As many of you know, the Uniswap Discord server receives a lot of questions from end-users. Prior to the UNI launch, the developers answered these questions but it was a huge drain on expensive developer resources, and there tended to be a large delay between a user asking for support and the user getting an answer due to time zones or the development team just trying to get work done.
Since the UNI launch, the Uniswap Discord server has become overrun with support inquiries and the Uniswap development team has almost entirely stopped answering questions, likely because they are overwhelmed with them. A number of community members have taken up the call and answer questions when they can, but their response time is still unreliable and their availability is limited.
Surprise: most of the questions in Uniswap Discord server over the last month have been answered by my team, disguised as helpful community members!
A few weeks prior the UNI launch I coincidentally started training a team of support representatives to address the general problem of Ethereum dapps needing 24/7 support by people who understand at least the basics of Ethereum. Across all dapps, the most common questions are the same such as "why is my transaction pending?", "why did I pay ETH for a failed transaction?" and "what is a gas price?". My goal with this business is to provide answers to that class of question, and triage/troubleshooting for more application specific types of questions. We also want to ensure that dapp users receive a prompt response from a human, even if their final answer may be delayed.
Prior to the UNI launch, I had been using the Uniswap Discord server for training as the volume of questions in there was good for training and the class of questions was particularly representative of generic Ethereum questions. Around the time the UNI launch happened the first of my trainees were to the point where they could start answering some basic questions so I threw them to the wolves and had them help out with the UNI launch craziness and we started training the next batch. Since then, I have grown the team to 5 people, who are now scheduled across all days of the week and all hours of the day (with some breaks for lunch scattered about).
My original plan was to complete training and then propose that the Uniswap dev team hire my team. However, with the surprise launch of UNI, I thought that perhaps the new UNI community fund would be a better source of funding for this sort of endeavor as it seems to naturally align with community building and decentralized financing.
My tentative pricing plan was going to be 500 USD (paid in crypto) per month, plus 3 USD per customer helped, plus 0.04 USD per message read. The reason for these is as follows:
The problem with this pricing scheme is that it will result in a monthly bill that varies greatly per month, and so the client hiring our business for support services would review an invoice each month, pay what is due, and then we would start tracking the following month. With Uniswap governance, it would be quite unreasonable to submit a new governance proposal every month with the previous month's bill!
On top of that, UNI governance doesn't actually have any assets besides UNI, which is a highly volatile cryptocurrency with an uncertain future. Finally, authoring Governance proposals is challenging and expensive in its own right, and anything that involves price oracles suddenly becomes much more complicated.
For this reason, I propose having the pricing plan for Uniswap be a bit different. Instead of charging monthly per message/question and denominating in USD, I propose that instead UNI governance sets up a drip of UNI as payment via something like Sablier, which governance could cancel if necessary.
For the reasons outlined above, and in order to mitigate risks for my business (UNI price risk and over-utilization risk) I would like to propose a Sablier UNI stream of 35,000 UNI over 365 days.
For this fee, Serveth Support (https://serv.eth or https://serveth.support, website not live yet) would provide 24/7 coverage of all channels in the Uniswap Discord server except the foreign language channels and the development channels. We would provide answers to basic questions and triage and escalation services for more advanced questions. We would be available for almost all hours of the year, with exceptions for lunch breaks throughout the day and occasional unexpected service outages (e.g., power outages, death/dismemberment of a team member, etc.)
If there is sufficient interest in this proposal, I can draft the actual Solidity contract for it. I do not have the 10M UNI necessary to launch such a proposal though, and will wait until I hear whether there is general support before dedicating time to writing the code (writing the contract code alone probably costs a substantial portion of the proposed amount!)
As many of you know, the Uniswap Discord server receives a lot of questions from end-users. Prior to the UNI launch, the developers answered these questions but it was a huge drain on expensive developer resources, and there tended to be a large delay between a user asking for support and the user getting an answer due to time zones or the development team just trying to get work done.
Since the UNI launch, the Uniswap Discord server has become overrun with support inquiries and the Uniswap development team has almost entirely stopped answering questions, likely because they are overwhelmed with them. A number of community members have taken up the call and answer questions when they can, but their response time is still unreliable and their availability is limited.
Surprise: most of the questions in Uniswap Discord server over the last month have been answered by my team, disguised as helpful community members!
A few weeks prior the UNI launch I coincidentally started training a team of support representatives to address the general problem of Ethereum dapps needing 24/7 support by people who understand at least the basics of Ethereum. Across all dapps, the most common questions are the same such as "why is my transaction pending?", "why did I pay ETH for a failed transaction?" and "what is a gas price?". My goal with this business is to provide answers to that class of question, and triage/troubleshooting for more application specific types of questions. We also want to ensure that dapp users receive a prompt response from a human, even if their final answer may be delayed.
Prior to the UNI launch, I had been using the Uniswap Discord server for training as the volume of questions in there was good for training and the class of questions was particularly representative of generic Ethereum questions. Around the time the UNI launch happened the first of my trainees were to the point where they could start answering some basic questions so I threw them to the wolves and had them help out with the UNI launch craziness and we started training the next batch. Since then, I have grown the team to 5 people, who are now scheduled across all days of the week and all hours of the day (with some breaks for lunch scattered about).
My original plan was to complete training and then propose that the Uniswap dev team hire my team. However, with the surprise launch of UNI, I thought that perhaps the new UNI community fund would be a better source of funding for this sort of endeavor as it seems to naturally align with community building and decentralized financing.
My tentative pricing plan was going to be 500 USD (paid in crypto) per month, plus 3 USD per customer helped, plus 0.04 USD per message read. The reason for these is as follows:
The problem with this pricing scheme is that it will result in a monthly bill that varies greatly per month, and so the client hiring our business for support services would review an invoice each month, pay what is due, and then we would start tracking the following month. With Uniswap governance, it would be quite unreasonable to submit a new governance proposal every month with the previous month's bill!
On top of that, UNI governance doesn't actually have any assets besides UNI, which is a highly volatile cryptocurrency with an uncertain future. Finally, authoring Governance proposals is challenging and expensive in its own right, and anything that involves price oracles suddenly becomes much more complicated.
For this reason, I propose having the pricing plan for Uniswap be a bit different. Instead of charging monthly per message/question and denominating in USD, I propose that instead UNI governance sets up a drip of UNI as payment via something like Sablier, which governance could cancel if necessary.
For the reasons outlined above, and in order to mitigate risks for my business (UNI price risk and over-utilization risk) I would like to propose a Sablier UNI stream of 35,000 UNI over 365 days.
For this fee, Serveth Support (https://serv.eth or https://serveth.support, website not live yet) would provide 24/7 coverage of all channels in the Uniswap Discord server except the foreign language channels and the development channels. We would provide answers to basic questions and triage and escalation services for more advanced questions. We would be available for almost all hours of the year, with exceptions for lunch breaks throughout the day and occasional unexpected service outages (e.g., power outages, death/dismemberment of a team member, etc.)
If there is sufficient interest in this proposal, I can draft the actual Solidity contract for it. I do not have the 10M UNI necessary to launch such a proposal though, and will wait until I hear whether there is general support before dedicating time to writing the code (writing the contract code alone probably costs a substantial portion of the proposed amount!)
$3 per question seems too much. It seems better to proceed in such a way that the basic faqs are further extended.
i like this proposal its good
This would be wonderful.
$3 per question seems too much. It seems better to proceed in such a way that the basic faqs are further extended.
i like this proposal its good
This would be wonderful.
hello, is there any news on the subject? sounds interesting
hello, is there any news on the subject? sounds interesting
I have a question for the developers: If I add liquidity to the pool and the result is zero, but the commission was charged, where can I get clarification and support on this issue?
hi, Micah then there won't be a moderator for channels of different languages?
I have a question for the developers: If I add liquidity to the pool and the result is zero, but the commission was charged, where can I get clarification and support on this issue?
hi, Micah then there won't be a moderator for channels of different languages?
Yeah..I agree with you naught..there are too many concerns that can occur in this. By the way, great proposal, great discussion..
Yeah..I agree with you naught..there are too many concerns that can occur in this. By the way, great proposal, great discussion..
Serv.eth is currently being paid by the Uniswap Grants program to provide support in the Uniswap Discord server. Sorry for not updating this thread sooner (first grant was received maybe 1.5 years ago).
I have not heard of any solution to this problem. A big part of the issue is that the volume of questions per language (aside from English) is very low, and you need to hire and audit someone for each language (of which there are many) and that overhead doesn't pay for itself for low-volume support channels.
serv.eth was able to secure a grant from the UNI grant program and are now servicing Uniswap Discord support. Recently, most of the support has been moved to private channels via a ticketing system (viewable by everyone with a certain set of roles in Discord plus the user requesting help) to help mitigate the negative impact of scammers and help keep the rest of the server clear for actual discussion, so serv.eth isn't quite as visible as previously but you can still see them handling new users in the public channels.
It's theoretically a good idea, but not viable IMO. Users of Uniswap are getting more and more professionalized. Soon, users will understand Uniswap better than the help desk itself. I wouldn't allocate budget to such a proposal because I see it as a side service rather than a protocol improvement.
Serv.eth is currently being paid by the Uniswap Grants program to provide support in the Uniswap Discord server. Sorry for not updating this thread sooner (first grant was received maybe 1.5 years ago).
I have not heard of any solution to this problem. A big part of the issue is that the volume of questions per language (aside from English) is very low, and you need to hire and audit someone for each language (of which there are many) and that overhead doesn't pay for itself for low-volume support channels.
serv.eth was able to secure a grant from the UNI grant program and are now servicing Uniswap Discord support. Recently, most of the support has been moved to private channels via a ticketing system (viewable by everyone with a certain set of roles in Discord plus the user requesting help) to help mitigate the negative impact of scammers and help keep the rest of the server clear for actual discussion, so serv.eth isn't quite as visible as previously but you can still see them handling new users in the public channels.
It's theoretically a good idea, but not viable IMO. Users of Uniswap are getting more and more professionalized. Soon, users will understand Uniswap better than the help desk itself. I wouldn't allocate budget to such a proposal because I see it as a side service rather than a protocol improvement.
I like this. User support for all
I like this. User support for all
I can code a dutch auction without much trouble, then executing the trades can be left to bots + arbitration, so we don't really need a frontend
I support this proposal, I think we only need to polish some details, but it sounds good to me.
It also raises another problem, UNI is not a stablecoin is rather impractical to pay for services, maybe we should convert part of the treasury into DAI (we could do something like 500k for now), and use those DAI to pay services like this one.
I can attest to this as well. Micah's team as well as other community members like BOR4 are in the chat all day and are able to answer questions at a moments notice. Like Kolten said discussion is still required, but It's definitely worth it to mention how hard they are working.
I can code a dutch auction without much trouble, then executing the trades can be left to bots + arbitration, so we don't really need a frontend
I support this proposal, I think we only need to polish some details, but it sounds good to me.
It also raises another problem, UNI is not a stablecoin is rather impractical to pay for services, maybe we should convert part of the treasury into DAI (we could do something like 500k for now), and use those DAI to pay services like this one.
I can attest to this as well. Micah's team as well as other community members like BOR4 are in the chat all day and are able to answer questions at a moments notice. Like Kolten said discussion is still required, but It's definitely worth it to mention how hard they are working.
The contract would be that we would do the work for a year, regardless of UNI price.
If UNI goes to 0, we will still work for the whole year. If UNI goes to 100, we will still work for the whole year.
The contract would be that we would do the work for a year, regardless of UNI price.
If UNI goes to 0, we will still work for the whole year. If UNI goes to 100, we will still work for the whole year.
I would rather accept a USDC/DAI/ETH contract, but that just isn't in the cards at the moment I don't think, unless someone looking to buy 50k USD worth of UNI approaches me prior to launching the vote.
Would the contract also be killed if UNI appreciates x amount? Lets say after 2 months the contract has sold around 49k DAI worth of UNI, does the contract get terminated or does the support team continue to receive more than the asked upon amount (50k DAI) over the course of the full year?
If the support team continues to receive more than its asked upon amount (50k DAI) in the case of appreciated UNI, then it sounds like its playing more of a speculative role.
I agree with higher rewards comes more contributors. The issue in the case of a core support team who is first mover receiving a lucrative contract (35k UNI), does not allow others to simply enter the support providing market. The barrier to entry for a first level discord support group is very very low. The barrier is raised when a contract is given to a small group, I would also say this disincentives others from giving that service for free while a group get paid.
An open and decentralized chat support platform does not exist that allows outside entrants to disrupt the initial support discord group (and allow price discovery of this service to emerge).
I agree with higher rewards comes more contributors. The issue in the case of a core support team who is first mover receiving a lucrative contract (35k UNI), does not allow others to simply enter the support providing market. The barrier to entry for a first level discord support group is very very low. The barrier is raised when a contract is given to a small group, I would also say this disincentives others from giving that service for free while a group get paid.
An open and decentralized chat support platform does not exist that allows outside entrants to disrupt the initial support discord group (and allow price discovery of this service to emerge).
I think my main issue is that it is being paid in UNI (and is being asked at a premium) and the rate is not flexible based on a demand for services/competition of new entrants since it is going to a central team.
There are 250,000 addresses that used Uniswap directly and received airdrop. They didn't have any teacher or support how to use Uniswap. Everyone who knows how to use Metamask wallet knows how to use Uniswap.
Let's stop pushing personal agendas and start working on major governance issues that will bring UNI token intrinsic value.
On account of what you say I correct myself "Ad-hoc" seems unfitting Should have wrote near "Ad-hoc" . Ideally it would be a team formed from a more randomly drawn distribution of community UNI "volunteers" weighted across the Discord language channels most widely spoken and in need of DEFI. As you claim publicly you already have your team trained. I contend it would be preferable to raise/train the team organically via interaction in all the discord UNI language channels, not via what seems a more commercial venture.
I would heavily discourage voting or delegating votes to this cause. It is premature and goes against the spirit of organic decentralization and the building-up of community. The 400 tokens airdropped and dump, coincides with the high influx of discord members and questions as did the UNI dump shilling, that was rampant in the discord with some current mods unwilling to take a stand against including baseless FUD against UNI. Personally the building-up of knowledge in more organic and decentralized albeit chaotic way of asking, reading, watching, I think, a small price to pay for the 400 UNI tokens and will be more sustainable in the long run to the DEFI community.
In case it wasn't clear in my original post, this isn't an ad-hoc team being formed. This is an actual business that I started whose mission is to provide chat support to Ethereum applications such as Uniswap. We are also reaching out to other potential clients at the same time, not only Uniswap.
When people were shilling the recent UNI dump on the UNI discord and others defended UNI with clear arguments of volume and DEFI nature the Discord UNI moderators chose not to ban people many of whom were clearly using baseless FUD tactics to feed the dump.
Again, for clarity, the proposal here is to provide support services, not moderation services. While moderation services are something we can do as an add-on service if desired, it would mostly be for dealing with obvious scams, spam, etc. and not with curating discussion topics.
I happen to be a moderator in the Discord server right now, though that is unrelated to my support business. My policy on moderation is generally to only deal with the obvious bad actors like scams and spam, and any curation that isn't someone openly breaking a rule I tend to escalate to the server owners to deal with.
DApp functional button to allow UNI holder to gift UNI to people who they identify are helping the spirit of DEFI. This could obviously be automated, with a ML and data mining classification BOT set-up to Q&A data feed.
My guess that building something like this would likely cost more than this proposal is asking for, likely by a significant amount. If your goal is to save money, this definitely isn't the path forward. :slight_smile: I do think such features would be cool, I'm just not sure they make business sense in this case.
Maybe the vote should first be a solution to contracts being payed out in UNI vs a stable coin?
Maybe the vote should first be a solution to contracts being payed out in UNI vs a stable coin?
Sadly, doing this in a way that works despite the slow speed of governance requires some engineering work, which in itself is expensive unless someone wants to volunteer for the job. I can walk someone through the process of having governance do a trustless market sell of UNI for DAI or USDC, I just don't have the time to build such a thing myself at the moment.
Are you proposing that the UNI 1 year bond contract (customer service payable) be sold at time zero for $50k?
The proposal I think would work best would be to do a one time sell of UNI for DAI or USDC at notably below market rate (to deal with the slow movement speed of governance) and then use that 50,000 USDC/DAI to create a payment stream for support services.
Considering 35k UNI is currently worth $136k (x2.737 premium). I do not think you would have much issue finding a buyer for the UNI for $50k.
Are you proposing that the UNI 1 year bond contract (customer service payable) be sold at time zero for $50k?
Considering 35k UNI is currently worth $136k (x2.737 premium). I do not think you would have much issue finding a buyer for the UNI for $50k.
Are you proposing that the UNI 1 year bond contract (customer service payable) be sold at time zero for $50k?
Maybe the vote should first be a solution to contracts being payed out in UNI vs a stable coin? There is major issues with long term contracts being payed out in UNI. As you stated you are wanting a premium which is assuming a bearish outlook, while my example of UNI going up and overpayment assumes a bullish outlook; by default this places services and those looking to start long term businesses in a situation of being speculators.
@BOR4 Agree on your approach. We should start with those two polls.
“Do we need first level support team?” . If answer is yes then “ Is 35k UNI too much to solve this problem right now? ”.
Perhaps the proposer should start it. @Micah
Doesn't seem right that an ad-hoc team is being formed even if vouched by a few. When people were shilling the recent UNI dump on the UNI discord and others defended UNI with clear arguments of volume and DEFI nature the Discord UNI moderators chose not to ban people many of whom were clearly using baseless FUD tactics to feed the dump. Some may have had the power to ban these comments but didn't but now want to set up a team to answer questions to help people? There needs to be support for all languages and such support needs to happen organically and not set up by a central authority of early adopters.
So, in the spirit of other comments to the above proposal I would also be more in favor of a DApp functional button to allow UNI holder to gift UNI to people who they identify are helping the spirit of DEFI. This could obviously be automated, with a ML and data mining classification BOT set-up to Q&A data feed.
The contract would be that we would do the work for a year, regardless of UNI price.
If UNI goes to 0, we will still work for the whole year. If UNI goes to 100, we will still work for the whole year.
The contract would be that we would do the work for a year, regardless of UNI price.
If UNI goes to 0, we will still work for the whole year. If UNI goes to 100, we will still work for the whole year.
I would rather accept a USDC/DAI/ETH contract, but that just isn't in the cards at the moment I don't think, unless someone looking to buy 50k USD worth of UNI approaches me prior to launching the vote.
Would the contract also be killed if UNI appreciates x amount? Lets say after 2 months the contract has sold around 49k DAI worth of UNI, does the contract get terminated or does the support team continue to receive more than the asked upon amount (50k DAI) over the course of the full year?
If the support team continues to receive more than its asked upon amount (50k DAI) in the case of appreciated UNI, then it sounds like its playing more of a speculative role.
I agree with higher rewards comes more contributors. The issue in the case of a core support team who is first mover receiving a lucrative contract (35k UNI), does not allow others to simply enter the support providing market. The barrier to entry for a first level discord support group is very very low. The barrier is raised when a contract is given to a small group, I would also say this disincentives others from giving that service for free while a group get paid.
An open and decentralized chat support platform does not exist that allows outside entrants to disrupt the initial support discord group (and allow price discovery of this service to emerge).
I agree with higher rewards comes more contributors. The issue in the case of a core support team who is first mover receiving a lucrative contract (35k UNI), does not allow others to simply enter the support providing market. The barrier to entry for a first level discord support group is very very low. The barrier is raised when a contract is given to a small group, I would also say this disincentives others from giving that service for free while a group get paid.
An open and decentralized chat support platform does not exist that allows outside entrants to disrupt the initial support discord group (and allow price discovery of this service to emerge).
I think my main issue is that it is being paid in UNI (and is being asked at a premium) and the rate is not flexible based on a demand for services/competition of new entrants since it is going to a central team.
There are 250,000 addresses that used Uniswap directly and received airdrop. They didn't have any teacher or support how to use Uniswap. Everyone who knows how to use Metamask wallet knows how to use Uniswap.
Let's stop pushing personal agendas and start working on major governance issues that will bring UNI token intrinsic value.
On account of what you say I correct myself "Ad-hoc" seems unfitting Should have wrote near "Ad-hoc" . Ideally it would be a team formed from a more randomly drawn distribution of community UNI "volunteers" weighted across the Discord language channels most widely spoken and in need of DEFI. As you claim publicly you already have your team trained. I contend it would be preferable to raise/train the team organically via interaction in all the discord UNI language channels, not via what seems a more commercial venture.
I would heavily discourage voting or delegating votes to this cause. It is premature and goes against the spirit of organic decentralization and the building-up of community. The 400 tokens airdropped and dump, coincides with the high influx of discord members and questions as did the UNI dump shilling, that was rampant in the discord with some current mods unwilling to take a stand against including baseless FUD against UNI. Personally the building-up of knowledge in more organic and decentralized albeit chaotic way of asking, reading, watching, I think, a small price to pay for the 400 UNI tokens and will be more sustainable in the long run to the DEFI community.
In case it wasn't clear in my original post, this isn't an ad-hoc team being formed. This is an actual business that I started whose mission is to provide chat support to Ethereum applications such as Uniswap. We are also reaching out to other potential clients at the same time, not only Uniswap.
When people were shilling the recent UNI dump on the UNI discord and others defended UNI with clear arguments of volume and DEFI nature the Discord UNI moderators chose not to ban people many of whom were clearly using baseless FUD tactics to feed the dump.
Again, for clarity, the proposal here is to provide support services, not moderation services. While moderation services are something we can do as an add-on service if desired, it would mostly be for dealing with obvious scams, spam, etc. and not with curating discussion topics.
I happen to be a moderator in the Discord server right now, though that is unrelated to my support business. My policy on moderation is generally to only deal with the obvious bad actors like scams and spam, and any curation that isn't someone openly breaking a rule I tend to escalate to the server owners to deal with.
DApp functional button to allow UNI holder to gift UNI to people who they identify are helping the spirit of DEFI. This could obviously be automated, with a ML and data mining classification BOT set-up to Q&A data feed.
My guess that building something like this would likely cost more than this proposal is asking for, likely by a significant amount. If your goal is to save money, this definitely isn't the path forward. :slight_smile: I do think such features would be cool, I'm just not sure they make business sense in this case.
Maybe the vote should first be a solution to contracts being payed out in UNI vs a stable coin?
Maybe the vote should first be a solution to contracts being payed out in UNI vs a stable coin?
Sadly, doing this in a way that works despite the slow speed of governance requires some engineering work, which in itself is expensive unless someone wants to volunteer for the job. I can walk someone through the process of having governance do a trustless market sell of UNI for DAI or USDC, I just don't have the time to build such a thing myself at the moment.
Are you proposing that the UNI 1 year bond contract (customer service payable) be sold at time zero for $50k?
The proposal I think would work best would be to do a one time sell of UNI for DAI or USDC at notably below market rate (to deal with the slow movement speed of governance) and then use that 50,000 USDC/DAI to create a payment stream for support services.
Considering 35k UNI is currently worth $136k (x2.737 premium). I do not think you would have much issue finding a buyer for the UNI for $50k.
Are you proposing that the UNI 1 year bond contract (customer service payable) be sold at time zero for $50k?
Considering 35k UNI is currently worth $136k (x2.737 premium). I do not think you would have much issue finding a buyer for the UNI for $50k.
Are you proposing that the UNI 1 year bond contract (customer service payable) be sold at time zero for $50k?
Maybe the vote should first be a solution to contracts being payed out in UNI vs a stable coin? There is major issues with long term contracts being payed out in UNI. As you stated you are wanting a premium which is assuming a bearish outlook, while my example of UNI going up and overpayment assumes a bullish outlook; by default this places services and those looking to start long term businesses in a situation of being speculators.
@BOR4 Agree on your approach. We should start with those two polls.
“Do we need first level support team?” . If answer is yes then “ Is 35k UNI too much to solve this problem right now? ”.
Perhaps the proposer should start it. @Micah
Doesn't seem right that an ad-hoc team is being formed even if vouched by a few. When people were shilling the recent UNI dump on the UNI discord and others defended UNI with clear arguments of volume and DEFI nature the Discord UNI moderators chose not to ban people many of whom were clearly using baseless FUD tactics to feed the dump. Some may have had the power to ban these comments but didn't but now want to set up a team to answer questions to help people? There needs to be support for all languages and such support needs to happen organically and not set up by a central authority of early adopters.
So, in the spirit of other comments to the above proposal I would also be more in favor of a DApp functional button to allow UNI holder to gift UNI to people who they identify are helping the spirit of DEFI. This could obviously be automated, with a ML and data mining classification BOT set-up to Q&A data feed.
The best group to target with the fee's would be users who are from countries where a little goes a long way, perhaps we give away first year of fee's to those who need it most, from area's that need it most.
The best group to target with the fee's would be users who are from countries where a little goes a long way, perhaps we give away first year of fee's to those who need it most, from area's that need it most.
Treasury should be used for building on top of Uniswap, and helping developers build out current applications for new capabilities. I think transparency is key, i.e. deliverable A receives UNI payment B.
1 and 2 solves 3. If we have more users, and new functionalities from developers then volume on Uniswap protocol increases. The increase in volumes will help drive those holding on CEX's to come to Uniswap to partake in liquidity pool's. Also if you are a new user receiving fee's then you will be less likely to put tokens on CEX, being introduced to uniswap first that user is less likely to use an inferior product (i.e. CEX's). Those users may also be unable to retrieve fee's if its on a custodial account, unless that application builds capabilities to retrieve it easily.
Attacks will be prevented the more the token is distributed. Uni holders would not be aligned to bite the hand that gives fee's.
I am not against paid uniswap chat support. I feel it fits a criteria of: Deliverable A (chat support), should receive Uni Payment B. On the larger scale chat support as a whole can be seen what is being evaluated, is the job being done well? Are observers in the Uniswap ecosystem seeing the value provided on a daily basis (Uniswap help discord)? I think the job is being done well, do I think it is worth 35k UNI for the year, not sure.
I would say 35k UNI is a good value for UNI holders if going towards 10 employee's.
I would say 35k UNI is not a good value for UNI holders if going to 2 employee's.
I state the above as it needs to satisfy point 1 and 4, we need to evaluate distribution and what is good for uniswap users. Is the quality of service good with 2 people or is it better with 10?
Should the 35k be structured into a Uniswap application where users submit quick chat concerns with bounty reward for answering from this 35k UNI (i.e. issue is presented from a user, a responder can then provide guidance, if user is happy with answer then responder receives payment from 35k). How can a chat support be opened up to anyone rather than a few responders (i.e. 10 employees)? Also building an application where this chat support is structured as a micro service cover Point 2, building on top of Uniswap and providing new functionalities (i.e. building a chat support DAPP, rather than using a central service like discord).
I think we need to have a high standard as to what passes with governance, such as :product/code up front, payment approved by UNI holders once value is put on table to evaluate.
Software support stuff in some countries work full time for less than $1000 per month. Big public companies and services like Google and Youtube don't have customer support for all users and I'm sure we don't need one.
1.There are lots of answers already out there. 2.Who doesn't know how to google
Software support stuff in some countries work full time for less than $1000 per month. Big public companies and services like Google and Youtube don't have customer support for all users and I'm sure we don't need one.
1.There are lots of answers already out there. 2.Who doesn't know how to google
3.These questions are more for the wallet provider than for the exchange. I'm sure Metamask answers all of them.
We have tremendous growth here that will explode with wrapped BTC in a very short period.
These are urgent questions to be solved: 1.How to use fees in the best interest of all token holders? 2.How will treasury be used in the best interest of all token holders? 3.How to incentivize token holders to not hold UNI on exchanges? 4.How to prevent attacks on Uniswap governance?
@Agusx1211 @BOR4 @TMod_Marco @Naught @chrisblec
Please add your opinion. Thank you
TL;DR: In-app chat support is a good idea, but it comes with a bunch of costs and complications that make it not a great idea right now.
It would certainly be cool to have support integrated more tightly into the UI, perhaps with an in-browser chat pop-up or something. There are a couple problems with this:
TL;DR: In-app chat support is a good idea, but it comes with a bunch of costs and complications that make it not a great idea right now.
It would certainly be cool to have support integrated more tightly into the UI, perhaps with an in-browser chat pop-up or something. There are a couple problems with this:
I like your proposal concept.
I think it is a good use for treasury funds.
My opinion though, is that the support should be more direct with the user-Uniswap interface; for example, in the Uniswap app website. (instead of guiding people to Discord, making them create an account, learn what discord is, etc,etc).
Would that be still possible through your service?
I like your proposal concept.
I think it is a good use for treasury funds.
My opinion though, is that the support should be more direct with the user-Uniswap interface; for example, in the Uniswap app website. (instead of guiding people to Discord, making them create an account, learn what discord is, etc,etc).
Would that be still possible through your service?
This would truly give more value to new DeFi users.
Will there be a break down of how much of this 35k UNI is going to your self and how much to your workers?
Will there be a break down of how much of this 35k UNI is going to your self and how much to your workers?
I.e. 15k founder? 5k per current staff?
I am in support that the distributions should be more favored to equality of payment between workers and founder vs what is seen in current token launching models.
The plan would be to periodically (e.g., once or twice a month) withdraw the dripped UNI and immediately exchange it for USDC, DAI, or ETH and use that to pay employees their agreed upon salary. After that, excess funds go to covering other costs that enable employees to be more productive/happy/comfortable such as equipment needs (e.g., office supplies, workstation, desk, chair, etc.) If there is money leftover it would go toward growing the business, either through acquisition of new clients, hiring of new employees, training, marketing, sales, etc.
To be clear, Serv.eth Support is a private business that isn't directly affiliated with Uniswap. It is a service provider that I propose Uniswap governance could hire to complete a specific task. The reason for accepting UNI as payment is solely because UNI governance does not have easy access to stable coins at the moment and I didn't want to complicate the proposal with mechanisms for converting UNI to stable coin.
I generally am pretty open about how I plan to run the business, but there are limits. I won't share my employee's salary publicly for example, because that information is private to them and it is their choice whether to share it or not, not mine. I do not plan on taking a salary for myself any time soon, as I'm more interested in growing the business than growing my personal bank account at the moment (I have enough personal runway to go without a salary for a while).
The 3 dollar per question fee is outrageous.
For some context, industry standard for chat support is $2 to $2.50 per customer handled. The level of support you get with that is usually "Tier 1" which means they can answer questions like "How much does product X cost?" and "What are shipping fees?" and "Do you ship to X location?" and "Does it come in Red?". What Serv.eth Support offers is closer to Tier 3 support, which means our staff understands the systems being used well enough to troubleshoot problems and gather technical support information required for effective escalations.
Something to keep in mind is that running a business often costs more than just the flat hourly rate of employees. Whether $3 is too high or not is certainly a subjective question and the answer is complex. I won't assert that I am certain the pricing is correct. I will say though that it is not a get rich quick scheme for me at that rate. :slight_smile:
If someone can provide equal/better service for a lower price I definitely encourage them to submit a competing proposal! I created this business because I saw a dire need for basic Ethereum technical support across the ecosystem that was not being filled by anyone else. I would love it if someone filled that void, and it doesn't have to be me. :smiley:
TL;DR: The contract asking price is $50,000 / year. The premium required for paying in UNI is 2x. Serv.eth Support is a support company, not an investment firm, and taking on the risk of high volatility assets is not part of our core business model.
Something I would like to clarify. The asking price for this contract is 50,000 USD per year. If governance had the facilities in place to pay in DAI or USDC, then the contract would be for 50,000 DAI or 50,000 USDC dripped over the course of the year. However, at the moment Uniswap governance does not have the facilities in place to pay with a stable coin, it only has the facilities to pay with UNI.
TL;DR: The contract asking price is $50,000 / year. The premium required for paying in UNI is 2x. Serv.eth Support is a support company, not an investment firm, and taking on the risk of high volatility assets is not part of our core business model.
Something I would like to clarify. The asking price for this contract is 50,000 USD per year. If governance had the facilities in place to pay in DAI or USDC, then the contract would be for 50,000 DAI or 50,000 USDC dripped over the course of the year. However, at the moment Uniswap governance does not have the facilities in place to pay with a stable coin, it only has the facilities to pay with UNI.
Serv.eth Support is not in the investment/speculation business and while we are willing to accept UNI as payment in this case, the premium for doing so is pretty high. This is to minimize volatility risk we take on. In just the last two months we have UNI price fluctuate between almost $8 and below $2, which is a 4x range. This may be good for an investment firm that trades in high volatility assets, but it isn't good for a traditional business venture that has costs to cover.
My commitment is that regardless of whether the price of UNI in USD goes up or down, my company will continue providing support for a year. This means I'm taking on risk of the revenue from a contract with Uniswap becoming worthless (e.g., if UNI drops below a dollar), which is why I am asking for essentially a 2x premium.
It is also worth noting that in the consensus check vote I put up I also mentioned that at any time Uniswap governance could switch the drip over from UNI to DAI/USDC. This means that if Uniswap governance gained the ability to pay in stable coin 6 months from now, a vote could be proposed that stopped the UNI drip and started a DAI/USDC drip without any break in the support services provided. This means that I don't fully benefit from the upside of UNI, since presumably if UNI does moon there would be significant incentive for governance to "figure out how to switch over to DAI/USDC", while if UNI tanks then there would be little incentive to stop paying in UNI.
O I totally agree with you, which is why I would recommend a mix.
The entry barrier to ask questions on Telegram is lower than on Discord. Therefore, add a FAQ + automate 90% of the support on Telegram.
Other than that, redirect users to Discord for the more advanced questions. See Telegram as a first 'spam' filter there, main purpose there is FAQ.
O I totally agree with you, which is why I would recommend a mix.
The entry barrier to ask questions on Telegram is lower than on Discord. Therefore, add a FAQ + automate 90% of the support on Telegram.
Other than that, redirect users to Discord for the more advanced questions. See Telegram as a first 'spam' filter there, main purpose there is FAQ.
Discord would be the real deal, which is where you can go into in-depth conversations and quality support in the dedicated channels: Support, General, Governance, etc. - The Discord would be much more manageable, but TG should not be underestimated ;) Though even on Discord I doubt 24/7 paid support at scale would be the right decision, as there's a lot of volunteers that help out as well as community members. Speaking of decentralization.
As a current Community Lead / Manager myself (not of Uniswap) and having worked with top-tier projects for the past few years, I'd like to say I disagree with your pricing:
''My tentative pricing plan was going to be 500 USD (paid in crypto) per month, plus 3 USD per customer helped, plus 0.04 USD per message read''
As a current Community Lead / Manager myself (not of Uniswap) and having worked with top-tier projects for the past few years, I'd like to say I disagree with your pricing:
''My tentative pricing plan was going to be 500 USD (paid in crypto) per month, plus 3 USD per customer helped, plus 0.04 USD per message read''
Looking at the number of users vs the number of people that'd probably be in your team, you'd be looking at what, like $10k USD in expenses a month? Whereas, one could hire an internal team for $5k / month if not less than that. And, I'm talking 24/7 quality coverage there, not community moderators that copy + paste an FAQ.
On top of that, I've recommended the Uniswap team to create a Telegram channel. I'm aware there would be a lot of 'spam' in the Telegram channel. To combat this and ease the load of moderators, the following actions could be taken:
The pinned message of the Telegram channel would be the basics of Uniswap + links to the most frequently asked questions. I'd expect hundreds of users asking questions on a daily basis & thousands of messages, most of which would be easily answered through an FAQ.
Look at the big giants, live customer support for a (decentralized) platform of this scale is (almost) impossible. And therefore, things should be 'automated'. Moderators would refer more difficult technical questions/issues to the Discord and help keep quality in the channels, rather than answer every single basic question.
It would be the most effective use of money. Typically I would always recommend a full 24/7 support team, but I just don't see it happening here, especially because of anticipated spam & the same questions being asked over and over again. That being said, would recommend setting up a FAQ page on Uniswap with links to dedicated pages answering these questions with examples + screenshots. It would answer 90% of the expected questions. I'd be happy to help the team with this.
This is the most interesting governance proposal yet!
Your offer sounds reasonable and I fully support it. You already provided tons of value to the uniswap community.
As mentioned chat support in the uniswap app should be the end goal, but this should be figured out with the team.
Thank you for answering some of my concerns.
The flat rate charge of 35,000 UNI for a year, will there be a breakdown of how these funds will be distributed? As we saw with the ICO bubble it was a winner take all at the top. I assume you will be receiving a large potion of the 35k as founder of serv.eth, and creator of the future site smart contracts.
Thank you for answering some of my concerns.
The flat rate charge of 35,000 UNI for a year, will there be a breakdown of how these funds will be distributed? As we saw with the ICO bubble it was a winner take all at the top. I assume you will be receiving a large potion of the 35k as founder of serv.eth, and creator of the future site smart contracts.
Will there be a break down of how much of this 35k UNI is going to your self and how much to your workers?
I.e. 15k founder? 5k per current staff?
I am in support that the distributions should be more favored to equality of payment between workers and founder vs what is seen in current token launching models.
The 3 dollar per question fee is outrageous.
If you expect at least 10 questions per hour (which is one every 6 minutes - for a size of a uniswap, nearly impossible to achieve so "low" requests), you'd be paying 30 dollars an hour.
Support staff is much cheaper than 30 dollars per hour.
The 3 dollar per question fee is outrageous.
If you expect at least 10 questions per hour (which is one every 6 minutes - for a size of a uniswap, nearly impossible to achieve so "low" requests), you'd be paying 30 dollars an hour.
Support staff is much cheaper than 30 dollars per hour.
Like I said, if you want this "chat support" function, a much more viable option is to hire someone full time and pay them with uni tokens instead of hiring an external company.
I would also like to vouch for Micah and his team's efforts.
The support they've provided has been exceptional and valuable to the Discord and its users. Whether or not that is grant worthy is totally up to governance, but I think it's important to add some perspective here for those who don't hangout in Discord.
If you're looking for proof of work check out the Discord: https://discord.gg/XErMcTq
It also raises another problem, UNI is not a stablecoin is rather impractical to pay for services, maybe we should convert part of the treasury into DAI (we could do something like 500k for now), and use those DAI to pay services like this one.
Bots/fake accounts manipulating volume of messages answered (3 USD per) and read (.04 cents per message).
Bots/fake accounts manipulating volume of messages answered (3 USD per) and read (.04 cents per message).
This would certainly be a concern for a client paying per message. In this case though, the payment would be flat-rate so not a concern for this proposal.
35,000 Uni Locked in for the year and variable pricing (is serv.eth asking for 105k usd for the year? Or expecting prices to go up to x value and is asking for 400k usd?) At what point does it become overpaying if prices go up x amount?
The agreement would be that we'll work for a year for 35,000 UNI, regardless of the price movement. If the price tanks, we'll still fulfill the year contract. If the price moons, you'll still pay us the agreed amount. The reason for the asking amount is largely because we are not in the business of trading/speculating, but the only current option for payment is in a volatile currency. If the price stays where it is at or increases, then 35k will be very favorable to my business. If the price declines some, I'll still break even on cost (assuming support load remains somewhat consistent). If the price tanks, my business will be running at a loss but we'll continue to provide support for the year because reputation is very important in these sorts of things, and I don't want to be seen as a business that goes back on its contracts.
If the payment was in USDC or DAI or some other coin that is less likely to be volatile (even ETH!) then I think the asking price (at today's valuation) would be significantly lower. Unfortunately, that isn't currently an option, and Uniswap Discord server is in need of support today (not in 6-9 months after governance figures out how to get a hold of some other currencies). Once my team's training is complete I'll be pulling them out to give full attention to paying clients, which means there will be a support hole left in the Uniswap Discord server that I'm not certain the current volunteers will be able to fill (but maybe they can!).
It sounds like many of the same questions are asked from users asking for help. I.e. where is my transaction? Is this a scam token? Can I get my funds back from sending to x address? Would you say a majority of these kinds of questions could be answered via a frequently asked questions page?
Certainly! The problem is that users don't read FAQs. :slight_smile: As an example, look at the number of people who pop into the Discord server to ask where their money went and the answer is "you were scammed". All of these people would have not lost money if they had just taken some time to do some basic research before using Uniswap. Same with the common questions, the answer to all of them already exists on the internet often times even just 1 line up in the Discord chat log, yet the user's still come in to ask for help.
If a user is using a more ux friendly wallet, such as dharma or argent etc. Then will your services be only targeting a specific segment of the uniswap community I.e. direct uniswap users who also use discord?
Discord is listed in the Uniswap UI and all over uniswap.org as the place to chat about Uniswap. I believe it is the primary place where Uniswap users go to get assistance, which is why I propose we hang out there. We will do our best to assist anyone who uses Uniswap, regardless of the specific tools they are using, though I will be open and say that our expertise focus is definitely on MetaMask wallet users as they are by far the dominant wallet that users requesting support are using. Over the last month, I believe we have assisted people with hardware wallets, Argent, Coinbase wallet, Portis, Fortmatic and I suspect others.
A few concerns:
Bots/fake accounts manipulating volume of messages answered (3 USD per) and read (.04 cents per message).
35,000 Uni Locked in for the year and variable pricing (is serv.eth asking for 105k usd for the year? Or expecting prices to go up to x value and is asking for 400k usd?) At what point does it become overpaying if prices go up x amount?
It sounds like many of the same questions are asked from users asking for help. I.e. where is my transaction? Is this a scam token? Can I get my funds back from sending to x address? Would you say a majority of these kinds of questions could be answered via a frequently asked questions page?
If a user is using a more ux friendly wallet, such as dharma or argent etc. Then will your services be only targeting a specific segment of the uniswap community I.e. direct uniswap users who also use discord?
I’m not familiar with how the treasury is being managed (multi-sig?).
I’m not familiar with how the treasury is being managed (multi-sig?).
The UNI community fund is entirely controlled by governance (existing UNI holders). While governance has control, there are no mechanisms in place at the moment for actually doing anything with those funds. Anything would need to be coded and then proposed as a governance proposal.
I would personally opt that the treasury allocates UNI to Compound and borrows stables to pay for services like this
Lending on Compound wouldn't really work because you are taking that USDC/DAI and spending it, with no intention of getting it back later. This means you'll never be able to pay it back unless you have some revenue stream for USDC/DAI, which currently UNI governance does not have.
The best group to target with the fee's would be users who are from countries where a little goes a long way, perhaps we give away first year of fee's to those who need it most, from area's that need it most.
The best group to target with the fee's would be users who are from countries where a little goes a long way, perhaps we give away first year of fee's to those who need it most, from area's that need it most.
Treasury should be used for building on top of Uniswap, and helping developers build out current applications for new capabilities. I think transparency is key, i.e. deliverable A receives UNI payment B.
1 and 2 solves 3. If we have more users, and new functionalities from developers then volume on Uniswap protocol increases. The increase in volumes will help drive those holding on CEX's to come to Uniswap to partake in liquidity pool's. Also if you are a new user receiving fee's then you will be less likely to put tokens on CEX, being introduced to uniswap first that user is less likely to use an inferior product (i.e. CEX's). Those users may also be unable to retrieve fee's if its on a custodial account, unless that application builds capabilities to retrieve it easily.
Attacks will be prevented the more the token is distributed. Uni holders would not be aligned to bite the hand that gives fee's.
I am not against paid uniswap chat support. I feel it fits a criteria of: Deliverable A (chat support), should receive Uni Payment B. On the larger scale chat support as a whole can be seen what is being evaluated, is the job being done well? Are observers in the Uniswap ecosystem seeing the value provided on a daily basis (Uniswap help discord)? I think the job is being done well, do I think it is worth 35k UNI for the year, not sure.
I would say 35k UNI is a good value for UNI holders if going towards 10 employee's.
I would say 35k UNI is not a good value for UNI holders if going to 2 employee's.
I state the above as it needs to satisfy point 1 and 4, we need to evaluate distribution and what is good for uniswap users. Is the quality of service good with 2 people or is it better with 10?
Should the 35k be structured into a Uniswap application where users submit quick chat concerns with bounty reward for answering from this 35k UNI (i.e. issue is presented from a user, a responder can then provide guidance, if user is happy with answer then responder receives payment from 35k). How can a chat support be opened up to anyone rather than a few responders (i.e. 10 employees)? Also building an application where this chat support is structured as a micro service cover Point 2, building on top of Uniswap and providing new functionalities (i.e. building a chat support DAPP, rather than using a central service like discord).
I think we need to have a high standard as to what passes with governance, such as :product/code up front, payment approved by UNI holders once value is put on table to evaluate.
Software support stuff in some countries work full time for less than $1000 per month. Big public companies and services like Google and Youtube don't have customer support for all users and I'm sure we don't need one.
1.There are lots of answers already out there. 2.Who doesn't know how to google
Software support stuff in some countries work full time for less than $1000 per month. Big public companies and services like Google and Youtube don't have customer support for all users and I'm sure we don't need one.
1.There are lots of answers already out there. 2.Who doesn't know how to google
3.These questions are more for the wallet provider than for the exchange. I'm sure Metamask answers all of them.
We have tremendous growth here that will explode with wrapped BTC in a very short period.
These are urgent questions to be solved: 1.How to use fees in the best interest of all token holders? 2.How will treasury be used in the best interest of all token holders? 3.How to incentivize token holders to not hold UNI on exchanges? 4.How to prevent attacks on Uniswap governance?
@Agusx1211 @BOR4 @TMod_Marco @Naught @chrisblec
Please add your opinion. Thank you
TL;DR: In-app chat support is a good idea, but it comes with a bunch of costs and complications that make it not a great idea right now.
It would certainly be cool to have support integrated more tightly into the UI, perhaps with an in-browser chat pop-up or something. There are a couple problems with this:
TL;DR: In-app chat support is a good idea, but it comes with a bunch of costs and complications that make it not a great idea right now.
It would certainly be cool to have support integrated more tightly into the UI, perhaps with an in-browser chat pop-up or something. There are a couple problems with this:
I like your proposal concept.
I think it is a good use for treasury funds.
My opinion though, is that the support should be more direct with the user-Uniswap interface; for example, in the Uniswap app website. (instead of guiding people to Discord, making them create an account, learn what discord is, etc,etc).
Would that be still possible through your service?
I like your proposal concept.
I think it is a good use for treasury funds.
My opinion though, is that the support should be more direct with the user-Uniswap interface; for example, in the Uniswap app website. (instead of guiding people to Discord, making them create an account, learn what discord is, etc,etc).
Would that be still possible through your service?
This would truly give more value to new DeFi users.
Will there be a break down of how much of this 35k UNI is going to your self and how much to your workers?
Will there be a break down of how much of this 35k UNI is going to your self and how much to your workers?
I.e. 15k founder? 5k per current staff?
I am in support that the distributions should be more favored to equality of payment between workers and founder vs what is seen in current token launching models.
The plan would be to periodically (e.g., once or twice a month) withdraw the dripped UNI and immediately exchange it for USDC, DAI, or ETH and use that to pay employees their agreed upon salary. After that, excess funds go to covering other costs that enable employees to be more productive/happy/comfortable such as equipment needs (e.g., office supplies, workstation, desk, chair, etc.) If there is money leftover it would go toward growing the business, either through acquisition of new clients, hiring of new employees, training, marketing, sales, etc.
To be clear, Serv.eth Support is a private business that isn't directly affiliated with Uniswap. It is a service provider that I propose Uniswap governance could hire to complete a specific task. The reason for accepting UNI as payment is solely because UNI governance does not have easy access to stable coins at the moment and I didn't want to complicate the proposal with mechanisms for converting UNI to stable coin.
I generally am pretty open about how I plan to run the business, but there are limits. I won't share my employee's salary publicly for example, because that information is private to them and it is their choice whether to share it or not, not mine. I do not plan on taking a salary for myself any time soon, as I'm more interested in growing the business than growing my personal bank account at the moment (I have enough personal runway to go without a salary for a while).
The 3 dollar per question fee is outrageous.
For some context, industry standard for chat support is $2 to $2.50 per customer handled. The level of support you get with that is usually "Tier 1" which means they can answer questions like "How much does product X cost?" and "What are shipping fees?" and "Do you ship to X location?" and "Does it come in Red?". What Serv.eth Support offers is closer to Tier 3 support, which means our staff understands the systems being used well enough to troubleshoot problems and gather technical support information required for effective escalations.
Something to keep in mind is that running a business often costs more than just the flat hourly rate of employees. Whether $3 is too high or not is certainly a subjective question and the answer is complex. I won't assert that I am certain the pricing is correct. I will say though that it is not a get rich quick scheme for me at that rate. :slight_smile:
If someone can provide equal/better service for a lower price I definitely encourage them to submit a competing proposal! I created this business because I saw a dire need for basic Ethereum technical support across the ecosystem that was not being filled by anyone else. I would love it if someone filled that void, and it doesn't have to be me. :smiley:
TL;DR: The contract asking price is $50,000 / year. The premium required for paying in UNI is 2x. Serv.eth Support is a support company, not an investment firm, and taking on the risk of high volatility assets is not part of our core business model.
Something I would like to clarify. The asking price for this contract is 50,000 USD per year. If governance had the facilities in place to pay in DAI or USDC, then the contract would be for 50,000 DAI or 50,000 USDC dripped over the course of the year. However, at the moment Uniswap governance does not have the facilities in place to pay with a stable coin, it only has the facilities to pay with UNI.
TL;DR: The contract asking price is $50,000 / year. The premium required for paying in UNI is 2x. Serv.eth Support is a support company, not an investment firm, and taking on the risk of high volatility assets is not part of our core business model.
Something I would like to clarify. The asking price for this contract is 50,000 USD per year. If governance had the facilities in place to pay in DAI or USDC, then the contract would be for 50,000 DAI or 50,000 USDC dripped over the course of the year. However, at the moment Uniswap governance does not have the facilities in place to pay with a stable coin, it only has the facilities to pay with UNI.
Serv.eth Support is not in the investment/speculation business and while we are willing to accept UNI as payment in this case, the premium for doing so is pretty high. This is to minimize volatility risk we take on. In just the last two months we have UNI price fluctuate between almost $8 and below $2, which is a 4x range. This may be good for an investment firm that trades in high volatility assets, but it isn't good for a traditional business venture that has costs to cover.
My commitment is that regardless of whether the price of UNI in USD goes up or down, my company will continue providing support for a year. This means I'm taking on risk of the revenue from a contract with Uniswap becoming worthless (e.g., if UNI drops below a dollar), which is why I am asking for essentially a 2x premium.
It is also worth noting that in the consensus check vote I put up I also mentioned that at any time Uniswap governance could switch the drip over from UNI to DAI/USDC. This means that if Uniswap governance gained the ability to pay in stable coin 6 months from now, a vote could be proposed that stopped the UNI drip and started a DAI/USDC drip without any break in the support services provided. This means that I don't fully benefit from the upside of UNI, since presumably if UNI does moon there would be significant incentive for governance to "figure out how to switch over to DAI/USDC", while if UNI tanks then there would be little incentive to stop paying in UNI.
O I totally agree with you, which is why I would recommend a mix.
The entry barrier to ask questions on Telegram is lower than on Discord. Therefore, add a FAQ + automate 90% of the support on Telegram.
Other than that, redirect users to Discord for the more advanced questions. See Telegram as a first 'spam' filter there, main purpose there is FAQ.
O I totally agree with you, which is why I would recommend a mix.
The entry barrier to ask questions on Telegram is lower than on Discord. Therefore, add a FAQ + automate 90% of the support on Telegram.
Other than that, redirect users to Discord for the more advanced questions. See Telegram as a first 'spam' filter there, main purpose there is FAQ.
Discord would be the real deal, which is where you can go into in-depth conversations and quality support in the dedicated channels: Support, General, Governance, etc. - The Discord would be much more manageable, but TG should not be underestimated ;) Though even on Discord I doubt 24/7 paid support at scale would be the right decision, as there's a lot of volunteers that help out as well as community members. Speaking of decentralization.
As a current Community Lead / Manager myself (not of Uniswap) and having worked with top-tier projects for the past few years, I'd like to say I disagree with your pricing:
''My tentative pricing plan was going to be 500 USD (paid in crypto) per month, plus 3 USD per customer helped, plus 0.04 USD per message read''
As a current Community Lead / Manager myself (not of Uniswap) and having worked with top-tier projects for the past few years, I'd like to say I disagree with your pricing:
''My tentative pricing plan was going to be 500 USD (paid in crypto) per month, plus 3 USD per customer helped, plus 0.04 USD per message read''
Looking at the number of users vs the number of people that'd probably be in your team, you'd be looking at what, like $10k USD in expenses a month? Whereas, one could hire an internal team for $5k / month if not less than that. And, I'm talking 24/7 quality coverage there, not community moderators that copy + paste an FAQ.
On top of that, I've recommended the Uniswap team to create a Telegram channel. I'm aware there would be a lot of 'spam' in the Telegram channel. To combat this and ease the load of moderators, the following actions could be taken:
The pinned message of the Telegram channel would be the basics of Uniswap + links to the most frequently asked questions. I'd expect hundreds of users asking questions on a daily basis & thousands of messages, most of which would be easily answered through an FAQ.
Look at the big giants, live customer support for a (decentralized) platform of this scale is (almost) impossible. And therefore, things should be 'automated'. Moderators would refer more difficult technical questions/issues to the Discord and help keep quality in the channels, rather than answer every single basic question.
It would be the most effective use of money. Typically I would always recommend a full 24/7 support team, but I just don't see it happening here, especially because of anticipated spam & the same questions being asked over and over again. That being said, would recommend setting up a FAQ page on Uniswap with links to dedicated pages answering these questions with examples + screenshots. It would answer 90% of the expected questions. I'd be happy to help the team with this.
This is the most interesting governance proposal yet!
Your offer sounds reasonable and I fully support it. You already provided tons of value to the uniswap community.
As mentioned chat support in the uniswap app should be the end goal, but this should be figured out with the team.
Thank you for answering some of my concerns.
The flat rate charge of 35,000 UNI for a year, will there be a breakdown of how these funds will be distributed? As we saw with the ICO bubble it was a winner take all at the top. I assume you will be receiving a large potion of the 35k as founder of serv.eth, and creator of the future site smart contracts.
Thank you for answering some of my concerns.
The flat rate charge of 35,000 UNI for a year, will there be a breakdown of how these funds will be distributed? As we saw with the ICO bubble it was a winner take all at the top. I assume you will be receiving a large potion of the 35k as founder of serv.eth, and creator of the future site smart contracts.
Will there be a break down of how much of this 35k UNI is going to your self and how much to your workers?
I.e. 15k founder? 5k per current staff?
I am in support that the distributions should be more favored to equality of payment between workers and founder vs what is seen in current token launching models.
The 3 dollar per question fee is outrageous.
If you expect at least 10 questions per hour (which is one every 6 minutes - for a size of a uniswap, nearly impossible to achieve so "low" requests), you'd be paying 30 dollars an hour.
Support staff is much cheaper than 30 dollars per hour.
The 3 dollar per question fee is outrageous.
If you expect at least 10 questions per hour (which is one every 6 minutes - for a size of a uniswap, nearly impossible to achieve so "low" requests), you'd be paying 30 dollars an hour.
Support staff is much cheaper than 30 dollars per hour.
Like I said, if you want this "chat support" function, a much more viable option is to hire someone full time and pay them with uni tokens instead of hiring an external company.
I would also like to vouch for Micah and his team's efforts.
The support they've provided has been exceptional and valuable to the Discord and its users. Whether or not that is grant worthy is totally up to governance, but I think it's important to add some perspective here for those who don't hangout in Discord.
If you're looking for proof of work check out the Discord: https://discord.gg/XErMcTq
It also raises another problem, UNI is not a stablecoin is rather impractical to pay for services, maybe we should convert part of the treasury into DAI (we could do something like 500k for now), and use those DAI to pay services like this one.
Bots/fake accounts manipulating volume of messages answered (3 USD per) and read (.04 cents per message).
Bots/fake accounts manipulating volume of messages answered (3 USD per) and read (.04 cents per message).
This would certainly be a concern for a client paying per message. In this case though, the payment would be flat-rate so not a concern for this proposal.
35,000 Uni Locked in for the year and variable pricing (is serv.eth asking for 105k usd for the year? Or expecting prices to go up to x value and is asking for 400k usd?) At what point does it become overpaying if prices go up x amount?
The agreement would be that we'll work for a year for 35,000 UNI, regardless of the price movement. If the price tanks, we'll still fulfill the year contract. If the price moons, you'll still pay us the agreed amount. The reason for the asking amount is largely because we are not in the business of trading/speculating, but the only current option for payment is in a volatile currency. If the price stays where it is at or increases, then 35k will be very favorable to my business. If the price declines some, I'll still break even on cost (assuming support load remains somewhat consistent). If the price tanks, my business will be running at a loss but we'll continue to provide support for the year because reputation is very important in these sorts of things, and I don't want to be seen as a business that goes back on its contracts.
If the payment was in USDC or DAI or some other coin that is less likely to be volatile (even ETH!) then I think the asking price (at today's valuation) would be significantly lower. Unfortunately, that isn't currently an option, and Uniswap Discord server is in need of support today (not in 6-9 months after governance figures out how to get a hold of some other currencies). Once my team's training is complete I'll be pulling them out to give full attention to paying clients, which means there will be a support hole left in the Uniswap Discord server that I'm not certain the current volunteers will be able to fill (but maybe they can!).
It sounds like many of the same questions are asked from users asking for help. I.e. where is my transaction? Is this a scam token? Can I get my funds back from sending to x address? Would you say a majority of these kinds of questions could be answered via a frequently asked questions page?
Certainly! The problem is that users don't read FAQs. :slight_smile: As an example, look at the number of people who pop into the Discord server to ask where their money went and the answer is "you were scammed". All of these people would have not lost money if they had just taken some time to do some basic research before using Uniswap. Same with the common questions, the answer to all of them already exists on the internet often times even just 1 line up in the Discord chat log, yet the user's still come in to ask for help.
If a user is using a more ux friendly wallet, such as dharma or argent etc. Then will your services be only targeting a specific segment of the uniswap community I.e. direct uniswap users who also use discord?
Discord is listed in the Uniswap UI and all over uniswap.org as the place to chat about Uniswap. I believe it is the primary place where Uniswap users go to get assistance, which is why I propose we hang out there. We will do our best to assist anyone who uses Uniswap, regardless of the specific tools they are using, though I will be open and say that our expertise focus is definitely on MetaMask wallet users as they are by far the dominant wallet that users requesting support are using. Over the last month, I believe we have assisted people with hardware wallets, Argent, Coinbase wallet, Portis, Fortmatic and I suspect others.
A few concerns:
Bots/fake accounts manipulating volume of messages answered (3 USD per) and read (.04 cents per message).
35,000 Uni Locked in for the year and variable pricing (is serv.eth asking for 105k usd for the year? Or expecting prices to go up to x value and is asking for 400k usd?) At what point does it become overpaying if prices go up x amount?
It sounds like many of the same questions are asked from users asking for help. I.e. where is my transaction? Is this a scam token? Can I get my funds back from sending to x address? Would you say a majority of these kinds of questions could be answered via a frequently asked questions page?
If a user is using a more ux friendly wallet, such as dharma or argent etc. Then will your services be only targeting a specific segment of the uniswap community I.e. direct uniswap users who also use discord?
I’m not familiar with how the treasury is being managed (multi-sig?).
I’m not familiar with how the treasury is being managed (multi-sig?).
The UNI community fund is entirely controlled by governance (existing UNI holders). While governance has control, there are no mechanisms in place at the moment for actually doing anything with those funds. Anything would need to be coded and then proposed as a governance proposal.
I would personally opt that the treasury allocates UNI to Compound and borrows stables to pay for services like this
Lending on Compound wouldn't really work because you are taking that USDC/DAI and spending it, with no intention of getting it back later. This means you'll never be able to pay it back unless you have some revenue stream for USDC/DAI, which currently UNI governance does not have.
It also raises another problem, UNI is not a stablecoin is rather impractical to pay for services, maybe we should convert part of the treasury into DAI (we could do something like 500k for now), and use those DAI to pay services like this one.
I think this would be a good idea if Uniswap governance wants to be able to pay for services. However, this is actually a pretty hard problem to do with decentralized governance. A UNI auction would probably be best, but that is a non-trivial amount of engineering required.
A few concerns:
Bots/fake accounts manipulating volume of messages answered (3 USD per) and read (.04 cents per message).
35,000 Uni Locked in for the year and variable pricing (is serv.eth asking for 105k usd for the year? Or expecting prices to go up to x value and is asking for 400k usd?) At what point does it become overpaying if prices go up x amount?
It sounds like many of the same questions are asked from users asking for help. I.e. where is my transaction? Is this a scam token? Can I get my funds back from sending to x address? Would you say a majority of these kinds of questions could be answered via a frequently asked questions page?
If a user is using a more ux friendly wallet, such as dharma or argent etc. Then will your services be only targeting a specific segment of the uniswap community I.e. direct uniswap users who also use discord?
Salaries funded by treasury funds is an interesting use case, and I am looking forward to how UNI holders can support such payments without having to trust the funds usage, and having verifiable actions on expenses per user interactions.
I’d be much more in favor of a system that incentivizes knowledgeable Uniswap community members to participate in Discord.
I’d be much more in favor of a system that incentivizes knowledgeable Uniswap community members to participate in Discord.
Something like tip.cc could be used to tip community members who consistently go above & beyond to help out people who are asking questions
There needs to be a careful consideration before implementing a reward system like this because of varying amounts of effort required
E.g. A complex problem wont be solved with a single message reply and would require a lot more effort vs a simple issue which could be solved with a reply pointing them to a hyperlink to check out
what do you think about including forum support beside chat support?
If we're going to explore chat support option, it would be much more financially viable to employ full time people and avoid any fees "per person" or "per chat".
I understand you want to pitch your service though...
Thanks for the replies and I agree with your point about transparency/public forum and the need for something like Discord. In which case I would suggest we implement a support widget on the front end that takes the user to the #support channel in Discord.
I think for the flat-rate billing model it would be more just “look at Uniswap Discord server to get a feel for whether Serv.eth Support is doing their job or not”.
Thanks for the replies and I agree with your point about transparency/public forum and the need for something like Discord. In which case I would suggest we implement a support widget on the front end that takes the user to the #support channel in Discord.
I think for the flat-rate billing model it would be more just “look at Uniswap Discord server to get a feel for whether Serv.eth Support is doing their job or not”.
For this I feel someone from Serv.eth should at least consolidate some key bits of data for each calendar month:
This would help provide some basic ability to measure activity/success and can be elaborated over time.
I believe this would first require UNI governance to somehow acquire USD, which is a very non-trivial operation. While I would not be opposed to payment denominated in USD, I worry that getting to a place where that is possible is a long way off.
I'm not familiar with how the treasury is being managed (multi-sig?). I would personally opt that the treasury allocates UNI to Compound and borrows stables to pay for services like this (separate discussion for sure). It would be ~ interest rate neutral and would drastically lower the risk of exchange rate volatility of UNI without needing to sell UNI.
How would Serv.eth report to Uniswap governance; what would those reports contain?
How would Serv.eth report to Uniswap governance; what would those reports contain?
The tentative plan for traditional clients was to just track (e.g., in a public Google Sheet or something) the questions answered by the support staff, each with a Discord link to the conversation. This would allow anyone to spot-check/audit the questions and answers if desired. That being said, that was more intended for the per-question billing model rather than the flat-rate billing model.
I think for the flat-rate billing model it would be more just "look at Uniswap Discord server to get a feel for whether Serv.eth Support is doing their job or not". Since governance can cancel the drip payment at any time, someone would merely need to raise a concern here to get it discussed.
Users receive a prompt reply to almost all questions at all hours of the day. Either the question is answered directly by the support staff, or troubleshooting steps are followed and data is gathered for escalation to someone more capable at answering (e.g., me or dev team) for answer at a later time.
Any reason to not use live chat on the Uniswap front end as the primary channel?
This would require quite a bit of engineering to do. We want to be very careful of any support happening in private channels as it opens the doors to scams. While I trust my support team, I don't think UNI holders should have to trust my support team. Building out a toolset that allows for auditing of private support queries is a pretty large task and definitely out of scope for this proposal.
Personal preference to see any payment made in USD stablecoin rather than UNI to help governance budget more effectively.
I believe this would first require UNI governance to somehow acquire USD, which is a very non-trivial operation. While I would not be opposed to payment denominated in USD, I worry that getting to a place where that is possible is a long way off.
Interesting proposal. A few things from my side that would help me to better evaluate this proposal:
Interesting proposal. A few things from my side that would help me to better evaluate this proposal:
Thanks for the proposal Micah!
what do you think about including forum support beside chat support?
what do you think about including forum support beside chat support?
I'm open to discussing forum support, but at the moment there is no Uniswap forum aside from this one, and my support team's expertise is not in Uniswap Governance, it is in Ethereum technical support so I wouldn't personally recommend hiring them to work on this forum.
If we’re going to explore chat support option, it would be much more financially viable to employ full time people and avoid any fees “per person” or “per chat”.
If we’re going to explore chat support option, it would be much more financially viable to employ full time people and avoid any fees “per person” or “per chat”.
At the quoted rate, this is essentially what would be happening. The per support handle model works much better for traditional businesses and is particularly well suited for smaller businesses who want 24/7 support but do not have enough support load to warrant paying 5+ people full time (plus training).
There's a lot to be said for formalising what a team is already doing for Uniswap.
Unless anyone here wants to actively search for a support company (that somehow understands Ethereum and Uniswap) and organise how it's executed, then formalising an existing process with accountability seems like a very easy win.
It also raises another problem, UNI is not a stablecoin is rather impractical to pay for services, maybe we should convert part of the treasury into DAI (we could do something like 500k for now), and use those DAI to pay services like this one.
I think this would be a good idea if Uniswap governance wants to be able to pay for services. However, this is actually a pretty hard problem to do with decentralized governance. A UNI auction would probably be best, but that is a non-trivial amount of engineering required.
A few concerns:
Bots/fake accounts manipulating volume of messages answered (3 USD per) and read (.04 cents per message).
35,000 Uni Locked in for the year and variable pricing (is serv.eth asking for 105k usd for the year? Or expecting prices to go up to x value and is asking for 400k usd?) At what point does it become overpaying if prices go up x amount?
It sounds like many of the same questions are asked from users asking for help. I.e. where is my transaction? Is this a scam token? Can I get my funds back from sending to x address? Would you say a majority of these kinds of questions could be answered via a frequently asked questions page?
If a user is using a more ux friendly wallet, such as dharma or argent etc. Then will your services be only targeting a specific segment of the uniswap community I.e. direct uniswap users who also use discord?
Salaries funded by treasury funds is an interesting use case, and I am looking forward to how UNI holders can support such payments without having to trust the funds usage, and having verifiable actions on expenses per user interactions.
I’d be much more in favor of a system that incentivizes knowledgeable Uniswap community members to participate in Discord.
I’d be much more in favor of a system that incentivizes knowledgeable Uniswap community members to participate in Discord.
Something like tip.cc could be used to tip community members who consistently go above & beyond to help out people who are asking questions
There needs to be a careful consideration before implementing a reward system like this because of varying amounts of effort required
E.g. A complex problem wont be solved with a single message reply and would require a lot more effort vs a simple issue which could be solved with a reply pointing them to a hyperlink to check out
what do you think about including forum support beside chat support?
If we're going to explore chat support option, it would be much more financially viable to employ full time people and avoid any fees "per person" or "per chat".
I understand you want to pitch your service though...
Thanks for the replies and I agree with your point about transparency/public forum and the need for something like Discord. In which case I would suggest we implement a support widget on the front end that takes the user to the #support channel in Discord.
I think for the flat-rate billing model it would be more just “look at Uniswap Discord server to get a feel for whether Serv.eth Support is doing their job or not”.
Thanks for the replies and I agree with your point about transparency/public forum and the need for something like Discord. In which case I would suggest we implement a support widget on the front end that takes the user to the #support channel in Discord.
I think for the flat-rate billing model it would be more just “look at Uniswap Discord server to get a feel for whether Serv.eth Support is doing their job or not”.
For this I feel someone from Serv.eth should at least consolidate some key bits of data for each calendar month:
This would help provide some basic ability to measure activity/success and can be elaborated over time.
I believe this would first require UNI governance to somehow acquire USD, which is a very non-trivial operation. While I would not be opposed to payment denominated in USD, I worry that getting to a place where that is possible is a long way off.
I'm not familiar with how the treasury is being managed (multi-sig?). I would personally opt that the treasury allocates UNI to Compound and borrows stables to pay for services like this (separate discussion for sure). It would be ~ interest rate neutral and would drastically lower the risk of exchange rate volatility of UNI without needing to sell UNI.
How would Serv.eth report to Uniswap governance; what would those reports contain?
How would Serv.eth report to Uniswap governance; what would those reports contain?
The tentative plan for traditional clients was to just track (e.g., in a public Google Sheet or something) the questions answered by the support staff, each with a Discord link to the conversation. This would allow anyone to spot-check/audit the questions and answers if desired. That being said, that was more intended for the per-question billing model rather than the flat-rate billing model.
I think for the flat-rate billing model it would be more just "look at Uniswap Discord server to get a feel for whether Serv.eth Support is doing their job or not". Since governance can cancel the drip payment at any time, someone would merely need to raise a concern here to get it discussed.
Users receive a prompt reply to almost all questions at all hours of the day. Either the question is answered directly by the support staff, or troubleshooting steps are followed and data is gathered for escalation to someone more capable at answering (e.g., me or dev team) for answer at a later time.
Any reason to not use live chat on the Uniswap front end as the primary channel?
This would require quite a bit of engineering to do. We want to be very careful of any support happening in private channels as it opens the doors to scams. While I trust my support team, I don't think UNI holders should have to trust my support team. Building out a toolset that allows for auditing of private support queries is a pretty large task and definitely out of scope for this proposal.
Personal preference to see any payment made in USD stablecoin rather than UNI to help governance budget more effectively.
I believe this would first require UNI governance to somehow acquire USD, which is a very non-trivial operation. While I would not be opposed to payment denominated in USD, I worry that getting to a place where that is possible is a long way off.
Interesting proposal. A few things from my side that would help me to better evaluate this proposal:
Interesting proposal. A few things from my side that would help me to better evaluate this proposal:
Thanks for the proposal Micah!
what do you think about including forum support beside chat support?
what do you think about including forum support beside chat support?
I'm open to discussing forum support, but at the moment there is no Uniswap forum aside from this one, and my support team's expertise is not in Uniswap Governance, it is in Ethereum technical support so I wouldn't personally recommend hiring them to work on this forum.
If we’re going to explore chat support option, it would be much more financially viable to employ full time people and avoid any fees “per person” or “per chat”.
If we’re going to explore chat support option, it would be much more financially viable to employ full time people and avoid any fees “per person” or “per chat”.
At the quoted rate, this is essentially what would be happening. The per support handle model works much better for traditional businesses and is particularly well suited for smaller businesses who want 24/7 support but do not have enough support load to warrant paying 5+ people full time (plus training).
There's a lot to be said for formalising what a team is already doing for Uniswap.
Unless anyone here wants to actively search for a support company (that somehow understands Ethereum and Uniswap) and organise how it's executed, then formalising an existing process with accountability seems like a very easy win.
My opinion is really not important as I don't have any UNI delegated to me and I am holding insignificant amount of UNI in general. However you asked for it and I will provide you with it.
I think helping in onboarding new users on Uniswap is very important (this is essentially what first level support does). It ensures continued growth of the protocol and project in general.
My opinion is really not important as I don't have any UNI delegated to me and I am holding insignificant amount of UNI in general. However you asked for it and I will provide you with it.
I think helping in onboarding new users on Uniswap is very important (this is essentially what first level support does). It ensures continued growth of the protocol and project in general.
Furthermore, I am always in favor of simple solution for simple problems. Over engineering paying support team will take more time and resources than UNI Micah is asking for. What governance needs to decide first is "Do we need first level support team?". If answer is yes then "Is 35k UNI too much to solve this problem right now?".
I am not saying 35k UNI is cheapest what you can get. However 35k UNI solves your problem of first level support right now and Micah's team proved themselves already. If you can save 15k UNI by investing months of development/research .... is it really worth it?
I would like to add a community-building perspective to the topic.
If we were an HR department of a company that looks to get the most for its resources' frugal spending, a lot of the logic above would be applicable.
The critical metric would be the number of 'happy customers' we 'buy' with 1$ spent on chat support service.
In my opinion, there is a bigger picture to consider.
I would like to add a community-building perspective to the topic.
If we were an HR department of a company that looks to get the most for its resources' frugal spending, a lot of the logic above would be applicable.
The critical metric would be the number of 'happy customers' we 'buy' with 1$ spent on chat support service.
In my opinion, there is a bigger picture to consider.
When we reward teams and individuals who bring value to Uniswap, using the most precise market rates might not be the right approach.
Uniswap treasury is far from being short on funds, so I can't find a good argument to be frugal.
Even when we significantly overpay contributors for their work, it still is likely the best avenue of spending governance treasury in terms of ROI.
The way we reward contributions sends an important signal to future contributors.
Let's consider two scenarios.
we reward contributors with perfect market rates
we reward contributors with 2x market rates
Imagine we reward 1 million UNI for 1 million UNI worth of work over a year in the first scenario. In the second scenario, we would reward 10 million UNI for 5 million UNI worth of work. In my opinion, the second scenario is much more beneficial for the growth of Uniswap.
If we want more people to bring value to Uniswap, the rewarding process needs to be:
a) easy
b) generous.
==
Regarding the proposal at hand, the suggested rates are close enough to market rates that I don't think there is a need for discussion on lowering them.
Lowering the rates would send an uninviting signal to future Uniswap contributors.
==
Regarding the proposal's scale, I think it would be better if the second layer of Uniswap governance would decide on and execute it.
The scheme where 40 million UNI tokens need to vote for a 35k grant looks disproportionate to me.
Regarding telegram. It is 1 single chat which is way too limiting for the size of Uniswap community. You can't have more than 3 ongoing discussions in a single chat ... even 3 is too much depending on the situation.
If we are going to discuss the issue of solving user issues in the chat, the conversation should start from the problem itself. It shouldn't start with a potential solution.
This can and should be handled by Uniswap community members. Paid support is not a sustainable idea.
I'd be much more in favor of a system that incentivizes knowledgeable Uniswap community members to participate in Discord.
Hey everyone. I'd like to add my side of the story.
Micah and his team are helping users daily in Discord. My estimate is that on average there are 15-20 people asking for help in Discord per hour. His team (my estimate) can handle around 85% cases without any help, 5% they require some help and in 10% cases nobody can help that person. They are fluent in English, fast learners and have patience of a samurai. Furthermore, they created some nice resources to help answer some FAQ like GIFS and bot commands.
My opinion is really not important as I don't have any UNI delegated to me and I am holding insignificant amount of UNI in general. However you asked for it and I will provide you with it.
I think helping in onboarding new users on Uniswap is very important (this is essentially what first level support does). It ensures continued growth of the protocol and project in general.
My opinion is really not important as I don't have any UNI delegated to me and I am holding insignificant amount of UNI in general. However you asked for it and I will provide you with it.
I think helping in onboarding new users on Uniswap is very important (this is essentially what first level support does). It ensures continued growth of the protocol and project in general.
Furthermore, I am always in favor of simple solution for simple problems. Over engineering paying support team will take more time and resources than UNI Micah is asking for. What governance needs to decide first is "Do we need first level support team?". If answer is yes then "Is 35k UNI too much to solve this problem right now?".
I am not saying 35k UNI is cheapest what you can get. However 35k UNI solves your problem of first level support right now and Micah's team proved themselves already. If you can save 15k UNI by investing months of development/research .... is it really worth it?
I would like to add a community-building perspective to the topic.
If we were an HR department of a company that looks to get the most for its resources' frugal spending, a lot of the logic above would be applicable.
The critical metric would be the number of 'happy customers' we 'buy' with 1$ spent on chat support service.
In my opinion, there is a bigger picture to consider.
I would like to add a community-building perspective to the topic.
If we were an HR department of a company that looks to get the most for its resources' frugal spending, a lot of the logic above would be applicable.
The critical metric would be the number of 'happy customers' we 'buy' with 1$ spent on chat support service.
In my opinion, there is a bigger picture to consider.
When we reward teams and individuals who bring value to Uniswap, using the most precise market rates might not be the right approach.
Uniswap treasury is far from being short on funds, so I can't find a good argument to be frugal.
Even when we significantly overpay contributors for their work, it still is likely the best avenue of spending governance treasury in terms of ROI.
The way we reward contributions sends an important signal to future contributors.
Let's consider two scenarios.
we reward contributors with perfect market rates
we reward contributors with 2x market rates
Imagine we reward 1 million UNI for 1 million UNI worth of work over a year in the first scenario. In the second scenario, we would reward 10 million UNI for 5 million UNI worth of work. In my opinion, the second scenario is much more beneficial for the growth of Uniswap.
If we want more people to bring value to Uniswap, the rewarding process needs to be:
a) easy
b) generous.
==
Regarding the proposal at hand, the suggested rates are close enough to market rates that I don't think there is a need for discussion on lowering them.
Lowering the rates would send an uninviting signal to future Uniswap contributors.
==
Regarding the proposal's scale, I think it would be better if the second layer of Uniswap governance would decide on and execute it.
The scheme where 40 million UNI tokens need to vote for a 35k grant looks disproportionate to me.
Regarding telegram. It is 1 single chat which is way too limiting for the size of Uniswap community. You can't have more than 3 ongoing discussions in a single chat ... even 3 is too much depending on the situation.
If we are going to discuss the issue of solving user issues in the chat, the conversation should start from the problem itself. It shouldn't start with a potential solution.
This can and should be handled by Uniswap community members. Paid support is not a sustainable idea.
I'd be much more in favor of a system that incentivizes knowledgeable Uniswap community members to participate in Discord.
Hey everyone. I'd like to add my side of the story.
Micah and his team are helping users daily in Discord. My estimate is that on average there are 15-20 people asking for help in Discord per hour. His team (my estimate) can handle around 85% cases without any help, 5% they require some help and in 10% cases nobody can help that person. They are fluent in English, fast learners and have patience of a samurai. Furthermore, they created some nice resources to help answer some FAQ like GIFS and bot commands.
Hey everyone. I'd like to add my side of the story.
Micah and his team are helping users daily in Discord. My estimate is that on average there are 15-20 people asking for help in Discord per hour. His team (my estimate) can handle around 85% cases without any help, 5% they require some help and in 10% cases nobody can help that person. They are fluent in English, fast learners and have patience of a samurai. Furthermore, they created some nice resources to help answer some FAQ like GIFS and bot commands.
Source: I spend 8-10 hours a day along side them in Discord.
Hey everyone. I'd like to add my side of the story.
Micah and his team are helping users daily in Discord. My estimate is that on average there are 15-20 people asking for help in Discord per hour. His team (my estimate) can handle around 85% cases without any help, 5% they require some help and in 10% cases nobody can help that person. They are fluent in English, fast learners and have patience of a samurai. Furthermore, they created some nice resources to help answer some FAQ like GIFS and bot commands.
Source: I spend 8-10 hours a day along side them in Discord.
