAO treasuries should not sit idle in a native token balance. The development of professional foundation to put assets to work to improve the experience and grow the user base is essential to the long term future of Uniswap.
The creation of the Uniswap Foundation is the natural progression of 1) further decentralization of the protocol and 2) formalization of an effective grant issuing entity to benefit the community.
DAO treasuries should not sit idle in a native token balance. The development of professional foundation to put assets to work to improve the experience and grow the user base is essential to the long term future of Uniswap.
Uniswap is the most profound and innovative financial application of our lifetime! Now is the time to grow the ecosystem with more tooling, interfaces, and easy to manage documentation so we can onboard the next billion people into DeFi.
As a supporter of Ethereum (former Head of Growth, EEA) and long time Uniswap LP, I support @devinwalsh and @kenneth in this proposal.
The team structure being proposed is a step forward. Having a dedicated grants lead is definitely a step forward.
The proposal misses an answer to - What were the problems and learnings from the UGP? How is the Uniswap Foundation addressing them?
Heya @Brenner sharing a perspective -
1. The Foundation does more than just disburse grants Looking at the jobs posted, there are also roles involved that do not only manage the 'fund' such as governance, community, devrel.
About 3 roles (1/4) are directly managing the grants disbursement which if we simply take that as a guidance would be about $3.5M of the operating budget. 6% of $60M is $3.6M.
As @devinwalsh pointed out in this reply here, there's a lot more than goes on in a Foundation than just disbursing grants.
2. The pay is reasonable when looking at existing nonprofits Just very quickly, searching up a report on salaries for nonprofits - the level of pay for a disbursement > $50M is about 280k annually for VP-level staff. 280k * 12 staff * 3 years leads us to $10.08M. The budget allocated for salaries is $10.3M which is very close. Considering that running a foundation in Web3 requires specialised skillsets, I'd say that the foundation could definitely afford to pay more.
We support the proposal to form the Uniswap Foundation.
Having a foundation that has the necessary resources to attract top talent and build out a growing ecosystem of Uniswap products is key to the decentralization of the protocol and its continued growth.
We know Devin and the advisors/team members here, and believe they are the right people to take this initiative forward.
This is a step that aligns with our Delegation Platform pitch and is a good next step in UNI token holders becoming more active in the ecosystem. It will take a lot of work and motivated UNI holders/delegates to make the best of these resources and we are excited to contribute.
The creation of the Uniswap Foundation is the natural progression of 1) further decentralization of the protocol and 2) formalization of an effective grant issuing entity to benefit the community.
DAO treasuries should not sit idle in a native token balance. The development of professional foundation to put assets to work to improve the experience and grow the user base is essential to the long term future of Uniswap.
The creation of the Uniswap Foundation is the natural progression of 1) further decentralization of the protocol and 2) formalization of an effective grant issuing entity to benefit the community.
DAO treasuries should not sit idle in a native token balance. The development of professional foundation to put assets to work to improve the experience and grow the user base is essential to the long term future of Uniswap.
Uniswap is the most profound and innovative financial application of our lifetime! Now is the time to grow the ecosystem with more tooling, interfaces, and easy to manage documentation so we can onboard the next billion people into DeFi.
As a supporter of Ethereum (former Head of Growth, EEA) and long time Uniswap LP, I support @devinwalsh and @kenneth in this proposal.
The team structure being proposed is a step forward. Having a dedicated grants lead is definitely a step forward.
The proposal misses an answer to - What were the problems and learnings from the UGP? How is the Uniswap Foundation addressing them?
Loved the initiative to further decentralize Uniswap
Also, imo the budget is pretty modest for the experienced crypto-native team.
Highly excited for the Uniswap's journey to achieve peak decentralization
This should happen way before. I really agree with this. Let do this fam
I do not support this proposal.
Reading through the article, I don't see a proposal describing how to empower uni tokens and increase the value of uni tokens. As a uni holder, I can't support this proposal to set up a centralized company purely by selling coins. We call for the commission switch to be turned on.
I do not support this proposal.
Reading through the article, I don't see a proposal describing how to empower uni tokens and increase the value of uni tokens. As a uni holder, I can't support this proposal to set up a centralized company purely by selling coins. We call for the commission switch to be turned on.
I remember donating 1 million uni tokens to a defi education group, and honestly, I didn't see any educational results from the group, but rather like a transfer of benefits. The proposal to set up a foundation this time seems to me to be the same.
Even if a foundation is set up, asking for $70 million is too much now, and the uni token market can't afford such a dump in the short term.
Hi all - Michael from xToken here.
I think this proposal is aligned with the best interests of the Uniswap community, and I also think that this sort of initiative is (directionally) an appropriate use of the protocol's treasury.
Hi all - Michael from xToken here.
I think this proposal is aligned with the best interests of the Uniswap community, and I also think that this sort of initiative is (directionally) an appropriate use of the protocol's treasury.
That said, having been through the UGP process, it would be beneficial to hear more about the process and methodology for the grants program under the new umbrella. I found the members of the committee to be kind and well-intentioned, but overall the process was vague and lacking in transparency. I’ve spoken with other applicants who have had similar experiences.
A few notes:
Because the committee declined to fund our proposal, it’s difficult to write this post without sounding like sour grapes. However, the grant request was really quite small, so I hope I can present this perspective neutrally.
Looking at the list of funded grants over the history of the UGP, the committee has done great work supporting projects around tooling, analytics and ETH public goods. The media and hackathon sponsorships make legitimate sense for the protocol, even if some people object to the price tags. However, it’s hard not to look at the grants list and notice a subset of very generously funded projects with ambiguous goals. In many cases, these projects are led by folks with strong ties to the committee and team. In some cases, these are projects led by committee members (to be absolutely fair, the committee members are not always the beneficiaries of these grants). And, in some cases, these projects have not been shipped or maintained.
I really don’t think there is any ill intent here, and I don’t want to empower any of the trolls on this forum. I also think it’s completely justifiable to run a grants and development program driven by the committee’s network and priorities. However, this approach would seem to be in conflict with the stated ethos of the project and community. And the optics are apparent to everyone except a few insiders.
We’ll still be building on top of Uniswap V3 everyday, and we will definitely apply to the grants program again in the future. But I think the community and protocol – and the foundation -– would benefit deeply from a clear statement of process, methodology and standards.
We aren't impressed. UGP has been a porky failure. I can't post links but please see @adamscochran's Twitter thread on the issue posted a few hours ago.
I don't disagree. I'm not asking for people to work out of the kindness of their hearts. I am going to question why if that's the sole goal (which requires a legal analysis) do we need to fork over 14M in operating dollars to build a team of 12. That's pork and spending for other things. Size it all down and work provisionally. You can come back in 6mo to ask for more.
Great proposal! As a builder in the Uniswap Ecosystem, I believe the foundation is the right approach to grow Uniswap.
I hope you will build a distributed and diverse team so the foundation's impact can be widespread.
Great proposal! As a builder in the Uniswap Ecosystem, I believe the foundation is the right approach to grow Uniswap.
I hope you will build a distributed and diverse team so the foundation's impact can be widespread.
Also, curious going forward about how much visibility the foundation will have on Labs' roadmap and development. Would that impact on voting and grant decisions (eg: will foundation would vote against a proposal if it knows it impacts Labs' roadmap?)
I think the OKR's need to be rewritten both to ensure accountability to token holders and for the foundation to eventually defend itself against skeptical token holders. The primary key result metrics, as I read them, are % allocation of the budget. These could be achieved with the stroke of a pen regardless of the effectiveness of resource allocation. While the proportions are useful to communicate, they are not helpful for evaluation.
It is a bit concerning that they were written this way because it implies that the spending of funds is primary rather than return on investment.
What I don't understand is who owns the equity in this newly formed foundation? Is it Labs, Devin or someone else?
Nice proposal. It is interesting to have another entity that contributes to Uniswap and helps to shift the balance of power which imo leans too much towards uniswap labs.
Loved the initiative to further decentralize Uniswap
Also, imo the budget is pretty modest for the experienced crypto-native team.
Highly excited for the Uniswap's journey to achieve peak decentralization
This should happen way before. I really agree with this. Let do this fam
I do not support this proposal.
Reading through the article, I don't see a proposal describing how to empower uni tokens and increase the value of uni tokens. As a uni holder, I can't support this proposal to set up a centralized company purely by selling coins. We call for the commission switch to be turned on.
I do not support this proposal.
Reading through the article, I don't see a proposal describing how to empower uni tokens and increase the value of uni tokens. As a uni holder, I can't support this proposal to set up a centralized company purely by selling coins. We call for the commission switch to be turned on.
I remember donating 1 million uni tokens to a defi education group, and honestly, I didn't see any educational results from the group, but rather like a transfer of benefits. The proposal to set up a foundation this time seems to me to be the same.
Even if a foundation is set up, asking for $70 million is too much now, and the uni token market can't afford such a dump in the short term.
Hi all - Michael from xToken here.
I think this proposal is aligned with the best interests of the Uniswap community, and I also think that this sort of initiative is (directionally) an appropriate use of the protocol's treasury.
Hi all - Michael from xToken here.
I think this proposal is aligned with the best interests of the Uniswap community, and I also think that this sort of initiative is (directionally) an appropriate use of the protocol's treasury.
That said, having been through the UGP process, it would be beneficial to hear more about the process and methodology for the grants program under the new umbrella. I found the members of the committee to be kind and well-intentioned, but overall the process was vague and lacking in transparency. I’ve spoken with other applicants who have had similar experiences.
A few notes:
Because the committee declined to fund our proposal, it’s difficult to write this post without sounding like sour grapes. However, the grant request was really quite small, so I hope I can present this perspective neutrally.
Looking at the list of funded grants over the history of the UGP, the committee has done great work supporting projects around tooling, analytics and ETH public goods. The media and hackathon sponsorships make legitimate sense for the protocol, even if some people object to the price tags. However, it’s hard not to look at the grants list and notice a subset of very generously funded projects with ambiguous goals. In many cases, these projects are led by folks with strong ties to the committee and team. In some cases, these are projects led by committee members (to be absolutely fair, the committee members are not always the beneficiaries of these grants). And, in some cases, these projects have not been shipped or maintained.
I really don’t think there is any ill intent here, and I don’t want to empower any of the trolls on this forum. I also think it’s completely justifiable to run a grants and development program driven by the committee’s network and priorities. However, this approach would seem to be in conflict with the stated ethos of the project and community. And the optics are apparent to everyone except a few insiders.
We’ll still be building on top of Uniswap V3 everyday, and we will definitely apply to the grants program again in the future. But I think the community and protocol – and the foundation -– would benefit deeply from a clear statement of process, methodology and standards.
We aren't impressed. UGP has been a porky failure. I can't post links but please see @adamscochran's Twitter thread on the issue posted a few hours ago.
I don't disagree. I'm not asking for people to work out of the kindness of their hearts. I am going to question why if that's the sole goal (which requires a legal analysis) do we need to fork over 14M in operating dollars to build a team of 12. That's pork and spending for other things. Size it all down and work provisionally. You can come back in 6mo to ask for more.
Great proposal! As a builder in the Uniswap Ecosystem, I believe the foundation is the right approach to grow Uniswap.
I hope you will build a distributed and diverse team so the foundation's impact can be widespread.
Great proposal! As a builder in the Uniswap Ecosystem, I believe the foundation is the right approach to grow Uniswap.
I hope you will build a distributed and diverse team so the foundation's impact can be widespread.
Also, curious going forward about how much visibility the foundation will have on Labs' roadmap and development. Would that impact on voting and grant decisions (eg: will foundation would vote against a proposal if it knows it impacts Labs' roadmap?)
I think the OKR's need to be rewritten both to ensure accountability to token holders and for the foundation to eventually defend itself against skeptical token holders. The primary key result metrics, as I read them, are % allocation of the budget. These could be achieved with the stroke of a pen regardless of the effectiveness of resource allocation. While the proportions are useful to communicate, they are not helpful for evaluation.
It is a bit concerning that they were written this way because it implies that the spending of funds is primary rather than return on investment.
What I don't understand is who owns the equity in this newly formed foundation? Is it Labs, Devin or someone else?
Nice proposal. It is interesting to have another entity that contributes to Uniswap and helps to shift the balance of power which imo leans too much towards uniswap labs.
That's a good point. So, 1M definitely accounted for with a Foundation. That's great. If you noticed, they are asking for over 70M dollars.
One more thing:
It seems that the proposed foundation is overlapping with the Uniswap labs team on a lot of tasks (protocol R&D, implementation, interfaces, etc). What's the relationship between the Uniswap labs team and the foundation? Wouldn't these tasks be best completed by the Uniswap team rather than the foundation given that they have more experience on this as the founding members of the protocol?
Uniswap does not need a Foundation. The grant process is already opaque and lopsided. The budget drains treasury funds that should be attributable to token holders.
The proposal looks thorough and I am largely in favor of the Uni community having a separate, community-elected team to supercharge its future growth.
However, given that there have been a lot of discussions around fee switch, I am wondering whether experimenting with fee switch and doing research around how to best implement fee switch is a part of your roadmap? And if yes, what's the plan around it?
A decentralised smart contract does not require a centralised team to thrive or function. Uniswap's goal should be 0 fees and to act as a public good. Middle man fee skimming and nepotism is what brought the economy and socioeconomic to its current state. Let's not repeat the mistakes and greed of the past and add value to ethereum as a whole instead which is to be the ultimate decentralised money and not a fee skimming machine.
That's a good point. So, 1M definitely accounted for with a Foundation. That's great. If you noticed, they are asking for over 70M dollars.
One more thing:
It seems that the proposed foundation is overlapping with the Uniswap labs team on a lot of tasks (protocol R&D, implementation, interfaces, etc). What's the relationship between the Uniswap labs team and the foundation? Wouldn't these tasks be best completed by the Uniswap team rather than the foundation given that they have more experience on this as the founding members of the protocol?
Uniswap does not need a Foundation. The grant process is already opaque and lopsided. The budget drains treasury funds that should be attributable to token holders.
The proposal looks thorough and I am largely in favor of the Uni community having a separate, community-elected team to supercharge its future growth.
However, given that there have been a lot of discussions around fee switch, I am wondering whether experimenting with fee switch and doing research around how to best implement fee switch is a part of your roadmap? And if yes, what's the plan around it?
A decentralised smart contract does not require a centralised team to thrive or function. Uniswap's goal should be 0 fees and to act as a public good. Middle man fee skimming and nepotism is what brought the economy and socioeconomic to its current state. Let's not repeat the mistakes and greed of the past and add value to ethereum as a whole instead which is to be the ultimate decentralised money and not a fee skimming machine.
Thanks for the questions @naught, adding some clarifying details below.
If I recall correctly from the initial UGP v.01 and renewal. The lead (you) is/was compensated 25/uni per hour ($360k a year at average sell price of $15), while the other members were compensated $150 a hour; 216k a year (both max capped at 30 hours per week).
Thanks for the questions @naught, adding some clarifying details below.
If I recall correctly from the initial UGP v.01 and renewal. The lead (you) is/was compensated 25/uni per hour ($360k a year at average sell price of $15), while the other members were compensated $150 a hour; 216k a year (both max capped at 30 hours per week).
I was compensated at 25 UNI/hr for the first 6 months with UNI at $4. After the first 6 months, my compensation, as well as all other contributor’s, was updated to $150/hr (reconciled in UNI) with a cap of 30 hours per week. This was market rate for Grants contributors at the time. You’re correct that at this rate, my annualized salary is $216k. (One note I’ll add though is that because of the UNI price decline over the past few months, I have deferred pay in order to ensure UGP could continue funding grants.)
Regarding other UGP multisig signers: these 5 individuals were cumulatively paid $20k for their efforts over the past 1.5 years (at $150 per hour, with some choosing not to be paid).
Regarding Grants subcommittee members: these members are compensated at $150/hour or less by the subcommittees they work for, based on appropriate market rates.
The UF, as a legal entity, will aim to offer competitive full-time compensation packages including fiat salary, health care benefits, and long-term vested UNI to our employees. Being able to offer full-time work with competitive packages will open up our talent pipeline considerably, and allow us to build the high caliber, talented team needed to achieve the UF’s ambitious goals. We plan to take into account market rates for an individual’s role and experience while putting together comp packages.
Also, with the Uniswap foundation would a more official and regularly updated website be formed (not dependent on notion)? A quick look at the UGP page it only has wave 5 (current application is asking for wave 9?)
Yes! Most of the information on Waves is located in our Notion page. With more resources and a larger team, we will be able to to build a more robust website including a UGP Dashboard, and to make more frequent and detailed social media updates including grantee highlights and program updates.
What is your stance on an oversight committee as part of the foundation? Or atleast making it easier to see how funds are moved to recipients (i.e. when list of awarded wave recipients is announced and posted, a link on each award amount to an etherscan movement of funds, so the community can see the actions of the funding.)
We have published regular updates on Grants Waves from the @uniswapgrants Twitter account account in the past. However we are excited to do much more to keep the community up to date on our work in the future. As for oversight, we look forward to receiving regular input and feedback from our Advisors, and of course from the community. We intend to regularly attend existing Community Calls and to plan our own regular events (online and IRL) to field questions and input from the community, and to keep our Twitter DMs open for 1:1 discussion. We will also get community approval via Snapshot poll for any grant over $2M.
To the forum - in full transparency, Michael and I had a follow up conversation late last week about his experience with UGP. Although we’re saddened that Michael did not have a good UGP experience, we still do genuinely appreciate receiving such honest feedback on our processes. We plan to keep improving as UGP matures under the UF.
Those number's are straight from the compensation outlay's of the UGP .01v and renewal forum discussions here:
https://gov.uniswap.org/t/rfc-uniswap-grants-program-v0-1/9081
Those number's are straight from the compensation outlay's of the UGP .01v and renewal forum discussions here:
https://gov.uniswap.org/t/rfc-uniswap-grants-program-v0-1/9081
We propose the lead be compensated 25 UNI/hr (approximately $100 USD at time of this writing) capped at 30 hours/week. This compensation, along with the quarterly budget, will be allocated to the UGP multisig from the UNI treasury . In keeping with the committee’s commitment to the community, hours and duties will be logged publicly and transparently .
https://gov.uniswap.org/t/temperature-check-reinstating-ugp-v0-2-with-existing-funds/13310
I do think the compensation numbers are resonable if these were full time individuals working for the future foundation.
It is very likey that the member's did not max out hours every week, so I understand your doubtfulness of the annualized number's ($150/h x 30 a week x 4 weeks x 12 months) I gave.
I am supportive of this foundation proposal. As setting up an offical company would increase the amount of transparency in reporting requirements.
Cameron, on behalf of ConsenSys.
Establishing the Uniswap Foundation is a logical (and long overdue) step forward for the protocol and community. The proposal is led by some of Uniswap Labs' best – Devin & Ken.
Cameron, on behalf of ConsenSys.
Establishing the Uniswap Foundation is a logical (and long overdue) step forward for the protocol and community. The proposal is led by some of Uniswap Labs' best – Devin & Ken.
As broken out above in the proposal, capital allocation is within reason. Foundation funding of this size does require active management, reporting, and reassessment. We also believe the team understands and is capable of this.
Transparency & objectivity will be key factors for success. We are excited to help and support the foundation in any way possible!
C
I highly doubt anyone in the UGP team was being compensated either 360k or 216k a year...
If I recall correctly from the initial UGP v.01 and renewal. The lead (you) is/was compensated 25/uni per hour ($360k a year at average sell price of $15), while the other members were compensated $150 a hour; 216k a year (both max capped at 30 hours per week).
If I recall correctly from the initial UGP v.01 and renewal. The lead (you) is/was compensated 25/uni per hour ($360k a year at average sell price of $15), while the other members were compensated $150 a hour; 216k a year (both max capped at 30 hours per week).
Would these pay rates be increasing under the Uniswap Foundation?
Also, with the Uniswap foundation would a more official and regularly updated website be formed (not dependent on notion)? A quick look at the UGP page it only has wave 5 (current application is asking for wave 9?)
What is your stance on an oversight committee as part of the foundation? Or atleast making it easier to see how funds are moved to recipients (i.e. when list of awarded wave recipients is announced and posted, a link on each award amount to an etherscan movement of funds, so the community can see the actions of the funding.)
To respond to a few questions in the forum (@metaverbal) and on Twitter, we wanted to provide more information on the Uniswap Grants Program (UGP). We are also adding this information to the Addendum of the Proposal at the Consensus Check.
What is UGP, and how do I find out more about it?
To respond to a few questions in the forum (@metaverbal) and on Twitter, we wanted to provide more information on the Uniswap Grants Program (UGP). We are also adding this information to the Addendum of the Proposal at the Consensus Check.
What is UGP, and how do I find out more about it?
The Uniswap Grants Program started after going through a governance vote in December 2020 for an allocation of $1.5M in UNI intended to last 6 months. While the initial set of priorities for UGP was narrowly scoped as an MVP to seed the ecosystem of developers, it has since grown to encompass more, including governance research, community building and education, and core protocol work. Due to the crypto market bull run we were able to give $7M in grants over 18 months.
Grants researcher @sovereignsignal also recently put together a fantastic (independent) write-up on the history of the UGP here.
For more information on UGP’s past work and grantees check out the following links:
What does a successful UGP grant look like? What are some UGP success stories?
Grantees have done some incredible work over the past 1.5 years - for more information, check out our recent retrospective on UGP v0.1.
However, most UGP grantees are less than a year old. Just like with any product, it may take some time and several iterations for grant projects to develop traction and see adoption. The first version of Uniswap only worked for a single LP and ETH/ERC20 pair, and looked much different than the Uniswap we know and love today (still live here!). Hardat, too, took time to become what it is today - Nomic Labs received its first grant in 2018.
With that being said, not every grant will have the same outcome as a Uniswap or Hardhat. Not every grant will have runaway adoption, just like with any startup. Even when a project does not have the expected or intended impact, it can still have a positive impact on the ecosystem, bringing in new developers, users, and ideas.
Grantee success can be a range of impactful outcomes and, although we can’t pick favorites, some notable highlights are:
How will UGP be improved within the UF?
Even with the success cases listed above, there are a number of ways that we’re excited to improve UGP for the benefit of the ecosystem.
Thanks for the questions @naught, adding some clarifying details below.
If I recall correctly from the initial UGP v.01 and renewal. The lead (you) is/was compensated 25/uni per hour ($360k a year at average sell price of $15), while the other members were compensated $150 a hour; 216k a year (both max capped at 30 hours per week).
Thanks for the questions @naught, adding some clarifying details below.
If I recall correctly from the initial UGP v.01 and renewal. The lead (you) is/was compensated 25/uni per hour ($360k a year at average sell price of $15), while the other members were compensated $150 a hour; 216k a year (both max capped at 30 hours per week).
I was compensated at 25 UNI/hr for the first 6 months with UNI at $4. After the first 6 months, my compensation, as well as all other contributor’s, was updated to $150/hr (reconciled in UNI) with a cap of 30 hours per week. This was market rate for Grants contributors at the time. You’re correct that at this rate, my annualized salary is $216k. (One note I’ll add though is that because of the UNI price decline over the past few months, I have deferred pay in order to ensure UGP could continue funding grants.)
Regarding other UGP multisig signers: these 5 individuals were cumulatively paid $20k for their efforts over the past 1.5 years (at $150 per hour, with some choosing not to be paid).
Regarding Grants subcommittee members: these members are compensated at $150/hour or less by the subcommittees they work for, based on appropriate market rates.
The UF, as a legal entity, will aim to offer competitive full-time compensation packages including fiat salary, health care benefits, and long-term vested UNI to our employees. Being able to offer full-time work with competitive packages will open up our talent pipeline considerably, and allow us to build the high caliber, talented team needed to achieve the UF’s ambitious goals. We plan to take into account market rates for an individual’s role and experience while putting together comp packages.
Also, with the Uniswap foundation would a more official and regularly updated website be formed (not dependent on notion)? A quick look at the UGP page it only has wave 5 (current application is asking for wave 9?)
Yes! Most of the information on Waves is located in our Notion page. With more resources and a larger team, we will be able to to build a more robust website including a UGP Dashboard, and to make more frequent and detailed social media updates including grantee highlights and program updates.
What is your stance on an oversight committee as part of the foundation? Or atleast making it easier to see how funds are moved to recipients (i.e. when list of awarded wave recipients is announced and posted, a link on each award amount to an etherscan movement of funds, so the community can see the actions of the funding.)
We have published regular updates on Grants Waves from the @uniswapgrants Twitter account account in the past. However we are excited to do much more to keep the community up to date on our work in the future. As for oversight, we look forward to receiving regular input and feedback from our Advisors, and of course from the community. We intend to regularly attend existing Community Calls and to plan our own regular events (online and IRL) to field questions and input from the community, and to keep our Twitter DMs open for 1:1 discussion. We will also get community approval via Snapshot poll for any grant over $2M.
To the forum - in full transparency, Michael and I had a follow up conversation late last week about his experience with UGP. Although we’re saddened that Michael did not have a good UGP experience, we still do genuinely appreciate receiving such honest feedback on our processes. We plan to keep improving as UGP matures under the UF.
Those number's are straight from the compensation outlay's of the UGP .01v and renewal forum discussions here:
https://gov.uniswap.org/t/rfc-uniswap-grants-program-v0-1/9081
Those number's are straight from the compensation outlay's of the UGP .01v and renewal forum discussions here:
https://gov.uniswap.org/t/rfc-uniswap-grants-program-v0-1/9081
We propose the lead be compensated 25 UNI/hr (approximately $100 USD at time of this writing) capped at 30 hours/week. This compensation, along with the quarterly budget, will be allocated to the UGP multisig from the UNI treasury . In keeping with the committee’s commitment to the community, hours and duties will be logged publicly and transparently .
https://gov.uniswap.org/t/temperature-check-reinstating-ugp-v0-2-with-existing-funds/13310
I do think the compensation numbers are resonable if these were full time individuals working for the future foundation.
It is very likey that the member's did not max out hours every week, so I understand your doubtfulness of the annualized number's ($150/h x 30 a week x 4 weeks x 12 months) I gave.
I am supportive of this foundation proposal. As setting up an offical company would increase the amount of transparency in reporting requirements.
Cameron, on behalf of ConsenSys.
Establishing the Uniswap Foundation is a logical (and long overdue) step forward for the protocol and community. The proposal is led by some of Uniswap Labs' best – Devin & Ken.
Cameron, on behalf of ConsenSys.
Establishing the Uniswap Foundation is a logical (and long overdue) step forward for the protocol and community. The proposal is led by some of Uniswap Labs' best – Devin & Ken.
As broken out above in the proposal, capital allocation is within reason. Foundation funding of this size does require active management, reporting, and reassessment. We also believe the team understands and is capable of this.
Transparency & objectivity will be key factors for success. We are excited to help and support the foundation in any way possible!
C
I highly doubt anyone in the UGP team was being compensated either 360k or 216k a year...
If I recall correctly from the initial UGP v.01 and renewal. The lead (you) is/was compensated 25/uni per hour ($360k a year at average sell price of $15), while the other members were compensated $150 a hour; 216k a year (both max capped at 30 hours per week).
If I recall correctly from the initial UGP v.01 and renewal. The lead (you) is/was compensated 25/uni per hour ($360k a year at average sell price of $15), while the other members were compensated $150 a hour; 216k a year (both max capped at 30 hours per week).
Would these pay rates be increasing under the Uniswap Foundation?
Also, with the Uniswap foundation would a more official and regularly updated website be formed (not dependent on notion)? A quick look at the UGP page it only has wave 5 (current application is asking for wave 9?)
What is your stance on an oversight committee as part of the foundation? Or atleast making it easier to see how funds are moved to recipients (i.e. when list of awarded wave recipients is announced and posted, a link on each award amount to an etherscan movement of funds, so the community can see the actions of the funding.)
To respond to a few questions in the forum (@metaverbal) and on Twitter, we wanted to provide more information on the Uniswap Grants Program (UGP). We are also adding this information to the Addendum of the Proposal at the Consensus Check.
What is UGP, and how do I find out more about it?
To respond to a few questions in the forum (@metaverbal) and on Twitter, we wanted to provide more information on the Uniswap Grants Program (UGP). We are also adding this information to the Addendum of the Proposal at the Consensus Check.
What is UGP, and how do I find out more about it?
The Uniswap Grants Program started after going through a governance vote in December 2020 for an allocation of $1.5M in UNI intended to last 6 months. While the initial set of priorities for UGP was narrowly scoped as an MVP to seed the ecosystem of developers, it has since grown to encompass more, including governance research, community building and education, and core protocol work. Due to the crypto market bull run we were able to give $7M in grants over 18 months.
Grants researcher @sovereignsignal also recently put together a fantastic (independent) write-up on the history of the UGP here.
For more information on UGP’s past work and grantees check out the following links:
What does a successful UGP grant look like? What are some UGP success stories?
Grantees have done some incredible work over the past 1.5 years - for more information, check out our recent retrospective on UGP v0.1.
However, most UGP grantees are less than a year old. Just like with any product, it may take some time and several iterations for grant projects to develop traction and see adoption. The first version of Uniswap only worked for a single LP and ETH/ERC20 pair, and looked much different than the Uniswap we know and love today (still live here!). Hardat, too, took time to become what it is today - Nomic Labs received its first grant in 2018.
With that being said, not every grant will have the same outcome as a Uniswap or Hardhat. Not every grant will have runaway adoption, just like with any startup. Even when a project does not have the expected or intended impact, it can still have a positive impact on the ecosystem, bringing in new developers, users, and ideas.
Grantee success can be a range of impactful outcomes and, although we can’t pick favorites, some notable highlights are:
How will UGP be improved within the UF?
Even with the success cases listed above, there are a number of ways that we’re excited to improve UGP for the benefit of the ecosystem.
This is extremely exciting and in my opinion represents a really ambitious step in the direction of further decentralization of the whole Uniswap ecosystem. Kudos to Ken & Devin for creating this proposal.
Some comments:
I think this funding amount is totally within reason. Attracting top talent is key, this work is hard, and the operational budget looks acceptable to me.
This is extremely exciting and in my opinion represents a really ambitious step in the direction of further decentralization of the whole Uniswap ecosystem. Kudos to Ken & Devin for creating this proposal.
Some comments:
I think this funding amount is totally within reason. Attracting top talent is key, this work is hard, and the operational budget looks acceptable to me.
I saw some comments below about UGP application times, communication holes, etc and I would just like to remind everyone here that the UGP has been a resource constrained and very grassroots effort up until (hopefully) now. I have worked with Ken on UGP and he is exceedingly competent, and I have every confidence that most of the issues described will resolve with more resources and the ability to hire help.
I am especially excited about the plans to invest in governance stewardship. Creating proposals and passing them is too difficult and I think a dedicated team to provide assistance to would-be proposers will lead to a huge increase in viable governance activity. (ps. Please overhaul the current governance process! I wrote it but now I'm embarrassed by it lol)
Some questions:
Can you guys go into more detail on what you hope to achieve there and maybe give some more detailed examples of the types of things you want to explore using this funding?
Will UF be using funding to provide actual incentives (i.e. some types of liquidity mining programs)?
If the answer to the above is yes, what kinds of modeling will you be doing to before funding a given incentive mechanism MVP and will you plan to share the results of modeling with the community?
Given that this is the largest part of grants budget, would it be fair to say that the UF thinks incentive scheme development is the largest factor in the future growth of the Uniswap protocol?
What types of candidates are you seeking for 3rd board member?
Is the advisory team permanent or will it roll over periodically as in the current UGP?
Now that Uniswap labs has entered the NFT space via acquisition, will NFT focused tech be eligible for UF grants?
A suggestion:
I think the marketing and events budget looks low. I would like to see the Uniswap protocol begin to market itself in a big way. FTX is out here naming stadiums, but Uniswap logo, branding, mission and ethos is cooler in every way and I think has the potential to resonate with retail. Superbowl commercials. Official sponsor of Paris Fashion week. Headline sponsor of US womens soccer. The olympics. More e-sports partnerships. I would add another $10M to the first year's budget to test out large scale sponsorships and see if they work for us.
Adam´s thread completely disregards facts such as the OP situation or the Polygon liquidity mining campaign which are vital reasons why the Uniswap Foundation should exist to handle such events specifically for the tokenholders.
Representing it as a "porky failure" is a misrepresentation. Is it perfect? No. Did it do more good than harm? Yes. Even Adam said there were worthwhile projects being funded by the UGP. I think the measuring stick is too harsh here as the Uniswap Foundation aspires to be more than what UGP was/is.
Adam´s thread completely disregards facts such as the OP situation or the Polygon liquidity mining campaign which are vital reasons why the Uniswap Foundation should exist to handle such events specifically for the tokenholders.
Representing it as a "porky failure" is a misrepresentation. Is it perfect? No. Did it do more good than harm? Yes. Even Adam said there were worthwhile projects being funded by the UGP. I think the measuring stick is too harsh here as the Uniswap Foundation aspires to be more than what UGP was/is.
The UGP was run part-time by only a handful of people who were working upwards of 40 hours per week+.
When a DAO promises the Uniswap DAO a reward, whose responsibility is it to collect it? Is it you or me? Is it the Uniswap Labs? Whose job is it to handle such things on behalf of the tokenholders? Nobody knows and everybody assumes, "Well, somebody is assigned to do it." No. There are very few people who are watching these things and its to the cost of the tokenholders. We are not talking paltry sums either.
These situations are going to pop up more frequently in the future and are going to be more costly each time they happen. Major major sticking point in my honest opinion.
Another good reason why the UF should exist is whiteglow support for users when it comes to user generated governance proposals. People are not really familiar with the process of how to implement their ideas into a concrete governance on-chain proposal.
14M for 3 years for 12-15 people? I dont think its unreasonable. If it were 140M, then yea, but I do not see how this is unfair compensation. The UGP has already done what you mentioned here with the smaller spending. You can check their retrospective out in the post itself.
Polygons liquidity mining campaign was worth 20M USD. Initially, no liq. mining campaign happened until community members started urging Mihaylo to live up to his promises.
There are bound to be other examples down the road and if nobody is responsible to take care of these things then the loss will snowball harder than the budget of the UF.
Do you remember the situation with Optimism? Uniswap Treasury had one million OP tokens left unclaimed. Who was the person responsible to make the claim? Nobody knew. Was it the Labs? They should not be representing the DAO. Was it the UGP? Is it in their scope of responsibility to be doing such things? That´s what I´d call opaque...and we are talking about 1M USD just left there.
The Uniswap Community absolutely requires someone to work in its interest. This should bring overall long term value to the token holders as well. Otherwise, situations akin to the OP one will only snowball further.
Do you remember the situation with Optimism? Uniswap Treasury had one million OP tokens left unclaimed. Who was the person responsible to make the claim? Nobody knew. Was it the Labs? They should not be representing the DAO. Was it the UGP? Is it in their scope of responsibility to be doing such things? That´s what I´d call opaque...and we are talking about 1M USD just left there.
The Uniswap Community absolutely requires someone to work in its interest. This should bring overall long term value to the token holders as well. Otherwise, situations akin to the OP one will only snowball further.
Another notable mentions: Polygon liquidity mining rewards....
I think this proposal represents much needed progress of our journey as a community going forward. The budget is not an overarching issue as the post has stated multiple other foundations have asked for a lot more.
Overall, I do think this proposal is a huge plus going forward mainly with the open call for the community regarding open positions.
This is extremely exciting and in my opinion represents a really ambitious step in the direction of further decentralization of the whole Uniswap ecosystem. Kudos to Ken & Devin for creating this proposal.
Some comments:
I think this funding amount is totally within reason. Attracting top talent is key, this work is hard, and the operational budget looks acceptable to me.
This is extremely exciting and in my opinion represents a really ambitious step in the direction of further decentralization of the whole Uniswap ecosystem. Kudos to Ken & Devin for creating this proposal.
Some comments:
I think this funding amount is totally within reason. Attracting top talent is key, this work is hard, and the operational budget looks acceptable to me.
I saw some comments below about UGP application times, communication holes, etc and I would just like to remind everyone here that the UGP has been a resource constrained and very grassroots effort up until (hopefully) now. I have worked with Ken on UGP and he is exceedingly competent, and I have every confidence that most of the issues described will resolve with more resources and the ability to hire help.
I am especially excited about the plans to invest in governance stewardship. Creating proposals and passing them is too difficult and I think a dedicated team to provide assistance to would-be proposers will lead to a huge increase in viable governance activity. (ps. Please overhaul the current governance process! I wrote it but now I'm embarrassed by it lol)
Some questions:
Can you guys go into more detail on what you hope to achieve there and maybe give some more detailed examples of the types of things you want to explore using this funding?
Will UF be using funding to provide actual incentives (i.e. some types of liquidity mining programs)?
If the answer to the above is yes, what kinds of modeling will you be doing to before funding a given incentive mechanism MVP and will you plan to share the results of modeling with the community?
Given that this is the largest part of grants budget, would it be fair to say that the UF thinks incentive scheme development is the largest factor in the future growth of the Uniswap protocol?
What types of candidates are you seeking for 3rd board member?
Is the advisory team permanent or will it roll over periodically as in the current UGP?
Now that Uniswap labs has entered the NFT space via acquisition, will NFT focused tech be eligible for UF grants?
A suggestion:
I think the marketing and events budget looks low. I would like to see the Uniswap protocol begin to market itself in a big way. FTX is out here naming stadiums, but Uniswap logo, branding, mission and ethos is cooler in every way and I think has the potential to resonate with retail. Superbowl commercials. Official sponsor of Paris Fashion week. Headline sponsor of US womens soccer. The olympics. More e-sports partnerships. I would add another $10M to the first year's budget to test out large scale sponsorships and see if they work for us.
Adam´s thread completely disregards facts such as the OP situation or the Polygon liquidity mining campaign which are vital reasons why the Uniswap Foundation should exist to handle such events specifically for the tokenholders.
Representing it as a "porky failure" is a misrepresentation. Is it perfect? No. Did it do more good than harm? Yes. Even Adam said there were worthwhile projects being funded by the UGP. I think the measuring stick is too harsh here as the Uniswap Foundation aspires to be more than what UGP was/is.
Adam´s thread completely disregards facts such as the OP situation or the Polygon liquidity mining campaign which are vital reasons why the Uniswap Foundation should exist to handle such events specifically for the tokenholders.
Representing it as a "porky failure" is a misrepresentation. Is it perfect? No. Did it do more good than harm? Yes. Even Adam said there were worthwhile projects being funded by the UGP. I think the measuring stick is too harsh here as the Uniswap Foundation aspires to be more than what UGP was/is.
The UGP was run part-time by only a handful of people who were working upwards of 40 hours per week+.
When a DAO promises the Uniswap DAO a reward, whose responsibility is it to collect it? Is it you or me? Is it the Uniswap Labs? Whose job is it to handle such things on behalf of the tokenholders? Nobody knows and everybody assumes, "Well, somebody is assigned to do it." No. There are very few people who are watching these things and its to the cost of the tokenholders. We are not talking paltry sums either.
These situations are going to pop up more frequently in the future and are going to be more costly each time they happen. Major major sticking point in my honest opinion.
Another good reason why the UF should exist is whiteglow support for users when it comes to user generated governance proposals. People are not really familiar with the process of how to implement their ideas into a concrete governance on-chain proposal.
14M for 3 years for 12-15 people? I dont think its unreasonable. If it were 140M, then yea, but I do not see how this is unfair compensation. The UGP has already done what you mentioned here with the smaller spending. You can check their retrospective out in the post itself.
Polygons liquidity mining campaign was worth 20M USD. Initially, no liq. mining campaign happened until community members started urging Mihaylo to live up to his promises.
There are bound to be other examples down the road and if nobody is responsible to take care of these things then the loss will snowball harder than the budget of the UF.
Do you remember the situation with Optimism? Uniswap Treasury had one million OP tokens left unclaimed. Who was the person responsible to make the claim? Nobody knew. Was it the Labs? They should not be representing the DAO. Was it the UGP? Is it in their scope of responsibility to be doing such things? That´s what I´d call opaque...and we are talking about 1M USD just left there.
The Uniswap Community absolutely requires someone to work in its interest. This should bring overall long term value to the token holders as well. Otherwise, situations akin to the OP one will only snowball further.
Do you remember the situation with Optimism? Uniswap Treasury had one million OP tokens left unclaimed. Who was the person responsible to make the claim? Nobody knew. Was it the Labs? They should not be representing the DAO. Was it the UGP? Is it in their scope of responsibility to be doing such things? That´s what I´d call opaque...and we are talking about 1M USD just left there.
The Uniswap Community absolutely requires someone to work in its interest. This should bring overall long term value to the token holders as well. Otherwise, situations akin to the OP one will only snowball further.
Another notable mentions: Polygon liquidity mining rewards....
I think this proposal represents much needed progress of our journey as a community going forward. The budget is not an overarching issue as the post has stated multiple other foundations have asked for a lot more.
Overall, I do think this proposal is a huge plus going forward mainly with the open call for the community regarding open positions.
Thanks @BP333, we're very excited about the Foundation as well, and think there is a huge opportunity for it to support the Uniswap protocol and broader ecosystem!
As a small note, I do want to clear up the point about the Defi Education Fund (DEF). The Uniswap Grants Program did not fund the DEF, it went through the Uniswap community governance process. Final governance vote is here: https://app.uniswap.org/#/vote/1/1?chain=mainnet
Thanks @BP333, we're very excited about the Foundation as well, and think there is a huge opportunity for it to support the Uniswap protocol and broader ecosystem!
As a small note, I do want to clear up the point about the Defi Education Fund (DEF). The Uniswap Grants Program did not fund the DEF, it went through the Uniswap community governance process. Final governance vote is here: https://app.uniswap.org/#/vote/1/1?chain=mainnet
Thank you so much for your support and we're excited to work with you and others in the community if the final vote for the UF passes.
I love the idea behind the Uniswap Foundation. I think the Uniswap Grants Program had too broad of a mandate in that it helped fund things that were only tangentially related to the actual Uniswap protocol (i.e. DeFi Education Fund).
I think we desperately need something that focuses solely on improving the Uniswap protocol and ecosystem specifically. It will help make the Uniswap ecosystem less forkable in my opinion.
I love the idea behind the Uniswap Foundation. I think the Uniswap Grants Program had too broad of a mandate in that it helped fund things that were only tangentially related to the actual Uniswap protocol (i.e. DeFi Education Fund).
I think we desperately need something that focuses solely on improving the Uniswap protocol and ecosystem specifically. It will help make the Uniswap ecosystem less forkable in my opinion.
I'll let the others who are more knowledgeable debate the numbers, but I love the idea of funding things directly related to the Uniswap protocol.
Hey everyone!
@devinwalsh will join us for the Uniswap Community Call this Wednesday (August 10th) at 16:00 EST. Community call will be held in the Uniswap Discord.
event link: https://discord.gg/PXcDZYRD?event=1006210445943775232
If someone can't make it to the call but has something you would like to get more info, please send me questions via DM. Notes from the call will be shared after the call.
Hey everyone!
@devinwalsh will join us for the Uniswap Community Call this Wednesday (August 10th) at 16:00 EST. Community call will be held in the Uniswap Discord.
event link: https://discord.gg/PXcDZYRD?event=1006210445943775232
If someone can't make it to the call but has something you would like to get more info, please send me questions via DM. Notes from the call will be shared after the call.
Looking forward on having a great discussion about this proposal!
:partying_face: thank you!! appreciate it. we're psyched
Thanks Brenner. @enti is correct. The Uniswap Foundation would not be a venture fund. It will be focused on not only building a best-in-class grant making organization (not taking an equity stake in the projects it supports) but also on reinvigorating the Uniswap governance process and building, supporting and maintaining the ecosystem and protocol to be sustainable and successful for the long term.
Thank you! Appreciate it. We're excited too
Hey Dan - Ken just added a lot more info about UGP and how we want to improve it as a comment below, and I'm about to add that to the Addendum of the Proposal as well for the Consensus Check. UGP won't be sunset, it will operate under the UF and scale up its resources and team.
As for the kinds of ambitious projects we would now be excited to fund? Listing many below, but we’re just as excited to be blown away by new ideas the community dreams up.
Hi @one, thanks for your comments and thoughts
It would be well within the scope of the UF to welcome, encourage, and provide grants to research and analysis on the fee switch, and to promote better education around the mechanics of fee switch implementation. It would also be well within the scope of the UF to assist the community in decision-making regarding the fee switch, including putting out information regarding any polls or governance proposals regarding the fee switch (just as we intend to for all other governance proposals).
The DEF is an unrelated independent organization from the UF. However I'll send along two threads that Miller recently posted on their work, as they seem to be making nice progress on their stated goals: https://twitter.com/millercwl/status/1555542973215113217 https://twitter.com/millercwl/status/1555541678336970752
Ken and I wrote a bit in comments yesterday (will add to Addendum for Consensus Check) on why we believe this investment into UGP is required and how it will benefit Uniswap - the current size and setup of UGP does have limits and more capital would allow the team to build long-term relationships w dev shops including more ambitious multi-milestone grant projects. In our treasury diversification, we plan to pursue an approach which would minimize UNI price impact (we will publish a Foundation Treasury Diversification report for the second disbursement for community review prior to diversifying that UNI).
The UF team is conducting extensive research to determine the type of legal entity which best matches our ambitions, including our mission to make a positive social impact, and other operational needs (covered in the proposal above). Given these requirements, we are contemplating a US-based entity that would seek tax-exempt status.
If we go down this path, the entity would be a non-stock corporation, with no owners or equity. There has been no stock issuance, and we have no plans to do a stock issuance in the future.
The UF team is conducting extensive research to determine the type of legal entity which best matches our ambitions, including our mission to make a positive social impact, and other operational needs (covered in the proposal above). Given these requirements, we are contemplating a US-based entity that would seek tax-exempt status.
If we go down this path, the entity would be a non-stock corporation, with no owners or equity. There has been no stock issuance, and we have no plans to do a stock issuance in the future.
That being said we should note there is no guarantee that tax-exempt status will be secured, and we may make modifications to UF’s structure and operations in the future. We will share more about our path forward with the community as soon as we are able to.
Thank you! Re: the team - we agree with that sentiment. We’re already very excited about the awesome applications which have been coming through Lever - and we’re very excited to empower, support, and work with Uniswap community members all over the world.
All UF decisions will be made with the best long-term interests of the Uniswap ecosystem — of the Protocol and all stakeholders — in mind. The individual interests of a single stakeholder in the ecosystem, such as Uniswap Labs (or any other entity or individual), will not sway these decisions.
The governance process has too much friction, the ecosystem is too difficult to navigate, and UGP in its current form is not able to fund the most ambitious and impactful projects.
The governance process has too much friction, the ecosystem is too difficult to navigate, and UGP in its current form is not able to fund the most ambitious and impactful projects.
Can we get @kenneth to comment on such projects that UGP is failing to budget? I'm genuinely curious to hear what projects are out there to help justify this temperature check! Is the plan to sunset the UGP program eventually?
This is a fair point. Ken and I have went back and forth a lot on the best way to set OKRs. The first set of OKRs we wrote for the UF focused on increased volume, number of new users and developers in the space, number of “high impact, high engagement” governance proposals, etc. These are the results which all of our work would aim to have.
However, we got stuck is defining the “right” numbers to tie to those results- how much volume might increase, when (it might take a talented dev team time to build a high impact new interface), by a % or total cumulative volume, and so on and so forth. Volume is going to be highly influenced by market conditions - how do we know what to attribute to the UF vs the market? New developers and interfaces - does it make sense to measure the number of new interfaces? One interface that stems from a larger grant might have a more positive impact than 5 interfaces stemming from smaller grants. We ultimately decided to set OKRs based on grant allocation % and team focus, and the metrics we will measure grantee success by, because those are the clear inputs to the results above which are within our control.
Thanks @BP333, we're very excited about the Foundation as well, and think there is a huge opportunity for it to support the Uniswap protocol and broader ecosystem!
As a small note, I do want to clear up the point about the Defi Education Fund (DEF). The Uniswap Grants Program did not fund the DEF, it went through the Uniswap community governance process. Final governance vote is here: https://app.uniswap.org/#/vote/1/1?chain=mainnet
Thanks @BP333, we're very excited about the Foundation as well, and think there is a huge opportunity for it to support the Uniswap protocol and broader ecosystem!
As a small note, I do want to clear up the point about the Defi Education Fund (DEF). The Uniswap Grants Program did not fund the DEF, it went through the Uniswap community governance process. Final governance vote is here: https://app.uniswap.org/#/vote/1/1?chain=mainnet
Thank you so much for your support and we're excited to work with you and others in the community if the final vote for the UF passes.
I love the idea behind the Uniswap Foundation. I think the Uniswap Grants Program had too broad of a mandate in that it helped fund things that were only tangentially related to the actual Uniswap protocol (i.e. DeFi Education Fund).
I think we desperately need something that focuses solely on improving the Uniswap protocol and ecosystem specifically. It will help make the Uniswap ecosystem less forkable in my opinion.
I love the idea behind the Uniswap Foundation. I think the Uniswap Grants Program had too broad of a mandate in that it helped fund things that were only tangentially related to the actual Uniswap protocol (i.e. DeFi Education Fund).
I think we desperately need something that focuses solely on improving the Uniswap protocol and ecosystem specifically. It will help make the Uniswap ecosystem less forkable in my opinion.
I'll let the others who are more knowledgeable debate the numbers, but I love the idea of funding things directly related to the Uniswap protocol.
Hey everyone!
@devinwalsh will join us for the Uniswap Community Call this Wednesday (August 10th) at 16:00 EST. Community call will be held in the Uniswap Discord.
event link: https://discord.gg/PXcDZYRD?event=1006210445943775232
If someone can't make it to the call but has something you would like to get more info, please send me questions via DM. Notes from the call will be shared after the call.
Hey everyone!
@devinwalsh will join us for the Uniswap Community Call this Wednesday (August 10th) at 16:00 EST. Community call will be held in the Uniswap Discord.
event link: https://discord.gg/PXcDZYRD?event=1006210445943775232
If someone can't make it to the call but has something you would like to get more info, please send me questions via DM. Notes from the call will be shared after the call.
Looking forward on having a great discussion about this proposal!
:partying_face: thank you!! appreciate it. we're psyched
Thanks Brenner. @enti is correct. The Uniswap Foundation would not be a venture fund. It will be focused on not only building a best-in-class grant making organization (not taking an equity stake in the projects it supports) but also on reinvigorating the Uniswap governance process and building, supporting and maintaining the ecosystem and protocol to be sustainable and successful for the long term.
Thank you! Appreciate it. We're excited too
Hey Dan - Ken just added a lot more info about UGP and how we want to improve it as a comment below, and I'm about to add that to the Addendum of the Proposal as well for the Consensus Check. UGP won't be sunset, it will operate under the UF and scale up its resources and team.
As for the kinds of ambitious projects we would now be excited to fund? Listing many below, but we’re just as excited to be blown away by new ideas the community dreams up.
Hi @one, thanks for your comments and thoughts
It would be well within the scope of the UF to welcome, encourage, and provide grants to research and analysis on the fee switch, and to promote better education around the mechanics of fee switch implementation. It would also be well within the scope of the UF to assist the community in decision-making regarding the fee switch, including putting out information regarding any polls or governance proposals regarding the fee switch (just as we intend to for all other governance proposals).
The DEF is an unrelated independent organization from the UF. However I'll send along two threads that Miller recently posted on their work, as they seem to be making nice progress on their stated goals: https://twitter.com/millercwl/status/1555542973215113217 https://twitter.com/millercwl/status/1555541678336970752
Ken and I wrote a bit in comments yesterday (will add to Addendum for Consensus Check) on why we believe this investment into UGP is required and how it will benefit Uniswap - the current size and setup of UGP does have limits and more capital would allow the team to build long-term relationships w dev shops including more ambitious multi-milestone grant projects. In our treasury diversification, we plan to pursue an approach which would minimize UNI price impact (we will publish a Foundation Treasury Diversification report for the second disbursement for community review prior to diversifying that UNI).
The UF team is conducting extensive research to determine the type of legal entity which best matches our ambitions, including our mission to make a positive social impact, and other operational needs (covered in the proposal above). Given these requirements, we are contemplating a US-based entity that would seek tax-exempt status.
If we go down this path, the entity would be a non-stock corporation, with no owners or equity. There has been no stock issuance, and we have no plans to do a stock issuance in the future.
The UF team is conducting extensive research to determine the type of legal entity which best matches our ambitions, including our mission to make a positive social impact, and other operational needs (covered in the proposal above). Given these requirements, we are contemplating a US-based entity that would seek tax-exempt status.
If we go down this path, the entity would be a non-stock corporation, with no owners or equity. There has been no stock issuance, and we have no plans to do a stock issuance in the future.
That being said we should note there is no guarantee that tax-exempt status will be secured, and we may make modifications to UF’s structure and operations in the future. We will share more about our path forward with the community as soon as we are able to.
Thank you! Re: the team - we agree with that sentiment. We’re already very excited about the awesome applications which have been coming through Lever - and we’re very excited to empower, support, and work with Uniswap community members all over the world.
All UF decisions will be made with the best long-term interests of the Uniswap ecosystem — of the Protocol and all stakeholders — in mind. The individual interests of a single stakeholder in the ecosystem, such as Uniswap Labs (or any other entity or individual), will not sway these decisions.
The governance process has too much friction, the ecosystem is too difficult to navigate, and UGP in its current form is not able to fund the most ambitious and impactful projects.
The governance process has too much friction, the ecosystem is too difficult to navigate, and UGP in its current form is not able to fund the most ambitious and impactful projects.
Can we get @kenneth to comment on such projects that UGP is failing to budget? I'm genuinely curious to hear what projects are out there to help justify this temperature check! Is the plan to sunset the UGP program eventually?
This is a fair point. Ken and I have went back and forth a lot on the best way to set OKRs. The first set of OKRs we wrote for the UF focused on increased volume, number of new users and developers in the space, number of “high impact, high engagement” governance proposals, etc. These are the results which all of our work would aim to have.
However, we got stuck is defining the “right” numbers to tie to those results- how much volume might increase, when (it might take a talented dev team time to build a high impact new interface), by a % or total cumulative volume, and so on and so forth. Volume is going to be highly influenced by market conditions - how do we know what to attribute to the UF vs the market? New developers and interfaces - does it make sense to measure the number of new interfaces? One interface that stems from a larger grant might have a more positive impact than 5 interfaces stemming from smaller grants. We ultimately decided to set OKRs based on grant allocation % and team focus, and the metrics we will measure grantee success by, because those are the clear inputs to the results above which are within our control.
Hey Dan - Ken just added a lot more info about UGP and how we want to improve it as a comment below, and I'm about to add that to the Addendum of the Proposal as well for the Consensus Check. UGP won't be sunset, it will operate under the UF and scale up its resources and team.
As for the kinds of ambitious projects we would now be excited to fund? Listing many below, but we’re just as excited to be blown away by new ideas the community dreams up.
Thank you! Re: the team - we agree with that sentiment. We’re already very excited about the awesome applications which have been coming through Lever - and we’re very excited to empower, support, and work with Uniswap community members all over the world.
All UF decisions will be made with the best long-term interests of the Uniswap ecosystem — of the Protocol and all stakeholders — in mind. The individual interests of a single stakeholder in the ecosystem, such as Uniswap Labs (or any other entity or individual), will not sway these decisions.
We do want to highlight the fact that we plan to work with stakeholders in the ecosystem to publish a biannual State of the Ecosystem report, which will highlight developer tooling, libraries, and interfaces that exist for the Uniswap Protocol, as well as the high-level roadmaps of what teams contributing to the report are planning to build in the future. Our intention with this report is to make it easier for developers to navigate the ecosystem and to also discern what new tools they can build (without doing redundant work). We would welcome contributions to this report from all builders in the ecosystem.
This is a fair point. Ken and I have went back and forth a lot on the best way to set OKRs. The first set of OKRs we wrote for the UF focused on increased volume, number of new users and developers in the space, number of “high impact, high engagement” governance proposals, etc. These are the results which all of our work would aim to have.
However, we got stuck is defining the “right” numbers to tie to those results- how much volume might increase, when (it might take a talented dev team time to build a high impact new interface), by a % or total cumulative volume, and so on and so forth. Volume is going to be highly influenced by market conditions - how do we know what to attribute to the UF vs the market? New developers and interfaces - does it make sense to measure the number of new interfaces? One interface that stems from a larger grant might have a more positive impact than 5 interfaces stemming from smaller grants. We ultimately decided to set OKRs based on grant allocation % and team focus, and the metrics we will measure grantee success by, because those are the clear inputs to the results above which are within our control.
We also think we might learn more about what numbers tied to those results (volume, # interfaces, etc.) make sense once the UF is up and running for some time (if the proposal passes!). If we do, then it could make sense to adjust OKRs in the future.
That was our thinking in setting the OKRs this way. But, if community members have suggestions on how we might be able to better measure ourselves, we do want to hear them.
UniScott - may not be able to come to an agreement here, but I do want to acknowledge and respond to a few of your concerns.
On UGP v0.1, Ken just wrote a response to Adam’s comments here - we’re proud of the success of UGP v0.1, and believe some awesome grant projects came out of it, (some covered here). The UGP team has definitely learned a ton to apply to the next round, if the proposal passes. And, we’re excited about what we’d be able to achieve with a full-time team (v0.1 only had funds to pay a small team part-time salaries, tho many of them still worked 40+ hour weeks).
UniScott - may not be able to come to an agreement here, but I do want to acknowledge and respond to a few of your concerns.
On UGP v0.1, Ken just wrote a response to Adam’s comments here - we’re proud of the success of UGP v0.1, and believe some awesome grant projects came out of it, (some covered here). The UGP team has definitely learned a ton to apply to the next round, if the proposal passes. And, we’re excited about what we’d be able to achieve with a full-time team (v0.1 only had funds to pay a small team part-time salaries, tho many of them still worked 40+ hour weeks).
We think it’s in Uniswap’s best interest to have a full-time team and resources devoted towards 1) funding teams to support Protocol growth, 2) reinvigorating governance, and 3) being an advocate for the Protocol.
A larger grants program and full-time team is more capable of building strong relationships with the most talented development teams, and scoping out the most impactful, ambitious projects which take more time and funds to build. A budget limited by a 6 month timeframe would be limited in its ability to support those kinds of projects, which we see as being integral to Uniswap’s long term success. The UF would also have a team focused on developer relations, community building, delegate relations, improving governance, and more.
Also happy to hop on a call to discuss further - feel free to DM me https://twitter.com/devinawalsh
Re: UGP. Thank you for the comments here! (For others: Ken and I are also writing up some additional history and information about UGP to add as a comment in the forum later today and to the addendum in the next version of the proposal!)
Re: governance. Agree! And a proposed governance process revamp is definitely in scope for our first 3 months (inspired by this post, with additional community feedback)
Re: UGP. Thank you for the comments here! (For others: Ken and I are also writing up some additional history and information about UGP to add as a comment in the forum later today and to the addendum in the next version of the proposal!)
Re: governance. Agree! And a proposed governance process revamp is definitely in scope for our first 3 months (inspired by this post, with additional community feedback)
I’ll publish answers to the rest of your questions in line:
A suggestion:
I think the marketing and events budget looks low. I would like to see the Uniswap protocol begin to market itself in a big way. FTX is out here naming stadiums, but Uniswap logo, branding, mission and ethos is cooler in every way and I think has the potential to resonate with retail. Superbowl commercials. Official sponsor of Paris Fashion week. Headline sponsor of US womens soccer. The olympics. More e-sports partnerships. I would add another $10M to the first year’s budget to test out large scale sponsorships and see if they work for us.
This is a good question. In order for Uniswap Protocol to become the value exchange layer of the Internet (which we believe it should be), we believe there should be many diverse and talented teams building on it. There are many teams outside of Labs building on the Protocol today (many are listed in the UGP retrospective) however we believe there is a massive opportunity for grants to fund additional ambitious and impactful projects. The governance of the protocol is another key to long term Protocol sustainability that in our opinion requires some reinvigoration - we are excited to work with the community to ensure the governance process is efficient and effective. The UF will build a lean team and have a grants budget focused on exactly these things: Protocol growth, decentralization, and sustainability.
Uniswap Labs is one of many organizations in the Uniswap ecosystem. It built, deployed, and, alongside many other teams, will continue to contribute to and build on the Protocol in the future.
Speaking for Other Internet, we are very enthusiastic about this proposal.
Since last year, we've put released 3 comprehensive deep dives into the governance challenges facing the Uniswap community, and are about to release a 4th. In all of our work we've consistently identified one issue common to all of Uniswap governance's various problems. That issue is the lack of a clear center of authority and source of legitimacy.
Speaking for Other Internet, we are very enthusiastic about this proposal.
Since last year, we've put released 3 comprehensive deep dives into the governance challenges facing the Uniswap community, and are about to release a 4th. In all of our work we've consistently identified one issue common to all of Uniswap governance's various problems. That issue is the lack of a clear center of authority and source of legitimacy.
The outcomes such a party's absence include:
We are supportive of the proposed foundation because we believe it will address these problems, not only through various initiatives, but also by simply being an actor with the mandate to be a channel for various stakeholders to connect and get things done. That there are dev relations, delegate relations, and partnership leads roles listed (with job postings already!) is a hugely positive sign for the type of operational capacity and speed that the foundation should unlock for Uniswap governance.
As a side note, I hope this proposal makes clear what I've been advocating for in the fee switch conversation. There are a lot of things that need to happen for Uniswap protocol to continue to grow; with or without protocol revenue, the Foundation is the best bet to make those things happen.
TL;DR - Uniswap Foundation is an entity that can represent the interests of the protocol and its various stakeholders. It can scope projects, be a legal counterparty, liaise with delegates and get things done. We simply haven't had haven't had this before, and it's the biggest step we can take toward more efficiency here. Devin and Ken are excellent and have a proven track record, and we are looking forward to working with them on new governance initiatives.
Thank you! Yes, we've very excited to bring on current community members onto the team, if the proposal passes. Anyone can take a look at open roles and apply today - https://jobs.lever.co/uniswapfoundation
There's a whole section titled "What is UF's relationship with Uniswap Labs".
I'm not a Labs employee or shareholder, but in general, it is a private company whose roadmap can vary based on how they best see fit to allocate their resources with no obligation to continue working on Uniswap. The UF's roadmap will vary on how they best see fit to allocate their resources in the service of the Uniswap protocol.
Hello Uniswap Foundation! We have really enjoyed seeing this proposal being fleshed out and are incredibly satisfied with the final proposal/temp check! We are very confident in the team and are also incredibly optimistic for the future specifically with respect to governance. We look forward to getting more involved on this front and would love to contribute! :slight_smile:
It would be well within the scope of the UF to welcome, encourage, and provide grants to research and analysis on the fee switch, and to promote better education around the mechanics of fee switch implementation. It would also be well within the scope of the UF to assist the community in decision-making regarding the fee switch, including putting out information regarding any polls or governance proposals regarding the fee switch (just as we intend to for all other governance proposals). It’s been awesome to see all the enthusiasm and debate in the forums on this topic and would be excited to do all of the above if and when the proposal passes.
Hey Dan - Ken just added a lot more info about UGP and how we want to improve it as a comment below, and I'm about to add that to the Addendum of the Proposal as well for the Consensus Check. UGP won't be sunset, it will operate under the UF and scale up its resources and team.
As for the kinds of ambitious projects we would now be excited to fund? Listing many below, but we’re just as excited to be blown away by new ideas the community dreams up.
Thank you! Re: the team - we agree with that sentiment. We’re already very excited about the awesome applications which have been coming through Lever - and we’re very excited to empower, support, and work with Uniswap community members all over the world.
All UF decisions will be made with the best long-term interests of the Uniswap ecosystem — of the Protocol and all stakeholders — in mind. The individual interests of a single stakeholder in the ecosystem, such as Uniswap Labs (or any other entity or individual), will not sway these decisions.
We do want to highlight the fact that we plan to work with stakeholders in the ecosystem to publish a biannual State of the Ecosystem report, which will highlight developer tooling, libraries, and interfaces that exist for the Uniswap Protocol, as well as the high-level roadmaps of what teams contributing to the report are planning to build in the future. Our intention with this report is to make it easier for developers to navigate the ecosystem and to also discern what new tools they can build (without doing redundant work). We would welcome contributions to this report from all builders in the ecosystem.
This is a fair point. Ken and I have went back and forth a lot on the best way to set OKRs. The first set of OKRs we wrote for the UF focused on increased volume, number of new users and developers in the space, number of “high impact, high engagement” governance proposals, etc. These are the results which all of our work would aim to have.
However, we got stuck is defining the “right” numbers to tie to those results- how much volume might increase, when (it might take a talented dev team time to build a high impact new interface), by a % or total cumulative volume, and so on and so forth. Volume is going to be highly influenced by market conditions - how do we know what to attribute to the UF vs the market? New developers and interfaces - does it make sense to measure the number of new interfaces? One interface that stems from a larger grant might have a more positive impact than 5 interfaces stemming from smaller grants. We ultimately decided to set OKRs based on grant allocation % and team focus, and the metrics we will measure grantee success by, because those are the clear inputs to the results above which are within our control.
We also think we might learn more about what numbers tied to those results (volume, # interfaces, etc.) make sense once the UF is up and running for some time (if the proposal passes!). If we do, then it could make sense to adjust OKRs in the future.
That was our thinking in setting the OKRs this way. But, if community members have suggestions on how we might be able to better measure ourselves, we do want to hear them.
UniScott - may not be able to come to an agreement here, but I do want to acknowledge and respond to a few of your concerns.
On UGP v0.1, Ken just wrote a response to Adam’s comments here - we’re proud of the success of UGP v0.1, and believe some awesome grant projects came out of it, (some covered here). The UGP team has definitely learned a ton to apply to the next round, if the proposal passes. And, we’re excited about what we’d be able to achieve with a full-time team (v0.1 only had funds to pay a small team part-time salaries, tho many of them still worked 40+ hour weeks).
UniScott - may not be able to come to an agreement here, but I do want to acknowledge and respond to a few of your concerns.
On UGP v0.1, Ken just wrote a response to Adam’s comments here - we’re proud of the success of UGP v0.1, and believe some awesome grant projects came out of it, (some covered here). The UGP team has definitely learned a ton to apply to the next round, if the proposal passes. And, we’re excited about what we’d be able to achieve with a full-time team (v0.1 only had funds to pay a small team part-time salaries, tho many of them still worked 40+ hour weeks).
We think it’s in Uniswap’s best interest to have a full-time team and resources devoted towards 1) funding teams to support Protocol growth, 2) reinvigorating governance, and 3) being an advocate for the Protocol.
A larger grants program and full-time team is more capable of building strong relationships with the most talented development teams, and scoping out the most impactful, ambitious projects which take more time and funds to build. A budget limited by a 6 month timeframe would be limited in its ability to support those kinds of projects, which we see as being integral to Uniswap’s long term success. The UF would also have a team focused on developer relations, community building, delegate relations, improving governance, and more.
Also happy to hop on a call to discuss further - feel free to DM me https://twitter.com/devinawalsh
Re: UGP. Thank you for the comments here! (For others: Ken and I are also writing up some additional history and information about UGP to add as a comment in the forum later today and to the addendum in the next version of the proposal!)
Re: governance. Agree! And a proposed governance process revamp is definitely in scope for our first 3 months (inspired by this post, with additional community feedback)
Re: UGP. Thank you for the comments here! (For others: Ken and I are also writing up some additional history and information about UGP to add as a comment in the forum later today and to the addendum in the next version of the proposal!)
Re: governance. Agree! And a proposed governance process revamp is definitely in scope for our first 3 months (inspired by this post, with additional community feedback)
I’ll publish answers to the rest of your questions in line:
A suggestion:
I think the marketing and events budget looks low. I would like to see the Uniswap protocol begin to market itself in a big way. FTX is out here naming stadiums, but Uniswap logo, branding, mission and ethos is cooler in every way and I think has the potential to resonate with retail. Superbowl commercials. Official sponsor of Paris Fashion week. Headline sponsor of US womens soccer. The olympics. More e-sports partnerships. I would add another $10M to the first year’s budget to test out large scale sponsorships and see if they work for us.
This is a good question. In order for Uniswap Protocol to become the value exchange layer of the Internet (which we believe it should be), we believe there should be many diverse and talented teams building on it. There are many teams outside of Labs building on the Protocol today (many are listed in the UGP retrospective) however we believe there is a massive opportunity for grants to fund additional ambitious and impactful projects. The governance of the protocol is another key to long term Protocol sustainability that in our opinion requires some reinvigoration - we are excited to work with the community to ensure the governance process is efficient and effective. The UF will build a lean team and have a grants budget focused on exactly these things: Protocol growth, decentralization, and sustainability.
Uniswap Labs is one of many organizations in the Uniswap ecosystem. It built, deployed, and, alongside many other teams, will continue to contribute to and build on the Protocol in the future.
Speaking for Other Internet, we are very enthusiastic about this proposal.
Since last year, we've put released 3 comprehensive deep dives into the governance challenges facing the Uniswap community, and are about to release a 4th. In all of our work we've consistently identified one issue common to all of Uniswap governance's various problems. That issue is the lack of a clear center of authority and source of legitimacy.
Speaking for Other Internet, we are very enthusiastic about this proposal.
Since last year, we've put released 3 comprehensive deep dives into the governance challenges facing the Uniswap community, and are about to release a 4th. In all of our work we've consistently identified one issue common to all of Uniswap governance's various problems. That issue is the lack of a clear center of authority and source of legitimacy.
The outcomes such a party's absence include:
We are supportive of the proposed foundation because we believe it will address these problems, not only through various initiatives, but also by simply being an actor with the mandate to be a channel for various stakeholders to connect and get things done. That there are dev relations, delegate relations, and partnership leads roles listed (with job postings already!) is a hugely positive sign for the type of operational capacity and speed that the foundation should unlock for Uniswap governance.
As a side note, I hope this proposal makes clear what I've been advocating for in the fee switch conversation. There are a lot of things that need to happen for Uniswap protocol to continue to grow; with or without protocol revenue, the Foundation is the best bet to make those things happen.
TL;DR - Uniswap Foundation is an entity that can represent the interests of the protocol and its various stakeholders. It can scope projects, be a legal counterparty, liaise with delegates and get things done. We simply haven't had haven't had this before, and it's the biggest step we can take toward more efficiency here. Devin and Ken are excellent and have a proven track record, and we are looking forward to working with them on new governance initiatives.
Thank you! Yes, we've very excited to bring on current community members onto the team, if the proposal passes. Anyone can take a look at open roles and apply today - https://jobs.lever.co/uniswapfoundation
There's a whole section titled "What is UF's relationship with Uniswap Labs".
I'm not a Labs employee or shareholder, but in general, it is a private company whose roadmap can vary based on how they best see fit to allocate their resources with no obligation to continue working on Uniswap. The UF's roadmap will vary on how they best see fit to allocate their resources in the service of the Uniswap protocol.
Hello Uniswap Foundation! We have really enjoyed seeing this proposal being fleshed out and are incredibly satisfied with the final proposal/temp check! We are very confident in the team and are also incredibly optimistic for the future specifically with respect to governance. We look forward to getting more involved on this front and would love to contribute! :slight_smile:
It would be well within the scope of the UF to welcome, encourage, and provide grants to research and analysis on the fee switch, and to promote better education around the mechanics of fee switch implementation. It would also be well within the scope of the UF to assist the community in decision-making regarding the fee switch, including putting out information regarding any polls or governance proposals regarding the fee switch (just as we intend to for all other governance proposals). It’s been awesome to see all the enthusiasm and debate in the forums on this topic and would be excited to do all of the above if and when the proposal passes.
