Past discussion:
Temperature Check | Snapshot Consensus Check | Snapshot
Current Proposal:
Live On-Chain Governance Proposal Here
Uniswap Governance is at a major crossroads, struggling with how to deploy larger tranches of capital from its treasury with effective oversight.
It is in the DAO's best interest to define and deliver on a model that activates more substantial grants appropriately while maintaining decentralized protocol management.
As such, we have constructed a grant proposal that:
These two items enable a much more substantive value-alignment mechanism. It ensures assets remain close to the ecosystem itself, and can be monitored directly. It also sets up the long-term capacity for the program to fund itself.
In addition, we have structured the proposal to include an Oversight Committee, whose sole responsibility is to ensure the program delivers value. In the event it is deemed ineffective, the Oversight Committee may return the initial grant to the governance process for reassignment to other opportunities.
With community member feedback, we have updated our $25M recommendation to a $15M grant in year 1, with a $10M additional grant triggered at the first anniversary with program success. With $15M of UNI the model can be proven at near-break even; if successful, the remaining $10M will allow for a longer-term commitment. Note that all commitments must be reviewed for efficacy [EDIT: annually] by the Oversight Committee [the Committee can call for a review at any time].
Assuming a 30% yield target is achieved, the $15M will generate approximately $2,250,000 in yield each year, or $187,500 per month. The application of the $187,500 will look as follows:
50% of this will be delivered to ecosystem community members as bounties ($93,750 per month)
Flipside's value proposition begins with analytics, but its true purpose is to drive ecosystem acquisition and retention:
Ecosystem acquisition:
Utilizing a series of educational programs (see Terra scavenger hunt, SQL training solutions), and a hands-on community and analytics team, we activate new members into the ecosystem. This teaches new users how to actually use a complex protocol, how to think about the underlying mechanics, and even how to start becoming adept at using SQL to build queries and public-facing outcomes.
For our pilot Uniswap program, 69% of bounty recipients had never held UNI before (37 / 54).
Using this baseline data, this larger scale program will continue to deliver new participants to the Uniswap ecosystem at a projected rate of more than 900 per year [out of 1300 total].
Ecosystem retention:
The guiding metric for bounty flows is the percent of distributed tokens that are not sold or swapped after they are received. This reflects a traditional retention metric: the community member has chosen to remain involved in and supportive of the ecosystem.
Across our pilot program for Uniswap, 77% of the bountied UNI remained within the ecosystem (2,026 / 2,631).
Using this baseline data, this larger scale program will retain $900K UNI [50K Tokens] out of $1.125M UNI [64K Tokens] bountied per year.
Of the $93,750 in bounties per month, $25-$50k would be utilized to drive acquisition and $40k-$75k to motivate sophisticated analysts to drive substantive outcomes. This latter portion is critical as historically speaking, "power users'' of analytics have kept the most impactful insights to themselves. Enabling sophisticated solutions to enter the public domain - like the Uniswap V3 Fee Calculator - enables ecosystem health and growth.
All bounties are delivered through weekly programs: Flipside sources questions from the Community and Uniswap Labs, prepares a bounty construct, releases to the community, QAs all results, and distributes bounties to the most effective outcomes. This is a complex and very time consuming process, but the return is significant: extremely directed results that serve community needs with immediacy. Bounties range from $40 to $650 each, determined by the complexity of the request.
Bounties for Flipside + Dune Analytics, TheGraph and others
Another significant clarification from our initial proposal is that bounties may be constructed for engagement of analysts across other analytics platforms such as Dune Analytics, The Graph and others. We believe strongly in the overall analytics ecosystem. We are excited to contribute to effective analysis wherever it may occur. We will deliver a variety of programs that emphasize the ultimate development of results wherever users are interested in congregating.
As it relates to the Uniswap Grant Program, these bounties would be focused solely on analytics solutions, while the UGP would provide grants for a broader array of opportunities.
Year 1 Program Expectations:
Given the pilot program data, the expected results from a year of bounties would be as follows:
*recognizing that the entire program is funded by yield, there is a $0 CAC on the acquisition. If you use the yield rate, the CAC is ~$1,250 per analyst.
The other 50% ($93,750 per month) is Flipside's Fee To Operate the Program:
Again, this fee is paid by the yield, not by the grant itself. This aligns with Flipside's belief that the grant is meant to support the community, and the assets are the community's tokens. In that way, Flipside's role is to hold these assets on behalf of the DAO and to distribute the yield to the community, per the terms of the Program.
Program costs are approximately $100k-$115k per month, excluding taxes. This includes:
Salaries:
Tech Infrastructure
Additionally, our cost estimates conservatively include a 10% allocation of our projected infrastructure costs, inclusive of node management (ETH), compute / storage needs (AWS), data warehousing (Snowflake) needs and a variety of other software / architecture tooling requirements to sustain and make the Flipside Velocity database freely available to analysts of all levels.
Taxes on Yield
Note that Flipside will also be covering 30% tax rate on all yield, which also impacts the final margin.
It Does Not Include
Any fee for the IP developed to provide historical state-ready analytics.
Also note that no general G&A costs are included in this (ie: human resources, operations, employee benefits).
Margin
At the $15M grant level, Flipside is operating at a near BE margin. We are willing to operate at this level to prove the model in year 1 (note that we expect to compound our fees to generate additional yield, which should help us to mitigate margin pressure).
In year 2, with a $10M additional grant, Flipside's margin would be able to increase to 18%.
We outlined an approach in our temperature check that will generate perpetual yield for a continuous CEA program while mitigating negative effects on the UNI token. Based on feedback from key community participants, we have made slight revisions to our strategy, and recommend the following:
To optimize yield and minimize risk, we will partner with Gamma Strategies and Visor Finance to automatically manage our position in the Uniswap V3 pool. Automated position management ensures we can optimally realize & compound rewards to maximize yield for the program, while minimizing risks of human error.
Each time that the LP position is rebalanced, 50% of the accrued fees will be distributed to a wallet designated for bounties, while the other 50% (due to Flipside) will be compounded back into the LP for the first year. This will result in additional yield generation for the program over the course of time through the power of compounding.
Concurrently, we will be utilizing DefiSaver to automatically manage our leveraged position on AAVE. In the event of meaningful divergence between UNI and ETH prices, DefiSaver will minimize any risks of liquidation by optimizing for collateralization via programmatic debt paydown using AAVE's flash loans. Any fees incurred for utilizing flash loans will be more than offset with the yield generated from the LP.
While the overall yield generated through the use of collateralization is less than investing the entire grant position outright directly into the LP, we believe there are numerous benefits to this approach:
Finally, the risk of obtaining the most effective yield - and the bounties for participants and fees for Flipside - are entirely the responsibility of Flipside. In the event the yield contribution is below expectations, the fees and bounties will reduce symmetrically. In the event there is consistent reduction, the Allocation Committee (as noted below) will be able to evaluate other investment strategies for consideration, and approve changes.
It's critical that assets are managed effectively and are delivering value to the ecosystem. In the event the assets are not delivering value, they should be repurposed for other initiatives to enable ecosystem stability and growth. Full details on oversight in the Consensus Check.
Three components provide effective checks and balances to ensure maximum accountability to the Uniswap ecosystem:
Allocation Committee: whose purpose is to oversee fund execution strategy utilizing Gnosis Safe's industry standard multi-sig technology to ensure both effective management and protection/safety of funds (longer-term, we would aim to migrate to Tally's Failsafe solution once enabled, which is built on top of Gnosis).
The Allocation Committee will be comprised of:
Oversight Committee: whose purpose is to ensure that the grant proceeds are applied in a manner consistent with its design.
The Committee will meet and take a vote annually to evaluate the continuation of the program.
On the first anniversary of the program, the Committee may take a vote to remove the trigger of the second $10M grant. The $10M grant will reside in the Gnosis Safe address where funds are delivered following governance execution, and will require requisite approval to facilitate a transfer of the assets into the contemplated strategies. Funds will be redirected towards other uses through the standard governance process should the program prove unsuccessful.
In the event the Oversight Committee determines the program to be ineffective, at any voting junction, the $25M grant would be submitted as a proposal to Uniswap Governance to be evaluated and re-assigned to other programs.
The Oversight Committee will be comprised of:
Transparency Dashboard: Tracking fund performance and transaction activities will be broadcast live via a custom dashboard for the Uniswap community.
Summary: Community-Enabled Analytics for Uniswap
The purpose of the grant is to utilize yield to acquire and retain new community members, by funding a sophisticated education and analytics platform. Full details in the temperature check.
All of this is funded through yield generation, maintaining the initial grant and ultimately delivering no negative net Uni.
Past discussion:
Temperature Check | Snapshot Consensus Check | Snapshot
Current Proposal:
Live On-Chain Governance Proposal Here
Uniswap Governance is at a major crossroads, struggling with how to deploy larger tranches of capital from its treasury with effective oversight.
It is in the DAO's best interest to define and deliver on a model that activates more substantial grants appropriately while maintaining decentralized protocol management.
As such, we have constructed a grant proposal that:
These two items enable a much more substantive value-alignment mechanism. It ensures assets remain close to the ecosystem itself, and can be monitored directly. It also sets up the long-term capacity for the program to fund itself.
In addition, we have structured the proposal to include an Oversight Committee, whose sole responsibility is to ensure the program delivers value. In the event it is deemed ineffective, the Oversight Committee may return the initial grant to the governance process for reassignment to other opportunities.
With community member feedback, we have updated our $25M recommendation to a $15M grant in year 1, with a $10M additional grant triggered at the first anniversary with program success. With $15M of UNI the model can be proven at near-break even; if successful, the remaining $10M will allow for a longer-term commitment. Note that all commitments must be reviewed for efficacy [EDIT: annually] by the Oversight Committee [the Committee can call for a review at any time].
Assuming a 30% yield target is achieved, the $15M will generate approximately $2,250,000 in yield each year, or $187,500 per month. The application of the $187,500 will look as follows:
50% of this will be delivered to ecosystem community members as bounties ($93,750 per month)
Flipside's value proposition begins with analytics, but its true purpose is to drive ecosystem acquisition and retention:
Ecosystem acquisition:
Utilizing a series of educational programs (see Terra scavenger hunt, SQL training solutions), and a hands-on community and analytics team, we activate new members into the ecosystem. This teaches new users how to actually use a complex protocol, how to think about the underlying mechanics, and even how to start becoming adept at using SQL to build queries and public-facing outcomes.
For our pilot Uniswap program, 69% of bounty recipients had never held UNI before (37 / 54).
Using this baseline data, this larger scale program will continue to deliver new participants to the Uniswap ecosystem at a projected rate of more than 900 per year [out of 1300 total].
Ecosystem retention:
The guiding metric for bounty flows is the percent of distributed tokens that are not sold or swapped after they are received. This reflects a traditional retention metric: the community member has chosen to remain involved in and supportive of the ecosystem.
Across our pilot program for Uniswap, 77% of the bountied UNI remained within the ecosystem (2,026 / 2,631).
Using this baseline data, this larger scale program will retain $900K UNI [50K Tokens] out of $1.125M UNI [64K Tokens] bountied per year.
Of the $93,750 in bounties per month, $25-$50k would be utilized to drive acquisition and $40k-$75k to motivate sophisticated analysts to drive substantive outcomes. This latter portion is critical as historically speaking, "power users'' of analytics have kept the most impactful insights to themselves. Enabling sophisticated solutions to enter the public domain - like the Uniswap V3 Fee Calculator - enables ecosystem health and growth.
All bounties are delivered through weekly programs: Flipside sources questions from the Community and Uniswap Labs, prepares a bounty construct, releases to the community, QAs all results, and distributes bounties to the most effective outcomes. This is a complex and very time consuming process, but the return is significant: extremely directed results that serve community needs with immediacy. Bounties range from $40 to $650 each, determined by the complexity of the request.
Bounties for Flipside + Dune Analytics, TheGraph and others
Another significant clarification from our initial proposal is that bounties may be constructed for engagement of analysts across other analytics platforms such as Dune Analytics, The Graph and others. We believe strongly in the overall analytics ecosystem. We are excited to contribute to effective analysis wherever it may occur. We will deliver a variety of programs that emphasize the ultimate development of results wherever users are interested in congregating.
As it relates to the Uniswap Grant Program, these bounties would be focused solely on analytics solutions, while the UGP would provide grants for a broader array of opportunities.
Year 1 Program Expectations:
Given the pilot program data, the expected results from a year of bounties would be as follows:
*recognizing that the entire program is funded by yield, there is a $0 CAC on the acquisition. If you use the yield rate, the CAC is ~$1,250 per analyst.
The other 50% ($93,750 per month) is Flipside's Fee To Operate the Program:
Again, this fee is paid by the yield, not by the grant itself. This aligns with Flipside's belief that the grant is meant to support the community, and the assets are the community's tokens. In that way, Flipside's role is to hold these assets on behalf of the DAO and to distribute the yield to the community, per the terms of the Program.
Program costs are approximately $100k-$115k per month, excluding taxes. This includes:
Salaries:
Tech Infrastructure
Additionally, our cost estimates conservatively include a 10% allocation of our projected infrastructure costs, inclusive of node management (ETH), compute / storage needs (AWS), data warehousing (Snowflake) needs and a variety of other software / architecture tooling requirements to sustain and make the Flipside Velocity database freely available to analysts of all levels.
Taxes on Yield
Note that Flipside will also be covering 30% tax rate on all yield, which also impacts the final margin.
It Does Not Include
Any fee for the IP developed to provide historical state-ready analytics.
Also note that no general G&A costs are included in this (ie: human resources, operations, employee benefits).
Margin
At the $15M grant level, Flipside is operating at a near BE margin. We are willing to operate at this level to prove the model in year 1 (note that we expect to compound our fees to generate additional yield, which should help us to mitigate margin pressure).
In year 2, with a $10M additional grant, Flipside's margin would be able to increase to 18%.
We outlined an approach in our temperature check that will generate perpetual yield for a continuous CEA program while mitigating negative effects on the UNI token. Based on feedback from key community participants, we have made slight revisions to our strategy, and recommend the following:
To optimize yield and minimize risk, we will partner with Gamma Strategies and Visor Finance to automatically manage our position in the Uniswap V3 pool. Automated position management ensures we can optimally realize & compound rewards to maximize yield for the program, while minimizing risks of human error.
Each time that the LP position is rebalanced, 50% of the accrued fees will be distributed to a wallet designated for bounties, while the other 50% (due to Flipside) will be compounded back into the LP for the first year. This will result in additional yield generation for the program over the course of time through the power of compounding.
Concurrently, we will be utilizing DefiSaver to automatically manage our leveraged position on AAVE. In the event of meaningful divergence between UNI and ETH prices, DefiSaver will minimize any risks of liquidation by optimizing for collateralization via programmatic debt paydown using AAVE's flash loans. Any fees incurred for utilizing flash loans will be more than offset with the yield generated from the LP.
While the overall yield generated through the use of collateralization is less than investing the entire grant position outright directly into the LP, we believe there are numerous benefits to this approach:
Finally, the risk of obtaining the most effective yield - and the bounties for participants and fees for Flipside - are entirely the responsibility of Flipside. In the event the yield contribution is below expectations, the fees and bounties will reduce symmetrically. In the event there is consistent reduction, the Allocation Committee (as noted below) will be able to evaluate other investment strategies for consideration, and approve changes.
It's critical that assets are managed effectively and are delivering value to the ecosystem. In the event the assets are not delivering value, they should be repurposed for other initiatives to enable ecosystem stability and growth. Full details on oversight in the Consensus Check.
Three components provide effective checks and balances to ensure maximum accountability to the Uniswap ecosystem:
Allocation Committee: whose purpose is to oversee fund execution strategy utilizing Gnosis Safe's industry standard multi-sig technology to ensure both effective management and protection/safety of funds (longer-term, we would aim to migrate to Tally's Failsafe solution once enabled, which is built on top of Gnosis).
The Allocation Committee will be comprised of:
Oversight Committee: whose purpose is to ensure that the grant proceeds are applied in a manner consistent with its design.
The Committee will meet and take a vote annually to evaluate the continuation of the program.
On the first anniversary of the program, the Committee may take a vote to remove the trigger of the second $10M grant. The $10M grant will reside in the Gnosis Safe address where funds are delivered following governance execution, and will require requisite approval to facilitate a transfer of the assets into the contemplated strategies. Funds will be redirected towards other uses through the standard governance process should the program prove unsuccessful.
In the event the Oversight Committee determines the program to be ineffective, at any voting junction, the $25M grant would be submitted as a proposal to Uniswap Governance to be evaluated and re-assigned to other programs.
The Oversight Committee will be comprised of:
Transparency Dashboard: Tracking fund performance and transaction activities will be broadcast live via a custom dashboard for the Uniswap community.
Summary: Community-Enabled Analytics for Uniswap
The purpose of the grant is to utilize yield to acquire and retain new community members, by funding a sophisticated education and analytics platform. Full details in the temperature check.
All of this is funded through yield generation, maintaining the initial grant and ultimately delivering no negative net Uni.
First off we'd like to give @davebalter and Flipside credit for working on this proposal and for attempting to put the UNI treasury to work. We acknowledge that we’ve been passive here, and apologize for showing up late.
As UNI holders and stewards for hundreds of Uniswap dashboards creators we called attention to this proposal because it is risky and biased, and was seemingly passing without much community attention. Our objections to this proposal are largely echoed by a16z’s thoughtful comment above and is summarized below.
First off we'd like to give @davebalter and Flipside credit for working on this proposal and for attempting to put the UNI treasury to work. We acknowledge that we’ve been passive here, and apologize for showing up late.
As UNI holders and stewards for hundreds of Uniswap dashboards creators we called attention to this proposal because it is risky and biased, and was seemingly passing without much community attention. Our objections to this proposal are largely echoed by a16z’s thoughtful comment above and is summarized below.
UP1.2 is essentially bundle of three things
In our opinion there’s no obvious reason to bundle these together.
1. Funding grants with yield
While funding grants with yield is an interesting idea at large, this proposal was essentially for a data analytics provider to manage $25M of the UNI community’s treasury. There are plenty of important questions around risk, operations and checks and balances of capital management in and of itself. What happens if the money is lost? What is the appropriate amount of risk? Managing capital is a profession for a reason and from our perspective a totally separate matter to an analytics grant. If the UNI community wants to allocate funds in this manner, we encourage a separate proposal to deal with that and there’s already a discussion of this in another thread initiated by @wijuwiju.
2. Analytics grants
We are super excited to see UNI funds go towards creation of great analytics dashboards by funding community creators and education. However, this proposal is not credibly provider neutral. Flipside employees and investors were overrepresented on both the allocation committee and the oversight board.
3. Flipside Operational funding
Our take is that grants from the UNI treasury towards analytics should go to community creators, not Dune and not Flipside. Creators are the scarce resource for Uniswap, not the actual data tables.
There are plenty of analytics tools and providers that get funding from VCs, tokens and/or revenue. There’s no obvious reason for UNI holders to subsidise one of these, but if they want to it should be an explicit vendor/DAO arrangement, with clear SLA, the option to cancel etc. This is something different than a community analytics bounty program.
Summing up
All in all we think the proposal is overly complex and is not vendor neutral.
We would love to help funnel UNI grants to dashboard creators with a proposal that ensures that the actual community creators get the money and it is straightforward for UNI holders to understand what they are paying for.
With this as the backbone we are already working on a UNI community analytics proposal. We’d love to discuss how to best enable UNI analytics with everyone that voted last week, data providers and the Uniswap community broadly.
Thank you to the Flipside team for bringing this proposal to the table, and thank you to the community at large for providing helpful feedback. The Flipside team has proven itself to be a valuable community member, delivering high quality tools like the Uniswap V3 Fee Calculator. Furthermore, we appreciate their introduction of an innovative funding method that does not require the sale of UNI tokens.
We at a16z value Flipside’s work initiating this proposal, but voted no.
Thank you to the Flipside team for bringing this proposal to the table, and thank you to the community at large for providing helpful feedback. The Flipside team has proven itself to be a valuable community member, delivering high quality tools like the Uniswap V3 Fee Calculator. Furthermore, we appreciate their introduction of an innovative funding method that does not require the sale of UNI tokens.
We at a16z value Flipside’s work initiating this proposal, but voted no.
We wish to share some thoughts about this proposal to provide insight into our thinking about how to approach something similar in the future:
We explore each of the aforementioned points in greater detail below:
While allocations to private entities to provide services are okay, grants programs should be left to neutral community actors to administer.
The proposal had two components: (1) funding earmarked to fund a private service provider’s operations, and (2) funding earmarked for a community bounty program run by that same service provider.
We think (2) is inappropriate when the administrator of those funds has a conflict of interest with potential grantees--the allocation of community grants should be left to neutral actors. The original Uniswap Grants Program is an excellent example of how to create such a program.
Alternatively, we have no problem with (1)--DAO treasury funds going to a private service provider--given that the service provider demonstrates a compelling use for the funds and sufficient community oversight is in place.
Oversight committees associated with grants should be composed of community members that are independent of the grantee.
If a proposal involves an oversight committee to hold a grantee accountable, it’s crucial for members of that oversight committee to be independent of the grantee. Ideal members of that committee would be active community members who don’t stand to benefit from the grant directly.
Flipside proposed a compelling funding method, albeit one that requires oversight and a thorough specification.
Flipside’s proposal of using yield generation strategies to avoid selling allocated UNI is worth exploring.
This approach, however, requires the deployment of a large amount of UNI to generate yield. This should entail oversight in accordance with the guidelines above, as well as a thorough specification of the management of the funds over time.
An alternative funding method that requires less oversight is a stream grant (for example, see an implementation by Compound). While this eliminates the benefit of not selling the governance token, it allows for much more control from the DAO, as the grant can be stopped at any point via a proposal and vote.
as an analyst, I started off a few months ago with zero SQL skills, and this is all thanks to compoud, uniswap, terra, polygon, yearn and flipside. This is success by its highest metric. While I think all the money should go to me personally, flipside will do a better job at bringing new talent, community engagement to the space. Shoutout to Avi, Brandon, GJ, Angela, Meg, all the analysts and the rest of the staff who have been amazing and data hungry.
and DATA
Hi @naught, sure thing:
Thanks!
First off we'd like to give @davebalter and Flipside credit for working on this proposal and for attempting to put the UNI treasury to work. We acknowledge that we’ve been passive here, and apologize for showing up late.
As UNI holders and stewards for hundreds of Uniswap dashboards creators we called attention to this proposal because it is risky and biased, and was seemingly passing without much community attention. Our objections to this proposal are largely echoed by a16z’s thoughtful comment above and is summarized below.
First off we'd like to give @davebalter and Flipside credit for working on this proposal and for attempting to put the UNI treasury to work. We acknowledge that we’ve been passive here, and apologize for showing up late.
As UNI holders and stewards for hundreds of Uniswap dashboards creators we called attention to this proposal because it is risky and biased, and was seemingly passing without much community attention. Our objections to this proposal are largely echoed by a16z’s thoughtful comment above and is summarized below.
UP1.2 is essentially bundle of three things
In our opinion there’s no obvious reason to bundle these together.
1. Funding grants with yield
While funding grants with yield is an interesting idea at large, this proposal was essentially for a data analytics provider to manage $25M of the UNI community’s treasury. There are plenty of important questions around risk, operations and checks and balances of capital management in and of itself. What happens if the money is lost? What is the appropriate amount of risk? Managing capital is a profession for a reason and from our perspective a totally separate matter to an analytics grant. If the UNI community wants to allocate funds in this manner, we encourage a separate proposal to deal with that and there’s already a discussion of this in another thread initiated by @wijuwiju.
2. Analytics grants
We are super excited to see UNI funds go towards creation of great analytics dashboards by funding community creators and education. However, this proposal is not credibly provider neutral. Flipside employees and investors were overrepresented on both the allocation committee and the oversight board.
3. Flipside Operational funding
Our take is that grants from the UNI treasury towards analytics should go to community creators, not Dune and not Flipside. Creators are the scarce resource for Uniswap, not the actual data tables.
There are plenty of analytics tools and providers that get funding from VCs, tokens and/or revenue. There’s no obvious reason for UNI holders to subsidise one of these, but if they want to it should be an explicit vendor/DAO arrangement, with clear SLA, the option to cancel etc. This is something different than a community analytics bounty program.
Summing up
All in all we think the proposal is overly complex and is not vendor neutral.
We would love to help funnel UNI grants to dashboard creators with a proposal that ensures that the actual community creators get the money and it is straightforward for UNI holders to understand what they are paying for.
With this as the backbone we are already working on a UNI community analytics proposal. We’d love to discuss how to best enable UNI analytics with everyone that voted last week, data providers and the Uniswap community broadly.
Thank you to the Flipside team for bringing this proposal to the table, and thank you to the community at large for providing helpful feedback. The Flipside team has proven itself to be a valuable community member, delivering high quality tools like the Uniswap V3 Fee Calculator. Furthermore, we appreciate their introduction of an innovative funding method that does not require the sale of UNI tokens.
We at a16z value Flipside’s work initiating this proposal, but voted no.
Thank you to the Flipside team for bringing this proposal to the table, and thank you to the community at large for providing helpful feedback. The Flipside team has proven itself to be a valuable community member, delivering high quality tools like the Uniswap V3 Fee Calculator. Furthermore, we appreciate their introduction of an innovative funding method that does not require the sale of UNI tokens.
We at a16z value Flipside’s work initiating this proposal, but voted no.
We wish to share some thoughts about this proposal to provide insight into our thinking about how to approach something similar in the future:
We explore each of the aforementioned points in greater detail below:
While allocations to private entities to provide services are okay, grants programs should be left to neutral community actors to administer.
The proposal had two components: (1) funding earmarked to fund a private service provider’s operations, and (2) funding earmarked for a community bounty program run by that same service provider.
We think (2) is inappropriate when the administrator of those funds has a conflict of interest with potential grantees--the allocation of community grants should be left to neutral actors. The original Uniswap Grants Program is an excellent example of how to create such a program.
Alternatively, we have no problem with (1)--DAO treasury funds going to a private service provider--given that the service provider demonstrates a compelling use for the funds and sufficient community oversight is in place.
Oversight committees associated with grants should be composed of community members that are independent of the grantee.
If a proposal involves an oversight committee to hold a grantee accountable, it’s crucial for members of that oversight committee to be independent of the grantee. Ideal members of that committee would be active community members who don’t stand to benefit from the grant directly.
Flipside proposed a compelling funding method, albeit one that requires oversight and a thorough specification.
Flipside’s proposal of using yield generation strategies to avoid selling allocated UNI is worth exploring.
This approach, however, requires the deployment of a large amount of UNI to generate yield. This should entail oversight in accordance with the guidelines above, as well as a thorough specification of the management of the funds over time.
An alternative funding method that requires less oversight is a stream grant (for example, see an implementation by Compound). While this eliminates the benefit of not selling the governance token, it allows for much more control from the DAO, as the grant can be stopped at any point via a proposal and vote.
as an analyst, I started off a few months ago with zero SQL skills, and this is all thanks to compoud, uniswap, terra, polygon, yearn and flipside. This is success by its highest metric. While I think all the money should go to me personally, flipside will do a better job at bringing new talent, community engagement to the space. Shoutout to Avi, Brandon, GJ, Angela, Meg, all the analysts and the rest of the staff who have been amazing and data hungry.
and DATA
Hi @naught, sure thing:
Thanks!
Hi @stvnshpd, thanks for reviewing!
On 1. this is a great call out and core to how we’ve designed our data layer, query builder, and visualization studio. A few highlights:
Hi @stvnshpd, thanks for reviewing!
On 1. this is a great call out and core to how we’ve designed our data layer, query builder, and visualization studio. A few highlights:
On 2. the Oversight Committee votes annually, which is a build from our earlier phases (note: we edited this section at the top of the proposal, which was a legacy statement). Other key points:
Let us know if we can provide any further clarity!
Hi, Steve here from Blockchain @ Berkeley
Thanks Dave for the update and clarifying the amendments. I also appreciate the pointers to data that has guided the structure of the proposal. We are largely supportive of this proposal. It would be appreciated if you could you speak to the following however:
Hi, Steve here from Blockchain @ Berkeley
Thanks Dave for the update and clarifying the amendments. I also appreciate the pointers to data that has guided the structure of the proposal. We are largely supportive of this proposal. It would be appreciated if you could you speak to the following however:
For the discussion point 1, it would seem that this would be an opportune time to set a good example for how to utilize blockchain infrastructure to provide reproducibility of data analyses. Are there plans to allow the data and analysis models to be crosschecked by the community as well (e.g. IPFS data and model hosting)? I see "quality control" was mentioned in the 4th bullet point in the summary at the end, so it would great to know what this entails.
For discussion point 2, in the context of the rapid dynamics within the DeFi space, is the annual Oversight Committee review frequent enough to effectively adjust the direction of the project? Also, I may not be understanding fully the clause "Note that commitments must be reviewed for efficacy at the 3 year mark by the Oversight Committee[the Committee can call for a review at any time]", so maybe clarifying this statement would help.
Thanks!
I'd say, 25 million 1st year 40 million year 2, 100 million year 3. I need a programmer I can trust. I have read that only 25% of what you see on the internet is real... I assure you transparency is key. Core values , human rights, equality are my main goals
This project is good and I like
Thanks for articulating your perspective here @hagaetc. Excited to have Dune engaged and interested in the governance process.
In mischaracterizing Flipside’s model structure and benefits, you’ve failed to identify that we’re recommending the treasury funds the ability to provide all analysts unlimited access to data and a free open API that can be used to develop anywhere.
Thanks for articulating your perspective here @hagaetc. Excited to have Dune engaged and interested in the governance process.
In mischaracterizing Flipside’s model structure and benefits, you’ve failed to identify that we’re recommending the treasury funds the ability to provide all analysts unlimited access to data and a free open API that can be used to develop anywhere.
An effective vendor-neutral program would need to avoid:
Charging any community member for any premium data solutions.
Activating data that is held hostage in a single platform.
We remain big fans of Dune and certainly of premium-upsell models; while different from Flipside, it’s no less valuable for the ecosystem (Dr. Ethereum, who utilizes both platforms, breaks down the distinctions in the models quite well.)
That said, in this specific case, we’d have to reflect on how charging creators and restricting data decentralization is vendor-neutral - or ensures the creator is truly the beneficiary.
What we’ve proposed is quite different: the treasury enables anyone to build anywhere. No restrictions. This allows value creation to move from pure analytics, to the onboarding and retention of as many community members as possible.
Flipside believes there will be multiple models of value creation over time; all of them should have the equal benefit of evaluation and experimentation.
With community feedback in hand, we may be recommending an update to Uniswap Proposal 1.2. In the short term, we'd love to see a Dune proposal for a structure that is vendor-neutral and keeps data free and accessible to creators anywhere.
Hi folks, grateful you got the ball rolling on grants for analytics. I'm the founder of Revert (https://revert.finance), an analytics tool for LPs. For a few months after the release of Uniswap v3, Revert was the only tool where Uniswap LPs could see the PNL and APR for any v3 position. Given that context, I would like to respectfully provide some feedback on the previous proposal and the ensuing discussion.
As originally proposed the analytics grant had some problems that for me made it unviable. Fundamentally:
Hi folks, grateful you got the ball rolling on grants for analytics. I'm the founder of Revert (https://revert.finance), an analytics tool for LPs. For a few months after the release of Uniswap v3, Revert was the only tool where Uniswap LPs could see the PNL and APR for any v3 position. Given that context, I would like to respectfully provide some feedback on the previous proposal and the ensuing discussion.
As originally proposed the analytics grant had some problems that for me made it unviable. Fundamentally:
A neutral way to think about analytics grants is for the community to spec out the analytics solutions it is looking to fund, and then builders can build the tools that meet the specs, grants can be assigned retroactively and independently of how or where they get built. Would be great to be able to start thinking about what we want to fund in those terms and work together towards that.
@jcp love that idea. We actually will have a real time dashboard that will show all outcomes: " Transparency Dashboard: Tracking fund performance and transaction activities will be broadcast live via a custom dashboard for the Uniswap community."
Love the build of a formal report every few months. That's a great idea. I think @wijuwiju commented on how the funds are returned to governance if the program isn't delivering. We think is VERY important for the ecosystem's checks and balances. There needs to be a way to return grant money if not being used effectively.
Hi @uniyj - thanks, great question.
The structure of the program flexes with the yield. In the event the yield drops below 30%, the amount of bounties that are to be delivered also drops, as does the fee for running the program on a 1:1 ratio basis.
Net, we share the risk together.
Hi @uniyj - thanks, great question.
The structure of the program flexes with the yield. In the event the yield drops below 30%, the amount of bounties that are to be delivered also drops, as does the fee for running the program on a 1:1 ratio basis.
Net, we share the risk together.
In the event the yield drops for a consistent period of time, we have structured to present the 7-member Allocation Committee with other scenarios to deliver additional yield - we specifically want to drive yield that is as beneficial to the community as possible (larger yields are possible, often at the detriment of other stakeholders).
For the initial recommendation, we evaluated countless strategies. Currently the yield for this strategy is slightly higher than 30% - we believe it will come down as the program progresses, so we've taken that into account.
Hope that helps
I have gone to the flipside website to get a better idea of what analytics have been built, customer engagement (i.e. the data set behind the user retention), and how bounties work. In order to see community built analytics it is requiring a login and it looks like bounties are structured through discord (which I dont have). Is there a more accessible way to view what flipside does, analytic examples, and how bounties are connected to these analytics?
I had imagined that flipside operated more like trading view with tools at hand to create insights.
Hi @stvnshpd, thanks for reviewing!
On 1. this is a great call out and core to how we’ve designed our data layer, query builder, and visualization studio. A few highlights:
Hi @stvnshpd, thanks for reviewing!
On 1. this is a great call out and core to how we’ve designed our data layer, query builder, and visualization studio. A few highlights:
On 2. the Oversight Committee votes annually, which is a build from our earlier phases (note: we edited this section at the top of the proposal, which was a legacy statement). Other key points:
Let us know if we can provide any further clarity!
Hi, Steve here from Blockchain @ Berkeley
Thanks Dave for the update and clarifying the amendments. I also appreciate the pointers to data that has guided the structure of the proposal. We are largely supportive of this proposal. It would be appreciated if you could you speak to the following however:
Hi, Steve here from Blockchain @ Berkeley
Thanks Dave for the update and clarifying the amendments. I also appreciate the pointers to data that has guided the structure of the proposal. We are largely supportive of this proposal. It would be appreciated if you could you speak to the following however:
For the discussion point 1, it would seem that this would be an opportune time to set a good example for how to utilize blockchain infrastructure to provide reproducibility of data analyses. Are there plans to allow the data and analysis models to be crosschecked by the community as well (e.g. IPFS data and model hosting)? I see "quality control" was mentioned in the 4th bullet point in the summary at the end, so it would great to know what this entails.
For discussion point 2, in the context of the rapid dynamics within the DeFi space, is the annual Oversight Committee review frequent enough to effectively adjust the direction of the project? Also, I may not be understanding fully the clause "Note that commitments must be reviewed for efficacy at the 3 year mark by the Oversight Committee[the Committee can call for a review at any time]", so maybe clarifying this statement would help.
Thanks!
I'd say, 25 million 1st year 40 million year 2, 100 million year 3. I need a programmer I can trust. I have read that only 25% of what you see on the internet is real... I assure you transparency is key. Core values , human rights, equality are my main goals
This project is good and I like
Thanks for articulating your perspective here @hagaetc. Excited to have Dune engaged and interested in the governance process.
In mischaracterizing Flipside’s model structure and benefits, you’ve failed to identify that we’re recommending the treasury funds the ability to provide all analysts unlimited access to data and a free open API that can be used to develop anywhere.
Thanks for articulating your perspective here @hagaetc. Excited to have Dune engaged and interested in the governance process.
In mischaracterizing Flipside’s model structure and benefits, you’ve failed to identify that we’re recommending the treasury funds the ability to provide all analysts unlimited access to data and a free open API that can be used to develop anywhere.
An effective vendor-neutral program would need to avoid:
Charging any community member for any premium data solutions.
Activating data that is held hostage in a single platform.
We remain big fans of Dune and certainly of premium-upsell models; while different from Flipside, it’s no less valuable for the ecosystem (Dr. Ethereum, who utilizes both platforms, breaks down the distinctions in the models quite well.)
That said, in this specific case, we’d have to reflect on how charging creators and restricting data decentralization is vendor-neutral - or ensures the creator is truly the beneficiary.
What we’ve proposed is quite different: the treasury enables anyone to build anywhere. No restrictions. This allows value creation to move from pure analytics, to the onboarding and retention of as many community members as possible.
Flipside believes there will be multiple models of value creation over time; all of them should have the equal benefit of evaluation and experimentation.
With community feedback in hand, we may be recommending an update to Uniswap Proposal 1.2. In the short term, we'd love to see a Dune proposal for a structure that is vendor-neutral and keeps data free and accessible to creators anywhere.
Hi folks, grateful you got the ball rolling on grants for analytics. I'm the founder of Revert (https://revert.finance), an analytics tool for LPs. For a few months after the release of Uniswap v3, Revert was the only tool where Uniswap LPs could see the PNL and APR for any v3 position. Given that context, I would like to respectfully provide some feedback on the previous proposal and the ensuing discussion.
As originally proposed the analytics grant had some problems that for me made it unviable. Fundamentally:
Hi folks, grateful you got the ball rolling on grants for analytics. I'm the founder of Revert (https://revert.finance), an analytics tool for LPs. For a few months after the release of Uniswap v3, Revert was the only tool where Uniswap LPs could see the PNL and APR for any v3 position. Given that context, I would like to respectfully provide some feedback on the previous proposal and the ensuing discussion.
As originally proposed the analytics grant had some problems that for me made it unviable. Fundamentally:
A neutral way to think about analytics grants is for the community to spec out the analytics solutions it is looking to fund, and then builders can build the tools that meet the specs, grants can be assigned retroactively and independently of how or where they get built. Would be great to be able to start thinking about what we want to fund in those terms and work together towards that.
@jcp love that idea. We actually will have a real time dashboard that will show all outcomes: " Transparency Dashboard: Tracking fund performance and transaction activities will be broadcast live via a custom dashboard for the Uniswap community."
Love the build of a formal report every few months. That's a great idea. I think @wijuwiju commented on how the funds are returned to governance if the program isn't delivering. We think is VERY important for the ecosystem's checks and balances. There needs to be a way to return grant money if not being used effectively.
Hi @uniyj - thanks, great question.
The structure of the program flexes with the yield. In the event the yield drops below 30%, the amount of bounties that are to be delivered also drops, as does the fee for running the program on a 1:1 ratio basis.
Net, we share the risk together.
Hi @uniyj - thanks, great question.
The structure of the program flexes with the yield. In the event the yield drops below 30%, the amount of bounties that are to be delivered also drops, as does the fee for running the program on a 1:1 ratio basis.
Net, we share the risk together.
In the event the yield drops for a consistent period of time, we have structured to present the 7-member Allocation Committee with other scenarios to deliver additional yield - we specifically want to drive yield that is as beneficial to the community as possible (larger yields are possible, often at the detriment of other stakeholders).
For the initial recommendation, we evaluated countless strategies. Currently the yield for this strategy is slightly higher than 30% - we believe it will come down as the program progresses, so we've taken that into account.
Hope that helps
I have gone to the flipside website to get a better idea of what analytics have been built, customer engagement (i.e. the data set behind the user retention), and how bounties work. In order to see community built analytics it is requiring a login and it looks like bounties are structured through discord (which I dont have). Is there a more accessible way to view what flipside does, analytic examples, and how bounties are connected to these analytics?
I had imagined that flipside operated more like trading view with tools at hand to create insights.
Hi @Naught - the %s represent the total amount of their salary committed to the initiative. So 100% is a dedicated individual, 10% is someone who is assigned 10% of their time (like the head of finance) to the initiative. In this case, the top 7 people are entirely dedicated and everyone below is partial time.
Thank you for the response, for clairification the salary schedule has percentages (%) for the breakdown of the monthly salary ($100-150k per month). The first few percentages say 100%, is this implying that the data engineer, data scientist etc, make more than the head of finance?
Hi @Naught - thanks for the questions.
We will be putting on twitter, etc. tomorrow. Figured people would want their weekends.
Hi @Naught - thanks for the questions.
We will be putting on twitter, etc. tomorrow. Figured people would want their weekends.
On the Oversight Committee, Flipside is intentionally in the minority, and is available to help clarify any components of the program in the event of a required vote. Note that I have zero interest in maintaining this grant if we aren't delivering effectively --- my votes will be in favor of what's best for the community.
The salary schedule is what it costs flipside to run a program at this scale; these are resources specific to the Uniswap Community-Enabled Analytics execution.
This program is arm's length from Uniswap; so an equity relationship isn't established. It's a valid ask, although the program benefits the Uniswap ecosystem and community members (who receive bounties, etc.) significantly already.
Hope that helps.
I am a bit confused.
This proposal is live for voting on the uniswap voting portal, but it is radio silent on engagement (twitter etc.). Also, is there a reason that 1 of the 3 oversight committe member's is the CEO of the company running the proposal?
Is there clarification on what this salary schedule means?
Program costs are approximately $100k-$115k per month, excluding taxes. This includes:
I am a bit confused.
This proposal is live for voting on the uniswap voting portal, but it is radio silent on engagement (twitter etc.). Also, is there a reason that 1 of the 3 oversight committe member's is the CEO of the company running the proposal?
Is there clarification on what this salary schedule means?
Program costs are approximately $100k-$115k per month, excluding taxes. This includes:
Salaries:
I think the structure of the proposal is intresting in how it is using the treasury. But I am intrested to hear how Flipside is contributing to the Uniswap treasury in the long term. Is flipside providing equity commitments back to the treasury in the long term in the case of success?
Hi @Naught - the %s represent the total amount of their salary committed to the initiative. So 100% is a dedicated individual, 10% is someone who is assigned 10% of their time (like the head of finance) to the initiative. In this case, the top 7 people are entirely dedicated and everyone below is partial time.
Thank you for the response, for clairification the salary schedule has percentages (%) for the breakdown of the monthly salary ($100-150k per month). The first few percentages say 100%, is this implying that the data engineer, data scientist etc, make more than the head of finance?
Hi @Naught - thanks for the questions.
We will be putting on twitter, etc. tomorrow. Figured people would want their weekends.
Hi @Naught - thanks for the questions.
We will be putting on twitter, etc. tomorrow. Figured people would want their weekends.
On the Oversight Committee, Flipside is intentionally in the minority, and is available to help clarify any components of the program in the event of a required vote. Note that I have zero interest in maintaining this grant if we aren't delivering effectively --- my votes will be in favor of what's best for the community.
The salary schedule is what it costs flipside to run a program at this scale; these are resources specific to the Uniswap Community-Enabled Analytics execution.
This program is arm's length from Uniswap; so an equity relationship isn't established. It's a valid ask, although the program benefits the Uniswap ecosystem and community members (who receive bounties, etc.) significantly already.
Hope that helps.
I am a bit confused.
This proposal is live for voting on the uniswap voting portal, but it is radio silent on engagement (twitter etc.). Also, is there a reason that 1 of the 3 oversight committe member's is the CEO of the company running the proposal?
Is there clarification on what this salary schedule means?
Program costs are approximately $100k-$115k per month, excluding taxes. This includes:
I am a bit confused.
This proposal is live for voting on the uniswap voting portal, but it is radio silent on engagement (twitter etc.). Also, is there a reason that 1 of the 3 oversight committe member's is the CEO of the company running the proposal?
Is there clarification on what this salary schedule means?
Program costs are approximately $100k-$115k per month, excluding taxes. This includes:
Salaries:
I think the structure of the proposal is intresting in how it is using the treasury. But I am intrested to hear how Flipside is contributing to the Uniswap treasury in the long term. Is flipside providing equity commitments back to the treasury in the long term in the case of success?
I ended up voting no here. My thinking is below:
I ended up voting no here. My thinking is below:
What I do like about this proposal is that it puts forth an interesting idea around using yield to fund new programs. Additionally, I believe the authors here have been diligent about the process of receiving feedback from the community throughout the process of bringing this to a vote.
We do need to take seriously the idea of putting treasury funds to use in a more aggressive way, so I hope to see more proposals like this one in the future. In that sense, this is a model proposal! Thanks Flipside for putting in such considerate thought and discussion here. I'd personally be interested in seeing something along these lines continue to be discussed and maybe re-proposed.
hello unicorns and flipside team,
would like to say that I really like the idea of a yield fund, and really appreciate all your hard work you guys have put into this proposal, feedback you have providing and for being flexible to change on various community suggestions, and initially was thinking on voting yes on this, but in recent light of dune analytics pointing out a fatal flow in this proposal, as pointed out in this tweet
hello unicorns and flipside team,
would like to say that I really like the idea of a yield fund, and really appreciate all your hard work you guys have put into this proposal, feedback you have providing and for being flexible to change on various community suggestions, and initially was thinking on voting yes on this, but in recent light of dune analytics pointing out a fatal flow in this proposal, as pointed out in this tweet
Hence I suggest at this point we reject the proposal in current form and start a discussion of an analytical yield fund, where all teams providing analytical services, LPs providers (in ur proposal it was too only visor), etc could participate and would be able to discuss and compete on strategies to fund, generete yield, etc.
I also acknowledge that there has been a lot of work put into this proposal, and it is very time consuming and requires a lot of coordination to put and move along the DAO governance, so if this community sees this as experiment and a starting point to kickstart such initiatives I got no problem with that, as I also wouldn't want this to get buried in endless discussions, but I really do agree here with dune, that fundamentally this proposal should be focused on establishing an uniswap analytical yield fund, just like our grants fund.
Maybe something like a community board that decided which strategies/teams would get liquidity to generate yield, some control mechanism for the liquidity provided and a backlog of proposals that will get funded by those yields (or maybe liquidity + yield could be a combo, just like in ur case)
Any how as I said previously, I like the idea, but think mechanism to provide liquidity should be more decentralised and free marketish, but also understand that this could be just a starting point and we could use this precedent to then provide liquidity to others, as I have not enough time to comprehend everything at this point, since I only found out about this proposal yesterday, ps maybe flipside themselves are willing to postpone the proposal in light of flaws pointed out by dune team, have a nice day everyone!
P.S. I sugest we could discuss mechanism of such general yield fund further in this proposal discussion
Thanks for your reply. In that case, I think there isn't really much "opportunity cost" in providing the UNI from Treasury to attract yield to fund the program – sounds good to me. All the best.
yj
I may be missing something here, but what happens to the $25M that is generating the yield after the 2 year period here is over?
My other first comment here is that it seems like having the oversight committee review the program and report key findings would be helpful to do more frequently than annually. I think even after 4 or 5 months, there's probably a lot that could be analyzed and published.
"In the event the Oversight Committee determines the program to be ineffective, at any voting junction, the $25M grant would be submitted as a proposal to Uniswap Governance to be evaluated and re-assigned to other programs."
Cross-posting my question. Thanks. https://gov.uniswap.org/t/consensus-check-uniswap-funds-community-enabled-analytics-via-yield-generating-investment-strategies/13220/7?u=uniyj
yj
I ended up voting no here. My thinking is below:
I ended up voting no here. My thinking is below:
What I do like about this proposal is that it puts forth an interesting idea around using yield to fund new programs. Additionally, I believe the authors here have been diligent about the process of receiving feedback from the community throughout the process of bringing this to a vote.
We do need to take seriously the idea of putting treasury funds to use in a more aggressive way, so I hope to see more proposals like this one in the future. In that sense, this is a model proposal! Thanks Flipside for putting in such considerate thought and discussion here. I'd personally be interested in seeing something along these lines continue to be discussed and maybe re-proposed.
hello unicorns and flipside team,
would like to say that I really like the idea of a yield fund, and really appreciate all your hard work you guys have put into this proposal, feedback you have providing and for being flexible to change on various community suggestions, and initially was thinking on voting yes on this, but in recent light of dune analytics pointing out a fatal flow in this proposal, as pointed out in this tweet
hello unicorns and flipside team,
would like to say that I really like the idea of a yield fund, and really appreciate all your hard work you guys have put into this proposal, feedback you have providing and for being flexible to change on various community suggestions, and initially was thinking on voting yes on this, but in recent light of dune analytics pointing out a fatal flow in this proposal, as pointed out in this tweet
Hence I suggest at this point we reject the proposal in current form and start a discussion of an analytical yield fund, where all teams providing analytical services, LPs providers (in ur proposal it was too only visor), etc could participate and would be able to discuss and compete on strategies to fund, generete yield, etc.
I also acknowledge that there has been a lot of work put into this proposal, and it is very time consuming and requires a lot of coordination to put and move along the DAO governance, so if this community sees this as experiment and a starting point to kickstart such initiatives I got no problem with that, as I also wouldn't want this to get buried in endless discussions, but I really do agree here with dune, that fundamentally this proposal should be focused on establishing an uniswap analytical yield fund, just like our grants fund.
Maybe something like a community board that decided which strategies/teams would get liquidity to generate yield, some control mechanism for the liquidity provided and a backlog of proposals that will get funded by those yields (or maybe liquidity + yield could be a combo, just like in ur case)
Any how as I said previously, I like the idea, but think mechanism to provide liquidity should be more decentralised and free marketish, but also understand that this could be just a starting point and we could use this precedent to then provide liquidity to others, as I have not enough time to comprehend everything at this point, since I only found out about this proposal yesterday, ps maybe flipside themselves are willing to postpone the proposal in light of flaws pointed out by dune team, have a nice day everyone!
P.S. I sugest we could discuss mechanism of such general yield fund further in this proposal discussion
Thanks for your reply. In that case, I think there isn't really much "opportunity cost" in providing the UNI from Treasury to attract yield to fund the program – sounds good to me. All the best.
yj
I may be missing something here, but what happens to the $25M that is generating the yield after the 2 year period here is over?
My other first comment here is that it seems like having the oversight committee review the program and report key findings would be helpful to do more frequently than annually. I think even after 4 or 5 months, there's probably a lot that could be analyzed and published.
"In the event the Oversight Committee determines the program to be ineffective, at any voting junction, the $25M grant would be submitted as a proposal to Uniswap Governance to be evaluated and re-assigned to other programs."
Cross-posting my question. Thanks. https://gov.uniswap.org/t/consensus-check-uniswap-funds-community-enabled-analytics-via-yield-generating-investment-strategies/13220/7?u=uniyj
yj
