The Nomic Foundation aims to benefit the entire Ethereum ecosystem, which is why we’re fundraising across multiple organizations and individuals within it. The Ethereum Foundation is leading this round of contributions with $8M, alongside contributions from Vitalik Buterin, Coinbase, Consensys, The Graph, Polygon, Chainlink, Gnosis, a16z, a_capital, and Kaszek Ventures. These donors make up $15M, and we’re aiming to raise $15M more.
Generally, we think that allocating capital to the Nomic Foundation makes strategic sense for any protocol treasury that is aligned long term with the growth of Ethereum, and we’ve approached and will continue approaching several protocols. Currently, Uniswap is built using Hardhat. While this is a signal of Hardhat’s value, the projects that the Nomic Foundation will deliver will create more value not just for Uniswap, but for the entire ecosystem. We’ll provide services to the Ethereum community that will:
We believe this grows the market for everyone, including Uniswap, and we’d love to have the Uniswap DAO contribute $5m in funding to this community effort .
The Nomic Foundation aims to benefit the entire Ethereum ecosystem, which is why we’re fundraising across multiple organizations and individuals within it. The Ethereum Foundation is leading this round of contributions with $8M, alongside contributions from Vitalik Buterin, Coinbase, Consensys, The Graph, Polygon, Chainlink, Gnosis, a16z, a_capital, and Kaszek Ventures. These donors make up $15M, and we’re aiming to raise $15M more.
Generally, we think that allocating capital to the Nomic Foundation makes strategic sense for any protocol treasury that is aligned long term with the growth of Ethereum, and we’ve approached and will continue approaching several protocols. Currently, Uniswap is built using Hardhat. While this is a signal of Hardhat’s value, the projects that the Nomic Foundation will deliver will create more value not just for Uniswap, but for the entire ecosystem. We’ll provide services to the Ethereum community that will:
We believe this grows the market for everyone, including Uniswap, and we’d love to have the Uniswap DAO contribute $5m in funding to this community effort .
I'm choosing abstain to show that while I've been thinking deeply about this proposal, I don't have enough conviction to vote yes or no. On the one hand, I think Nomic's tools add a lot of value to the ecosystem. The Uniswap core team has used them, and I have used them myself as well. I think funding Nomic is a good thing for Uniswap and the ecosystem. On the other hand, I'm having a difficult time determining what amount is appropriate here. There are competing tools (dapp.tools, https://github.com/gakonst/foundry), and so my weak preference would be a smaller grant while we see how usage plays out.
I'm choosing abstain to show that while I've been thinking deeply about this proposal, I don't have enough conviction to vote yes or no. On the one hand, I think Nomic's tools add a lot of value to the ecosystem. The Uniswap core team has used them, and I have used them myself as well. I think funding Nomic is a good thing for Uniswap and the ecosystem. On the other hand, I'm having a difficult time determining what amount is appropriate here. There are competing tools (dapp.tools, https://github.com/gakonst/foundry), and so my weak preference would be a smaller grant while we see how usage plays out.
Having passed this Snapshot vote, we've created the Consensus Check thread https://gov.uniswap.org/t/consensus-check-should-uniswap-governance-contribute-funding-to-the-nomic-foundation/16395
it's from our post that we wrote announcing our grant from Unigrants
Assuming the contribution is given in $UNI, how should Nomic Labs transfer from $UNI to a more stable asset (if at all)? Will this be done all at one, or more slowly to less affect the price of $UNI? Or will Nomic Labs simply deposit $UNI into Aave/Compound and borrow off of the sum? This needs to be discussed in further detail.
If the proposal goes through, Uniswap will be a significant donor and will be treated as such. In our eyes we're incentive-aligned to care for the relationship since an angry community likely means no more funding in the future, and the outcomes with a major DAO like Uniswap will impact every other DAO relationship.
Assuming the contribution is given in $UNI, how should Nomic Labs transfer from $UNI to a more stable asset (if at all)? Will this be done all at one, or more slowly to less affect the price of $UNI? Or will Nomic Labs simply deposit $UNI into Aave/Compound and borrow off of the sum? This needs to be discussed in further detail.
If the proposal goes through, Uniswap will be a significant donor and will be treated as such. In our eyes we're incentive-aligned to care for the relationship since an angry community likely means no more funding in the future, and the outcomes with a major DAO like Uniswap will impact every other DAO relationship.
Having said that, we do need to sell the UNI for risk management reasons. Still, we'll do everything we can to minimize impact and avoid causing stress to the community. We'll engage an OTC desk specializing in lower liquidity pairs to execute the sale, which will distribute the impact across many liquidity pools, over time, rather than a one-off market sell order in a single liquidity pool. The length of the period for the execution will depend on the OTC desk's assessment of liquidity at the time of the sale, but I assume it'd be many relatively small chunks over the course of a few weeks.
This is Bryan responding on behalf of Other Internet.
We’re in support of this proposal.
This is Bryan responding on behalf of Other Internet.
We’re in support of this proposal.
In the past these types of unconditional grants from the treasury have received feedback requesting that more details are provided as to how funds are specifically being spent, and how the exchange of UNI for USDC will be conducted. While Nomic did a great job explaining the value proposition of their suite of DevEx tools, it would be nice if they could respond with these additional details.
Nonetheless we are supportive of idea. We have confidence that Nomic has intentions to spend/exchange UNI responsibly. $5M worth of UNI is a drop in the bucket for the treasury. As an initiative framed as growing/sustaining ethereum public goods, we need to view this proposal and others like it as an easy opportunity to mobilize stagnant capital, not a budgeting exercise.
In general, I am in support of this proposal. We've all watched hardhat become the devtool of choice in the ecosystem with minimal support, despite them having been there to maintain, upgrade, and provide customer support all throughout DeFi summer+ as just a small team.
Having passed this Snapshot vote, we've created the Consensus Check thread https://gov.uniswap.org/t/consensus-check-should-uniswap-governance-contribute-funding-to-the-nomic-foundation/16395
it's from our post that we wrote announcing our grant from Unigrants
Assuming the contribution is given in $UNI, how should Nomic Labs transfer from $UNI to a more stable asset (if at all)? Will this be done all at one, or more slowly to less affect the price of $UNI? Or will Nomic Labs simply deposit $UNI into Aave/Compound and borrow off of the sum? This needs to be discussed in further detail.
If the proposal goes through, Uniswap will be a significant donor and will be treated as such. In our eyes we're incentive-aligned to care for the relationship since an angry community likely means no more funding in the future, and the outcomes with a major DAO like Uniswap will impact every other DAO relationship.
Assuming the contribution is given in $UNI, how should Nomic Labs transfer from $UNI to a more stable asset (if at all)? Will this be done all at one, or more slowly to less affect the price of $UNI? Or will Nomic Labs simply deposit $UNI into Aave/Compound and borrow off of the sum? This needs to be discussed in further detail.
If the proposal goes through, Uniswap will be a significant donor and will be treated as such. In our eyes we're incentive-aligned to care for the relationship since an angry community likely means no more funding in the future, and the outcomes with a major DAO like Uniswap will impact every other DAO relationship.
Having said that, we do need to sell the UNI for risk management reasons. Still, we'll do everything we can to minimize impact and avoid causing stress to the community. We'll engage an OTC desk specializing in lower liquidity pairs to execute the sale, which will distribute the impact across many liquidity pools, over time, rather than a one-off market sell order in a single liquidity pool. The length of the period for the execution will depend on the OTC desk's assessment of liquidity at the time of the sale, but I assume it'd be many relatively small chunks over the course of a few weeks.
This is Bryan responding on behalf of Other Internet.
We’re in support of this proposal.
This is Bryan responding on behalf of Other Internet.
We’re in support of this proposal.
In the past these types of unconditional grants from the treasury have received feedback requesting that more details are provided as to how funds are specifically being spent, and how the exchange of UNI for USDC will be conducted. While Nomic did a great job explaining the value proposition of their suite of DevEx tools, it would be nice if they could respond with these additional details.
Nonetheless we are supportive of idea. We have confidence that Nomic has intentions to spend/exchange UNI responsibly. $5M worth of UNI is a drop in the bucket for the treasury. As an initiative framed as growing/sustaining ethereum public goods, we need to view this proposal and others like it as an easy opportunity to mobilize stagnant capital, not a budgeting exercise.
In general, I am in support of this proposal. We've all watched hardhat become the devtool of choice in the ecosystem with minimal support, despite them having been there to maintain, upgrade, and provide customer support all throughout DeFi summer+ as just a small team.
In general, I am in support of this proposal. We've all watched hardhat become the devtool of choice in the ecosystem with minimal support, despite them having been there to maintain, upgrade, and provide customer support all throughout DeFi summer+ as just a small team.
To me, this is a clear example of a public good needing neutral support from the parties that benefit from their thankless work. While they could probably go out and raise private funds, I feel it's in the ecosystem's best interest to have the Nomic Foundation maintain neutrality without external pressures to have to back into some "token utility" or a business model that would only be a detriment to the overall developer experience.
What I would love to see moving forward is some form of public accountability. Not because we cannot trust this team, but because they can set the best precedent for how we as a community should support public goods. It could be as simple as quarterly/annual reporting on burn and tool updates (github metrics, etc...).
In general, I am in support of this proposal. We've all watched hardhat become the devtool of choice in the ecosystem with minimal support, despite them having been there to maintain, upgrade, and provide customer support all throughout DeFi summer+ as just a small team.
To me, this is a clear example of a public good needing neutral support from the parties that benefit from their thankless work. While they could probably go out and raise private funds, I feel it's in the ecosystem's best interest to have the Nomic Foundation maintain neutrality without external pressures to have to back into some "token utility" or a business model that would only be a detriment to the overall developer experience.
What I would love to see moving forward is some form of public accountability. Not because we cannot trust this team, but because they can set the best precedent for how we as a community should support public goods. It could be as simple as quarterly/annual reporting on burn and tool updates (github metrics, etc...).
Completely agree Bryan! On another note, where's the source for this image - I'd love to check it out further.
Completely agree Bryan! On another note, where's the source for this image - I'd love to check it out further.
Blockchain at Michigan is overall supportive of this proposal, though we continue to research the optimal contribution size.
We believe that growing the Ethereum ecosystem at large is one of the best uses of Uniswap. Through Hardhat, Nomic Labs has drastically improved the Ethereum developer experience, and BAM believes that Nomic Labs will continue to do so.
This leaves us with 2 questions:
Blockchain at Michigan is overall supportive of this proposal, though we continue to research the optimal contribution size.
We believe that growing the Ethereum ecosystem at large is one of the best uses of Uniswap. Through Hardhat, Nomic Labs has drastically improved the Ethereum developer experience, and BAM believes that Nomic Labs will continue to do so.
This leaves us with 2 questions:
What is the optimal contribution size ($5M or a smaller amount?). We are still discussing this internally and will follow up but would love to hear everyone's thoughts!
Assuming the contribution is given in $UNI, how should Nomic Labs transfer from $UNI to a more stable asset (if at all)? Will this be done all at one, or more slowly to less affect the price of $UNI? Or will Nomic Labs simply deposit $UNI into Aave/Compound and borrow off of the sum? This needs to be discussed in further detail.
Blockchain at Michigan is overall supportive of this proposal, though we continue to research the optimal contribution size.
We believe that growing the Ethereum ecosystem at large is one of the best uses of Uniswap. Through Hardhat, Nomic Labs has drastically improved the Ethereum developer experience, and BAM believes that Nomic Labs will continue to do so.
This leaves us with 2 questions:
Blockchain at Michigan is overall supportive of this proposal, though we continue to research the optimal contribution size.
We believe that growing the Ethereum ecosystem at large is one of the best uses of Uniswap. Through Hardhat, Nomic Labs has drastically improved the Ethereum developer experience, and BAM believes that Nomic Labs will continue to do so.
This leaves us with 2 questions:
What is the optimal contribution size ($5M or a smaller amount?). We are still discussing this internally and will follow up but would love to hear everyone's thoughts!
Assuming the contribution is given in $UNI, how should Nomic Labs transfer from $UNI to a more stable asset (if at all)? Will this be done all at one, or more slowly to less affect the price of $UNI? Or will Nomic Labs simply deposit $UNI into Aave/Compound and borrow off of the sum? This needs to be discussed in further detail.
