For the full proposal, please see this forum post.
Fluctuations in the UNI token price means that the accounts for various programs become unbalanced–sometimes at a surplus and other times at a deficit. Since programs are almost always budgeted in terms of dollars, we are looking to top up those balances to ensure liabilities around sustaining elected DAO programs are covered. This temperature check associated with rebalancing is being run separately from the UAC Season 3 renewal vote–the vote will request 42,060 UNI.
Further details on the request and breakdown of budgets can be found at the forum post above.
For the full proposal, please see this forum post.
Fluctuations in the UNI token price means that the accounts for various programs become unbalanced–sometimes at a surplus and other times at a deficit. Since programs are almost always budgeted in terms of dollars, we are looking to top up those balances to ensure liabilities around sustaining elected DAO programs are covered. This temperature check associated with rebalancing is being run separately from the UAC Season 3 renewal vote–the vote will request 42,060 UNI.
Further details on the request and breakdown of budgets can be found at the forum post above.
https://gov.uniswap.org/t/uniswap-accountability-committee-uac-season-2-report/24492/7
https://gov.uniswap.org/t/uniswap-accountability-committee-uac-season-2-report/24492/7
https://gov.uniswap.org/t/uniswap-accountability-committee-uac-season-2-report/24492/7
https://gov.uniswap.org/t/uniswap-accountability-committee-uac-season-2-report/24492/7
Thank you, @AbdullahUmar, for mentioning DapDap here.
Thank you, @AbdullahUmar, for mentioning DapDap here.
We appreciate the ongoing conversations with the UAC and everyone else who supported the ideas and provided feedback along the way. We remain committed to supporting the Uniswap ecosystem. As noted, our previous proposal aimed to extend the reach of DAO-approved front-ends to increase accessibility across different L2s. Although we sensed some hesitancy from the DAO regarding funding, our goal has always been to drive innovation and growth. Therefore, we took it to a vote on Twitter to hear our community’s voice, and it was almost unanimously in favor.
As a next step, we will re-engage with some L2s we’ve previously worked with to find alignment and move forward with the proposal to a Snapshot vote soon.
No worries at all, and your approach makes sense! Prioritizing larger or more established chains could potentially offer better returns on investment in terms of user reach and liquidity. It’s a strategy that focuses resources where they're most likely to create significant impact, based on the existing size and activity level of the chain.
By waiting until smaller chains grow in terms of Total Value Locked (TVL) or user base, you ensure that the efforts and resources spent are aligned with a chain’s proven potential and stability. This strategic patience could help manage risk and increase the effectiveness of deployments and collaborations.
Thanks Abdullah. I am PRO funding but i think we need to be careful to not overspend and only fund useful ideas.
Gm, gm :sparkles:
The results are in for the Uniswap Accountability S3 Renewal and Rebalance on-chain proposal.
See how the community voted and more Uniswap stats:
Thank you, @AbdullahUmar, for mentioning DapDap here.
Thank you, @AbdullahUmar, for mentioning DapDap here.
We appreciate the ongoing conversations with the UAC and everyone else who supported the ideas and provided feedback along the way. We remain committed to supporting the Uniswap ecosystem. As noted, our previous proposal aimed to extend the reach of DAO-approved front-ends to increase accessibility across different L2s. Although we sensed some hesitancy from the DAO regarding funding, our goal has always been to drive innovation and growth. Therefore, we took it to a vote on Twitter to hear our community’s voice, and it was almost unanimously in favor.
As a next step, we will re-engage with some L2s we’ve previously worked with to find alignment and move forward with the proposal to a Snapshot vote soon.
No worries at all, and your approach makes sense! Prioritizing larger or more established chains could potentially offer better returns on investment in terms of user reach and liquidity. It’s a strategy that focuses resources where they're most likely to create significant impact, based on the existing size and activity level of the chain.
By waiting until smaller chains grow in terms of Total Value Locked (TVL) or user base, you ensure that the efforts and resources spent are aligned with a chain’s proven potential and stability. This strategic patience could help manage risk and increase the effectiveness of deployments and collaborations.
Thanks Abdullah. I am PRO funding but i think we need to be careful to not overspend and only fund useful ideas.
Gm, gm :sparkles:
The results are in for the Uniswap Accountability S3 Renewal and Rebalance on-chain proposal.
See how the community voted and more Uniswap stats:
Gm, gm :sparkles:
The results are in for the UAC Renewal S3 and Approved Budgets Rebalancing off-chain proposals.
See how the community voted and more Uniswap stats:
Gm, gm :sparkles:
The results are in for the UAC Renewal S3 and Approved Budgets Rebalancing off-chain proposals.
See how the community voted and more Uniswap stats:
https://www.tally.xyz/gov/uniswap/proposal/70
Both the S3 renewal and budget rebalance has been approved in the snapshot vote. The onchain vote is posted above.
At a high-level overview, everything looks good!
When presented this way, it becomes clear that the UAC has significantly expanded its set of duties. It's seems natural to have a more permanent set of UAC members (to retain institutional knowledge), and to increase the headcount (to manage the increased workload).
At a high-level overview, everything looks good!
When presented this way, it becomes clear that the UAC has significantly expanded its set of duties. It's seems natural to have a more permanent set of UAC members (to retain institutional knowledge), and to increase the headcount (to manage the increased workload).
However—and I don't think this is an issue right now, though it could become one in the future—there are some centralization of power risks within the DAO. There is a positive feedback loop where the UAC shows that it does a good job in handling its current duties, and gets additional responsibilities as a result. Given this risk, if there’s a decision in the future to further expand the UAC's role, I would prefer exploring alternatives. These could include creating temporary working groups for specific tasks that are disbanded once completed, or assigning the tasks to the UF.
Hi @WeAreAllSatoshiN, could you please elaborate on your response? What aspect are you referring to in particular--rebalancing costs, renewing expenses, something else? Rebalancing we believe is warranted since the DAO's programs need to be properly accounted for. Otherwise, we are operating on a deficit. As for UAC costs, we are increasing the ask here due to the higher workload from the past season. This bundles in escrow/accounting/record management (services which could warrant a committee of its own--a good example is Arbitrum's recent MSS setup), along with BD+growth efforts with target chains.
This is a good point. This season, it became apparent rather quickly the new role that we ultimately took on. For the last few months, we’ve had rather (increased) but constant work with small additions such as overseeing delegate incentives program and handling committee payroll.
Going into the future, we certainly still encourage other Dao led initiatives such as the treasury working group and any other ideas to explore, and we agree that the UAC shouldn’t be the go to for everything.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @kaereste and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We are voting FOR the renewal of the UAC, and FOR the rebalancing of the accounts.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @kaereste and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We are voting FOR the renewal of the UAC, and FOR the rebalancing of the accounts.
The Accountabilty Committee has proven to be a reliable entity that streamlines much of the DAO’s operational burden and renewing it makes sense. After reviewing the Committee’s report for season 2, we had some questions regarding the rebalancing, but those were quickly addressed in private by @AbdullahUmar. With our initial concerns resolved, rebalancing the accounts is justified and we’re supporting it.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @kaereste and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We’re voting FOR this proposal.
Following our support during the temp check, and since no new information has come up that would make us change our mind, we’re voting in favor of this proposal during the onchain vote.
https://www.tally.xyz/gov/uniswap/proposal/70
Both the S3 renewal and budget rebalance has been approved in the snapshot vote. The onchain vote is posted above.
At a high-level overview, everything looks good!
When presented this way, it becomes clear that the UAC has significantly expanded its set of duties. It's seems natural to have a more permanent set of UAC members (to retain institutional knowledge), and to increase the headcount (to manage the increased workload).
At a high-level overview, everything looks good!
When presented this way, it becomes clear that the UAC has significantly expanded its set of duties. It's seems natural to have a more permanent set of UAC members (to retain institutional knowledge), and to increase the headcount (to manage the increased workload).
However—and I don't think this is an issue right now, though it could become one in the future—there are some centralization of power risks within the DAO. There is a positive feedback loop where the UAC shows that it does a good job in handling its current duties, and gets additional responsibilities as a result. Given this risk, if there’s a decision in the future to further expand the UAC's role, I would prefer exploring alternatives. These could include creating temporary working groups for specific tasks that are disbanded once completed, or assigning the tasks to the UF.
Hi @WeAreAllSatoshiN, could you please elaborate on your response? What aspect are you referring to in particular--rebalancing costs, renewing expenses, something else? Rebalancing we believe is warranted since the DAO's programs need to be properly accounted for. Otherwise, we are operating on a deficit. As for UAC costs, we are increasing the ask here due to the higher workload from the past season. This bundles in escrow/accounting/record management (services which could warrant a committee of its own--a good example is Arbitrum's recent MSS setup), along with BD+growth efforts with target chains.
This is a good point. This season, it became apparent rather quickly the new role that we ultimately took on. For the last few months, we’ve had rather (increased) but constant work with small additions such as overseeing delegate incentives program and handling committee payroll.
Going into the future, we certainly still encourage other Dao led initiatives such as the treasury working group and any other ideas to explore, and we agree that the UAC shouldn’t be the go to for everything.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @kaereste and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We are voting FOR the renewal of the UAC, and FOR the rebalancing of the accounts.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @kaereste and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We are voting FOR the renewal of the UAC, and FOR the rebalancing of the accounts.
The Accountabilty Committee has proven to be a reliable entity that streamlines much of the DAO’s operational burden and renewing it makes sense. After reviewing the Committee’s report for season 2, we had some questions regarding the rebalancing, but those were quickly addressed in private by @AbdullahUmar. With our initial concerns resolved, rebalancing the accounts is justified and we’re supporting it.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @kaereste and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We’re voting FOR this proposal.
Following our support during the temp check, and since no new information has come up that would make us change our mind, we’re voting in favor of this proposal during the onchain vote.
