Forum thread Temperature checks Post-Temp check post
Uniswap v3 utilized its first mover advantage and achieved dominance on Ethereum, Arbitrum, Optimism, and Polygon, but on more recent EVM chains has seen limited market share growth.
The goal of this proposal is to take Uniswap on the offensive by actively supporting and incentivizing new deployments of Uniswap v3. If successful, we will be able to grow Uniswap's market share and increase the amount of volume growing through protocol-owned deployments rather than leaving the opportunity for more Uni V3 forks to grab market share.
To put Uniswap back in the driver's seat, this proposal creates an Onboarding Package that the DAO can proactively deploy to new EVMs and invite EVMs to seek out official Uniswap v3 deployments.
Since Uniswap v3 launched, little has been done to drive the growth of any Uniswap v3 deployments outside of Polygon, Optimism, and Arbitrum. Of which, each strongly benefited from early mover advantages. Today, there are 13 deployments of Uniswap v3. Many of the new deployments are newer chains that, while today, don’t have the usage seen on Arbitrum, Polygon, or Optimism, one or multiple of them will likely grow to be as big or bigger.
On each of these deployments, Uniswap is currently the underdog. We’re competing against Uniswap v3 & v2 forks and other concentrated liquidity protocols, which often have more focused resources for marketing and distribution than Uniswap and often boast close relationships with the chain’s team.
The good news is these chains are still generally nascent. So, if Uniswap acts quickly, it can take the lead spot and likely hold it thanks to its robust ecosystem of tooling and support.
It is high time we made getting Uniswap v3 on new EVMs easy. The package covers everything from deployment of contracts, data infrastructure, user interface, liquidity incentives, and tooling to distribute the incentives. With this package, the Uniswap DAO can go live on new EVM chains significantly faster.
GFX Labs will handle the deployment of Uniswap v3 core and peripheral contracts, verifying the contracts, making data available to other ecosystem projects and players via the Oku API, and integrating the deployment into the Oku trade and analytics interface. Angle Merkl will handle the distribution of UNI rewards.
Lastly, the Uniswap Accountability Committee will escrow the funds in their multisig for the packages.
Liquidity incentives will range between $250k and $1m and be voted in on a Temperature Check. Incentives will be distributed in UNI over three months. Once the three months are completed, delegates should look at the remaining liquidity and Uniswap's market share position to gauge the program's success. Overall, the program is meant get Uniswap's foot in the door and secure a stronger brand position on the chain.
The package will target 3-5 pools. Generally, mainstays like ETH/USDC, ETH/BTC, USDC/USDT, and one or two key local pairs. For example, MATIC/ETH on Polygon.
The initial Temperature Checks ended two weeks ago. For links to them, go here. For the Post-Temp check summary, go here.
This onchain proposal funds the following Onboarding Packages. For pool and allocation info click here.
Based on a UNI price of $7.42 and a EUR/USD price of $1.08, the image below shows the investment the DAO will make by approving this proposal.
The Uniswap Accountability Committee Multisg will receive the UNI, and Oku/GFX and the Angle team will work closely with them to get the infrastructure setup and incentives rolling on each of these chains.
If this proposal is approved, when a new chain wants a deployment, we can offer this package and roll it out as part of the governance proposal. This would end the current status of rubber-stamping deployment proposals and provide a reason for new chains to seek the support of Uniswap governance proactively.
Uniswap could quickly take the lead on 5-10 chains through this initiative. If one of these chains grows into a major player (like Arb/Op/Poly), it will have paid for the entire program multiple times over (assuming the fee switch is someday turned).
Providing a modest onboarding package helps Uniswap diversify and develop new markets without waiting to see which chains become long-term relevant - at which point it is often too late or too costly to get market share.
Forum thread Temperature checks Post-Temp check post
Uniswap v3 utilized its first mover advantage and achieved dominance on Ethereum, Arbitrum, Optimism, and Polygon, but on more recent EVM chains has seen limited market share growth.
The goal of this proposal is to take Uniswap on the offensive by actively supporting and incentivizing new deployments of Uniswap v3. If successful, we will be able to grow Uniswap's market share and increase the amount of volume growing through protocol-owned deployments rather than leaving the opportunity for more Uni V3 forks to grab market share.
To put Uniswap back in the driver's seat, this proposal creates an Onboarding Package that the DAO can proactively deploy to new EVMs and invite EVMs to seek out official Uniswap v3 deployments.
Since Uniswap v3 launched, little has been done to drive the growth of any Uniswap v3 deployments outside of Polygon, Optimism, and Arbitrum. Of which, each strongly benefited from early mover advantages. Today, there are 13 deployments of Uniswap v3. Many of the new deployments are newer chains that, while today, don’t have the usage seen on Arbitrum, Polygon, or Optimism, one or multiple of them will likely grow to be as big or bigger.
On each of these deployments, Uniswap is currently the underdog. We’re competing against Uniswap v3 & v2 forks and other concentrated liquidity protocols, which often have more focused resources for marketing and distribution than Uniswap and often boast close relationships with the chain’s team.
The good news is these chains are still generally nascent. So, if Uniswap acts quickly, it can take the lead spot and likely hold it thanks to its robust ecosystem of tooling and support.
It is high time we made getting Uniswap v3 on new EVMs easy. The package covers everything from deployment of contracts, data infrastructure, user interface, liquidity incentives, and tooling to distribute the incentives. With this package, the Uniswap DAO can go live on new EVM chains significantly faster.
GFX Labs will handle the deployment of Uniswap v3 core and peripheral contracts, verifying the contracts, making data available to other ecosystem projects and players via the Oku API, and integrating the deployment into the Oku trade and analytics interface. Angle Merkl will handle the distribution of UNI rewards.
Lastly, the Uniswap Accountability Committee will escrow the funds in their multisig for the packages.
Liquidity incentives will range between $250k and $1m and be voted in on a Temperature Check. Incentives will be distributed in UNI over three months. Once the three months are completed, delegates should look at the remaining liquidity and Uniswap's market share position to gauge the program's success. Overall, the program is meant get Uniswap's foot in the door and secure a stronger brand position on the chain.
The package will target 3-5 pools. Generally, mainstays like ETH/USDC, ETH/BTC, USDC/USDT, and one or two key local pairs. For example, MATIC/ETH on Polygon.
The initial Temperature Checks ended two weeks ago. For links to them, go here. For the Post-Temp check summary, go here.
This onchain proposal funds the following Onboarding Packages. For pool and allocation info click here.
Based on a UNI price of $7.42 and a EUR/USD price of $1.08, the image below shows the investment the DAO will make by approving this proposal.
The Uniswap Accountability Committee Multisg will receive the UNI, and Oku/GFX and the Angle team will work closely with them to get the infrastructure setup and incentives rolling on each of these chains.
If this proposal is approved, when a new chain wants a deployment, we can offer this package and roll it out as part of the governance proposal. This would end the current status of rubber-stamping deployment proposals and provide a reason for new chains to seek the support of Uniswap governance proactively.
Uniswap could quickly take the lead on 5-10 chains through this initiative. If one of these chains grows into a major player (like Arb/Op/Poly), it will have paid for the entire program multiple times over (assuming the fee switch is someday turned).
Providing a modest onboarding package helps Uniswap diversify and develop new markets without waiting to see which chains become long-term relevant - at which point it is often too late or too costly to get market share.
https://gov.uniswap.org/t/uniswap-revitalization-and-growth/22616/66?u=kaereste
There are improvements I'd like to see on this proposal but overall I am supporting it because I believe in instigating action and the value flowing from that.
https://gov.uniswap.org/t/uniswap-revitalization-and-growth/22616/66?u=kaereste
There are improvements I'd like to see on this proposal but overall I am supporting it because I believe in instigating action and the value flowing from that.
Hi @coltron.eth, thank you for taking the time to provide feedback!
Unfortunately, establishing WG0, the associated nomination and elections, and the creation of two subgroups will be a cumbersome process requiring a dedicated attention span.
Hi @coltron.eth, thank you for taking the time to provide feedback!
Unfortunately, establishing WG0, the associated nomination and elections, and the creation of two subgroups will be a cumbersome process requiring a dedicated attention span.
We are with you on that one, the process could be cumbersome, and that’s why we want to help the community by taking care of it. We understand the challenges involved and are committed to supporting the community throughout the process with dedicated attention and resources.
We see both the creation of protocol delegates and the allocation of ecosystem funds as integral parts of the same vision and mission. By combining these elements, we can better serve the interests of the Uniswap and Arbitrum communities.
The timeline for setting the budget after 8 weeks is designed to accommodate the scope of the working groups and the final headcount. This approach allows for a more accurate assessment of the resources required. In the earlier stages, our team will voluntarily cover organizational topics, ensuring that prior aspects are addressed without undue delay.
Also to answer your more detailed questions:
We have actively considered simplifying the proposal solely around the protocol delegate mission, and have so far worked in the strong belief that allowing the WG0 group to handle the setup would minimize the overall community effort required. However, we remain open to potential adjustments and splitting the steering responsibilities, based on community feedback and evolving needs. Would love to hear more views on this!
Is this merely being shepherded by Alastor and web3 Studios, or do you foresee your organization(s) having dedicated seats on these working groups?
While Alastor and web3 Studios will initially lead the process and provide organizational support, dedicated seats on the working groups will be determined through a fair and transparent election process. We are committed to ensuring equal opportunities for all participants, and while we plan to nominate ourselves based on our expertise, we will not have any advantages in the election.
Hope that helps - would love to hear further views!
Hi @0xkeyrock.eth, we appreciate your positive feedback on the proposal and your support!
We understand your concern regarding the ecosystem fund and its allocation in relation to other proposals. The intention of the ecosystem fund is to provide support to a reasonable number of projects within the designated timeframe. An average grant size of around 50k ARB per project is estimated to ensure a fair distribution.
Hi @0xkeyrock.eth, we appreciate your positive feedback on the proposal and your support!
We understand your concern regarding the ecosystem fund and its allocation in relation to other proposals. The intention of the ecosystem fund is to provide support to a reasonable number of projects within the designated timeframe. An average grant size of around 50k ARB per project is estimated to ensure a fair distribution.
With the aim of steering this fund for at least one year, approximately 5 projects per quarter are anticipated to receive funding. Lowering the allocation to the ecosystem fund would have an impact on either the number of supported projects or the size of the contribution to each project.
Happy to get your reaction and hear more community input on this - we are open discuss potential adjustments to the allocation of the 2.2M ARB between delegates and the ecosystem fund.
Absolutely @Damboy. We'll take a thorough approach in selecting the committee members for the Protocol Delegates.
Below you find our requirements for the selection process. Please note that many of the criteria we've set up are indeed "soft" requirements, which emphasizes the need for a transparent nomination and election process.
Absolutely @Damboy. We'll take a thorough approach in selecting the committee members for the Protocol Delegates.
Below you find our requirements for the selection process. Please note that many of the criteria we've set up are indeed "soft" requirements, which emphasizes the need for a transparent nomination and election process.
We would propose the same criteria to delegates as for the Optimism proposal, meaning that the successful candidate should satisfy the following qualities:
Hope that helps!
First of all big thanks for carving and delving deep into our proposal. Your detailed feedback is invaluable to us in shaping this into a significant contribution to the Uniswap DAO.
We especially acknowledge and value the depth of experience and insights you and Erikson bring from establishing the MetaMask Grants DAO at ConsenSys.
Let's dive right into your questions - here are our responses:
First of all big thanks for carving and delving deep into our proposal. Your detailed feedback is invaluable to us in shaping this into a significant contribution to the Uniswap DAO.
We especially acknowledge and value the depth of experience and insights you and Erikson bring from establishing the MetaMask Grants DAO at ConsenSys.
Let's dive right into your questions - here are our responses:
We’re still trying to understand how you see this process going…
As you will see with some of our thoughts below, we would either like to see more oversight or multiple votes to establish the programs.
This means, WG0 is tasked to:
Appreciate your push toward oversight here! We are fully aligned with having as much oversight and alignment with the community as possible - and hope to establish this with the met outlined above.
We think (unless concluded otherwise through discussion) this committee should be formed to work through considerations before the final vote for disbursement.
Totally hear you that entrusting 3-5 people shouldn’t be trusted with orchestrating such a big allocation.
The WG0 with 3-5 members will have no power to establish the sub-working groups. As stated in answer to Question 1, establishing these groups will transparently go through community feedback and voting. This counts for the structure of the working group as much as for the actual contributors that will be determined via a nomination and election process.
Happy to stage gate the process to mitigate any risk associated with the disbursement of capital to the Ecosystem fund (e.g., disburse parts of allocation quarterly with the achievement of OKRs of the prior “cycle”).
For the protocol delegate program, we’ll need to find a level of oversight that we all feel comfortable with (see suggestions below), as this sub-working group will need a minimum of 1M tokens to participate in governance.
The allocation of 50% of the ARB airdrop derives from where? Is there any benchmarking data or evidence to arrive at this distribution? We would like to understand the evidence-based approach to this.
If arbitrary, that is also OK; happy to discuss this further.
LOVE this idea. Cross-protocol governance participation helps to support the growth and considerations of the origin and target protocols/network.
Small considerations that we ran into while establishing the OP committee:
Our primary goal is to ensure that the delegates' incentives are aligned with the interest of the Uniswap DAO and Foundation - upholding Uniswap's core values — decentralization, security, and permissionless access — and extending them across the entire Ethereum ecosystem.
We aim to achieve this through transparency in presenting the voting options, enabling the community to challenge decision-making, and making the Uniswap Foundation part of the multisig.
We are also curious about how the community will be involved in defining the operational details of the ecosystem fund. Some of the most challenging aspects of a grants program are the processes, thesis’, timelines, and tech stacks included. We support a working group/council structure to execute a grant for a time-bound period. If needed, this also allows for reflection, course correction, and community oversight. We would like to explore the best way to proceed on this topic.
Thinking this should be defined before deciding on the ecosystem Fund, If defining this with the community is not achievable, we should discuss what kind of oversight this process we as a community will have while establishing these details. I.e., Potential oversight from community members or the UF?
At the end of the day. Grant programs are operationally heavy, especially when these are community driven. Some of our general questions and considerations are below before fully supporting:
WG0 is tasked to create a blueprint for the sub-working groups and propose the underlying building blocks (i.e., among others processes, thesis’, timelines, and tech stacks included).
These blueprints will then be iterated together on community input.
Funds will only be allocated after the community votes to approve the ecosystem fund blueprint and the specific building blocks it contains.
Community oversight is a priority. We're proposing strong reporting standards, and we want community members to have the ability to raise concerns. Our goal is to involve the community in the fund as much as possible while avoiding any unnecessary bureaucracy.
Once the ecosystem fund is established, we recommend distributing funds in stages. I.e., disburse 25% of the total amount every quarter, provided that OKRs of the previous quarter are met.
Being mindful, here are initial reactions to your detailed questions. Obviously would very much appreciate your learnings on these as well to make sure we’re on the right track. Most of these will be up for discussion for the community pre sub-working group set-up.
We'll establish an investment policy for identifying and prioritizing opportunities in the ARB-Uniswap Grants Program.
The Working Group will set the ecosystem's vision, which all sub-WGs, including those managing the fund, will adhere to.
We anticipate funding about 5 projects each quarter with roughly 50K ARB each, spreading the 1.1M ARB allocation across a year.
We'll use Notion for tracking applications and Airtable with Plug-ins as the application platform. Obv. happy to hear about your experience if you have another favorite set-up that worked out well for you.
The proposed team set-up will ideally be 2 fund leads with complementary skillsets on the operational side of setting up and running the ecosystem fund, and a person more focused on domain and ideally early-stage project support expertise within these ecosystems. The rest of the working group will be reviewer positions that guarantee the flawless execution of the ecosystem fund by validating the effective work of the leads, as well as ensuring the secure and unbiased handling of funds. As for the identification of projects we are currently thinking about ways to enable the wider community to take part - happy to hear outside ideas here.
To manage rotation in working groups, we'll source individuals with the right expertise for grant-related activities. We know this is easier said than done, but will focus on a rigorous nomination and election process aiming to ensure there is always the right mix of skillsets in the sub-WGs.
We should highlight, discuss, or consider what kind of accountability this program will provide to the community. There was also a recently established Accountability Committee found here . Could this team play a key role here? I would love to see how they can be looped into this discussion.
Some questions and thoughts:
Absolutely. We think it makes a lot of sense to make the Accountability Committee part of the process for Grant decision-making. We could see them as essential part of both sub-working groups, i.e., assessing the explanations for proposed votes for the protocol delegate working group, and ensuring the credibility of projects for the Ecosystem Fund.
Wdyt @Doo_Stablelab, @kendraleong?
To answer your detailed questions.
We aim to ensure transparency and accountability in the Working Group's operations through the implementation of 3-month OKRs and monthly reporting. Each report will highlight specific KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) that reflect the operational effectiveness of the different entities. For instance, the Protocol Delegates' activity might be measured by the percentage of votes conducted, whereas the Ecosystem Fund's performance might be evaluated based on funnel metrics and investment decisions.
As for managing the operational demands of the grants program, we the election process to help us onboard high-quality, experienced contributors who can realistically dedicate sufficient time and energy to their roles. To ensure performance and commitment, we will initiate 3-month OKR cycles, which are publicly tracked. In case of significant underperformance, the community, being fully informed of these OKRs, can take action, including the possibility of offboarding contributors.
Regarding compensation, we intend to set guidelines established and approved in the Uniswap Grants Program for the Ecosystem Fund, and for the Optimism Delegate program respectively. I.e., we don’t want to make a financial case out of this, but rather compensate for the operational work hours needed in a fair manner. Generally open to considering mechanisms like Hypercerts for retroactive compensation tied to OKR achievement.
Hi @Juanbug and @Doo_StableLab!
Thank you both for your support! It's fantastic to hear that you are interested in getting involved in some capacity, particularly considering your experience with the accountability committee. Your expertise would be invaluable to us.
Hi @Juanbug and @Doo_StableLab!
Thank you both for your support! It's fantastic to hear that you are interested in getting involved in some capacity, particularly considering your experience with the accountability committee. Your expertise would be invaluable to us.
We would love to hear your thoughts and have a deeper discussion. Let us reach out via direct message to explore how we could get you involved.
Thank you once again for your support and willingness to contribute.
This RFC's spirit promises to offer value to both the Uniswap and Arbitrum communities. The cross-protocol relationships and emphasis on establishing processes with accountability in mind are beneficial.
Unfortunately, establishing WG0, the associated nomination and elections, and the creation of two subgroups will be a cumbersome process requiring a dedicated attention span.
This RFC's spirit promises to offer value to both the Uniswap and Arbitrum communities. The cross-protocol relationships and emphasis on establishing processes with accountability in mind are beneficial.
Unfortunately, establishing WG0, the associated nomination and elections, and the creation of two subgroups will be a cumbersome process requiring a dedicated attention span.
Also, as proposed, it's not until week eight that the sub-working groups will establish key deliverables and budgets. This timeline poses a risk for decision-making based on sunk costs in an already complex process.
Despite my concerns about execution as proposed, I am interested in the intention.
To me, where this RFC stands out is the creation of protocol delegates. Would you consider simplifying this proposal to encompass that mission solely?
Is this merely being shepherded by Alastor and web3 Studios, or do you foresee your organization(s) having dedicated seats on these working groups?
Thanks For clarifying @Stastny
Hi @coltron.eth, thank you for taking the time to provide feedback!
Unfortunately, establishing WG0, the associated nomination and elections, and the creation of two subgroups will be a cumbersome process requiring a dedicated attention span.
Hi @coltron.eth, thank you for taking the time to provide feedback!
Unfortunately, establishing WG0, the associated nomination and elections, and the creation of two subgroups will be a cumbersome process requiring a dedicated attention span.
We are with you on that one, the process could be cumbersome, and that’s why we want to help the community by taking care of it. We understand the challenges involved and are committed to supporting the community throughout the process with dedicated attention and resources.
We see both the creation of protocol delegates and the allocation of ecosystem funds as integral parts of the same vision and mission. By combining these elements, we can better serve the interests of the Uniswap and Arbitrum communities.
The timeline for setting the budget after 8 weeks is designed to accommodate the scope of the working groups and the final headcount. This approach allows for a more accurate assessment of the resources required. In the earlier stages, our team will voluntarily cover organizational topics, ensuring that prior aspects are addressed without undue delay.
Also to answer your more detailed questions:
We have actively considered simplifying the proposal solely around the protocol delegate mission, and have so far worked in the strong belief that allowing the WG0 group to handle the setup would minimize the overall community effort required. However, we remain open to potential adjustments and splitting the steering responsibilities, based on community feedback and evolving needs. Would love to hear more views on this!
Is this merely being shepherded by Alastor and web3 Studios, or do you foresee your organization(s) having dedicated seats on these working groups?
While Alastor and web3 Studios will initially lead the process and provide organizational support, dedicated seats on the working groups will be determined through a fair and transparent election process. We are committed to ensuring equal opportunities for all participants, and while we plan to nominate ourselves based on our expertise, we will not have any advantages in the election.
Hope that helps - would love to hear further views!
Hi @0xkeyrock.eth, we appreciate your positive feedback on the proposal and your support!
We understand your concern regarding the ecosystem fund and its allocation in relation to other proposals. The intention of the ecosystem fund is to provide support to a reasonable number of projects within the designated timeframe. An average grant size of around 50k ARB per project is estimated to ensure a fair distribution.
Hi @0xkeyrock.eth, we appreciate your positive feedback on the proposal and your support!
We understand your concern regarding the ecosystem fund and its allocation in relation to other proposals. The intention of the ecosystem fund is to provide support to a reasonable number of projects within the designated timeframe. An average grant size of around 50k ARB per project is estimated to ensure a fair distribution.
With the aim of steering this fund for at least one year, approximately 5 projects per quarter are anticipated to receive funding. Lowering the allocation to the ecosystem fund would have an impact on either the number of supported projects or the size of the contribution to each project.
Happy to get your reaction and hear more community input on this - we are open discuss potential adjustments to the allocation of the 2.2M ARB between delegates and the ecosystem fund.
Absolutely @Damboy. We'll take a thorough approach in selecting the committee members for the Protocol Delegates.
Below you find our requirements for the selection process. Please note that many of the criteria we've set up are indeed "soft" requirements, which emphasizes the need for a transparent nomination and election process.
Absolutely @Damboy. We'll take a thorough approach in selecting the committee members for the Protocol Delegates.
Below you find our requirements for the selection process. Please note that many of the criteria we've set up are indeed "soft" requirements, which emphasizes the need for a transparent nomination and election process.
We would propose the same criteria to delegates as for the Optimism proposal, meaning that the successful candidate should satisfy the following qualities:
Hope that helps!
First of all big thanks for carving and delving deep into our proposal. Your detailed feedback is invaluable to us in shaping this into a significant contribution to the Uniswap DAO.
We especially acknowledge and value the depth of experience and insights you and Erikson bring from establishing the MetaMask Grants DAO at ConsenSys.
Let's dive right into your questions - here are our responses:
First of all big thanks for carving and delving deep into our proposal. Your detailed feedback is invaluable to us in shaping this into a significant contribution to the Uniswap DAO.
We especially acknowledge and value the depth of experience and insights you and Erikson bring from establishing the MetaMask Grants DAO at ConsenSys.
Let's dive right into your questions - here are our responses:
We’re still trying to understand how you see this process going…
As you will see with some of our thoughts below, we would either like to see more oversight or multiple votes to establish the programs.
This means, WG0 is tasked to:
Appreciate your push toward oversight here! We are fully aligned with having as much oversight and alignment with the community as possible - and hope to establish this with the met outlined above.
We think (unless concluded otherwise through discussion) this committee should be formed to work through considerations before the final vote for disbursement.
Totally hear you that entrusting 3-5 people shouldn’t be trusted with orchestrating such a big allocation.
The WG0 with 3-5 members will have no power to establish the sub-working groups. As stated in answer to Question 1, establishing these groups will transparently go through community feedback and voting. This counts for the structure of the working group as much as for the actual contributors that will be determined via a nomination and election process.
Happy to stage gate the process to mitigate any risk associated with the disbursement of capital to the Ecosystem fund (e.g., disburse parts of allocation quarterly with the achievement of OKRs of the prior “cycle”).
For the protocol delegate program, we’ll need to find a level of oversight that we all feel comfortable with (see suggestions below), as this sub-working group will need a minimum of 1M tokens to participate in governance.
The allocation of 50% of the ARB airdrop derives from where? Is there any benchmarking data or evidence to arrive at this distribution? We would like to understand the evidence-based approach to this.
If arbitrary, that is also OK; happy to discuss this further.
LOVE this idea. Cross-protocol governance participation helps to support the growth and considerations of the origin and target protocols/network.
Small considerations that we ran into while establishing the OP committee:
Our primary goal is to ensure that the delegates' incentives are aligned with the interest of the Uniswap DAO and Foundation - upholding Uniswap's core values — decentralization, security, and permissionless access — and extending them across the entire Ethereum ecosystem.
We aim to achieve this through transparency in presenting the voting options, enabling the community to challenge decision-making, and making the Uniswap Foundation part of the multisig.
We are also curious about how the community will be involved in defining the operational details of the ecosystem fund. Some of the most challenging aspects of a grants program are the processes, thesis’, timelines, and tech stacks included. We support a working group/council structure to execute a grant for a time-bound period. If needed, this also allows for reflection, course correction, and community oversight. We would like to explore the best way to proceed on this topic.
Thinking this should be defined before deciding on the ecosystem Fund, If defining this with the community is not achievable, we should discuss what kind of oversight this process we as a community will have while establishing these details. I.e., Potential oversight from community members or the UF?
At the end of the day. Grant programs are operationally heavy, especially when these are community driven. Some of our general questions and considerations are below before fully supporting:
WG0 is tasked to create a blueprint for the sub-working groups and propose the underlying building blocks (i.e., among others processes, thesis’, timelines, and tech stacks included).
These blueprints will then be iterated together on community input.
Funds will only be allocated after the community votes to approve the ecosystem fund blueprint and the specific building blocks it contains.
Community oversight is a priority. We're proposing strong reporting standards, and we want community members to have the ability to raise concerns. Our goal is to involve the community in the fund as much as possible while avoiding any unnecessary bureaucracy.
Once the ecosystem fund is established, we recommend distributing funds in stages. I.e., disburse 25% of the total amount every quarter, provided that OKRs of the previous quarter are met.
Being mindful, here are initial reactions to your detailed questions. Obviously would very much appreciate your learnings on these as well to make sure we’re on the right track. Most of these will be up for discussion for the community pre sub-working group set-up.
We'll establish an investment policy for identifying and prioritizing opportunities in the ARB-Uniswap Grants Program.
The Working Group will set the ecosystem's vision, which all sub-WGs, including those managing the fund, will adhere to.
We anticipate funding about 5 projects each quarter with roughly 50K ARB each, spreading the 1.1M ARB allocation across a year.
We'll use Notion for tracking applications and Airtable with Plug-ins as the application platform. Obv. happy to hear about your experience if you have another favorite set-up that worked out well for you.
The proposed team set-up will ideally be 2 fund leads with complementary skillsets on the operational side of setting up and running the ecosystem fund, and a person more focused on domain and ideally early-stage project support expertise within these ecosystems. The rest of the working group will be reviewer positions that guarantee the flawless execution of the ecosystem fund by validating the effective work of the leads, as well as ensuring the secure and unbiased handling of funds. As for the identification of projects we are currently thinking about ways to enable the wider community to take part - happy to hear outside ideas here.
To manage rotation in working groups, we'll source individuals with the right expertise for grant-related activities. We know this is easier said than done, but will focus on a rigorous nomination and election process aiming to ensure there is always the right mix of skillsets in the sub-WGs.
We should highlight, discuss, or consider what kind of accountability this program will provide to the community. There was also a recently established Accountability Committee found here . Could this team play a key role here? I would love to see how they can be looped into this discussion.
Some questions and thoughts:
Absolutely. We think it makes a lot of sense to make the Accountability Committee part of the process for Grant decision-making. We could see them as essential part of both sub-working groups, i.e., assessing the explanations for proposed votes for the protocol delegate working group, and ensuring the credibility of projects for the Ecosystem Fund.
Wdyt @Doo_Stablelab, @kendraleong?
To answer your detailed questions.
We aim to ensure transparency and accountability in the Working Group's operations through the implementation of 3-month OKRs and monthly reporting. Each report will highlight specific KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) that reflect the operational effectiveness of the different entities. For instance, the Protocol Delegates' activity might be measured by the percentage of votes conducted, whereas the Ecosystem Fund's performance might be evaluated based on funnel metrics and investment decisions.
As for managing the operational demands of the grants program, we the election process to help us onboard high-quality, experienced contributors who can realistically dedicate sufficient time and energy to their roles. To ensure performance and commitment, we will initiate 3-month OKR cycles, which are publicly tracked. In case of significant underperformance, the community, being fully informed of these OKRs, can take action, including the possibility of offboarding contributors.
Regarding compensation, we intend to set guidelines established and approved in the Uniswap Grants Program for the Ecosystem Fund, and for the Optimism Delegate program respectively. I.e., we don’t want to make a financial case out of this, but rather compensate for the operational work hours needed in a fair manner. Generally open to considering mechanisms like Hypercerts for retroactive compensation tied to OKR achievement.
Hi @Juanbug and @Doo_StableLab!
Thank you both for your support! It's fantastic to hear that you are interested in getting involved in some capacity, particularly considering your experience with the accountability committee. Your expertise would be invaluable to us.
Hi @Juanbug and @Doo_StableLab!
Thank you both for your support! It's fantastic to hear that you are interested in getting involved in some capacity, particularly considering your experience with the accountability committee. Your expertise would be invaluable to us.
We would love to hear your thoughts and have a deeper discussion. Let us reach out via direct message to explore how we could get you involved.
Thank you once again for your support and willingness to contribute.
This RFC's spirit promises to offer value to both the Uniswap and Arbitrum communities. The cross-protocol relationships and emphasis on establishing processes with accountability in mind are beneficial.
Unfortunately, establishing WG0, the associated nomination and elections, and the creation of two subgroups will be a cumbersome process requiring a dedicated attention span.
This RFC's spirit promises to offer value to both the Uniswap and Arbitrum communities. The cross-protocol relationships and emphasis on establishing processes with accountability in mind are beneficial.
Unfortunately, establishing WG0, the associated nomination and elections, and the creation of two subgroups will be a cumbersome process requiring a dedicated attention span.
Also, as proposed, it's not until week eight that the sub-working groups will establish key deliverables and budgets. This timeline poses a risk for decision-making based on sunk costs in an already complex process.
Despite my concerns about execution as proposed, I am interested in the intention.
To me, where this RFC stands out is the creation of protocol delegates. Would you consider simplifying this proposal to encompass that mission solely?
Is this merely being shepherded by Alastor and web3 Studios, or do you foresee your organization(s) having dedicated seats on these working groups?
Thanks For clarifying @Stastny
Firstly, we would like to thank you for your considerable efforts in outlining a comprehensive proposal for creating a UNI-ARB Working group. We fully support a community-run program and are pleased to see Alastor & co's work here! My co-worker Erikson Herman and I reviewed the proposal and wish to dive deeper into certain aspects. We hope this discussion will contribute to the refinement and improvement of the proposal.
Leveraging our past experience with ConsenSys, specifically in establishing the MetaMask Grants DAO, we understand the operational demands of running grant programs. Although the challenges will differ in this context, operational complexities remain a key concern. Consequently, we've outlined a few questions related to the proposal.
Firstly, we would like to thank you for your considerable efforts in outlining a comprehensive proposal for creating a UNI-ARB Working group. We fully support a community-run program and are pleased to see Alastor & co's work here! My co-worker Erikson Herman and I reviewed the proposal and wish to dive deeper into certain aspects. We hope this discussion will contribute to the refinement and improvement of the proposal.
Leveraging our past experience with ConsenSys, specifically in establishing the MetaMask Grants DAO, we understand the operational demands of running grant programs. Although the challenges will differ in this context, operational complexities remain a key concern. Consequently, we've outlined a few questions related to the proposal.
We appreciate the detail on the working group's strategy and operational aspects. The structure you've laid out makes sense, but many core and fundamental questions surrounding the grants program could potentially be more fleshed out. These details are currently omitted, as it's stated that the WG0 will address these. However, we believe some of these factors are critical for supporting the decision and distribution of the allocated ARB.
We're still trying to understand how you see this process going…
Currently, does this RFC -> Temp check establish the entire working group (WG0 + Protocol Delegates + Ecosystem Fund)
Or are we approving only WG0’s idea and general structure of the program, then there will be further community votes on the structure of the grant program?
As you will see with some of our thoughts below, we would either like to see more oversight or multiple votes to establish the programs.
Post this initial phase, we will facilitate a nomination and election process to choose members for each of the two Sub-Working Groups:
We think (unless concluded otherwise through discussion) this committee should be formed to work through considerations before the final vote for disbursement.
The allocation of 50% of the ARB airdrop derives from where? Is there any benchmarking data or evidence to arrive at this distribution? We would like to understand the evidence-based approach to this.
If arbitrary, that is also OK; happy to discuss this further.
LOVE this idea. Cross-protocol governance participation helps to support the growth and considerations of the origin and target protocols/network.
Small considerations that we ran into while establishing the OP committee:
We are also curious about how the community will be involved in defining the operational details of the ecosystem fund. Some of the most challenging aspects of a grants program are the processes, thesis’, timelines, and tech stacks included. We support a working group/council structure to execute a grant for a time-bound period. If needed, this also allows for reflection, course correction, and community oversight. We would like to explore the best way to proceed on this topic.
Setting up a dedicated team will follow, composed of experts well-versed in DAO governance, blockchain tech, and investment management. This team will be responsible for overseeing fund operations, conducting due diligence, and making investment decisions.
Lastly, we’ll establish an investment schedule that lays out a timeline for deploying the funds. It will detail key milestones for the initial disbursement of funds and subsequent follow-on investments, ensuring an organized and effective allocation of resources to foster the growth and success of the ecosystem.
Thinking this should be defined before deciding on the ecosystem Fund, If defining this with the community is not achievable, we should discuss what kind of oversight this process we as a community will have while establishing these details. I.e., Potential oversight from community members or the UF?
At the end of the day. Grant programs are operationally heavy, especially when these are community driven. Some of our general questions and considerations are below before fully supporting:
We should highlight, discuss, or consider what kind of accountability this program will provide to the community. There was also a recently established Accountability Committee found here. Could this team play a key role here? I would love to see how they can be looped into this discussion.
Some questions and thoughts:
We look forward to your thoughts/input on these points. We believe that addressing these questions will contribute significantly to the overall quality and feasibility of the proposed working groups.
Great proposal! Congrats on forming the UNI-ARB Working Group. Excited to see the positive impact ahead.
Can you explain the selection process for the committee members who will serve as Protocol Delegates? What criteria will be considered in choosing these representatives?
Firstly, we would like to thank you for your considerable efforts in outlining a comprehensive proposal for creating a UNI-ARB Working group. We fully support a community-run program and are pleased to see Alastor & co's work here! My co-worker Erikson Herman and I reviewed the proposal and wish to dive deeper into certain aspects. We hope this discussion will contribute to the refinement and improvement of the proposal.
Leveraging our past experience with ConsenSys, specifically in establishing the MetaMask Grants DAO, we understand the operational demands of running grant programs. Although the challenges will differ in this context, operational complexities remain a key concern. Consequently, we've outlined a few questions related to the proposal.
Firstly, we would like to thank you for your considerable efforts in outlining a comprehensive proposal for creating a UNI-ARB Working group. We fully support a community-run program and are pleased to see Alastor & co's work here! My co-worker Erikson Herman and I reviewed the proposal and wish to dive deeper into certain aspects. We hope this discussion will contribute to the refinement and improvement of the proposal.
Leveraging our past experience with ConsenSys, specifically in establishing the MetaMask Grants DAO, we understand the operational demands of running grant programs. Although the challenges will differ in this context, operational complexities remain a key concern. Consequently, we've outlined a few questions related to the proposal.
We appreciate the detail on the working group's strategy and operational aspects. The structure you've laid out makes sense, but many core and fundamental questions surrounding the grants program could potentially be more fleshed out. These details are currently omitted, as it's stated that the WG0 will address these. However, we believe some of these factors are critical for supporting the decision and distribution of the allocated ARB.
We're still trying to understand how you see this process going…
Currently, does this RFC -> Temp check establish the entire working group (WG0 + Protocol Delegates + Ecosystem Fund)
Or are we approving only WG0’s idea and general structure of the program, then there will be further community votes on the structure of the grant program?
As you will see with some of our thoughts below, we would either like to see more oversight or multiple votes to establish the programs.
Post this initial phase, we will facilitate a nomination and election process to choose members for each of the two Sub-Working Groups:
We think (unless concluded otherwise through discussion) this committee should be formed to work through considerations before the final vote for disbursement.
The allocation of 50% of the ARB airdrop derives from where? Is there any benchmarking data or evidence to arrive at this distribution? We would like to understand the evidence-based approach to this.
If arbitrary, that is also OK; happy to discuss this further.
LOVE this idea. Cross-protocol governance participation helps to support the growth and considerations of the origin and target protocols/network.
Small considerations that we ran into while establishing the OP committee:
We are also curious about how the community will be involved in defining the operational details of the ecosystem fund. Some of the most challenging aspects of a grants program are the processes, thesis’, timelines, and tech stacks included. We support a working group/council structure to execute a grant for a time-bound period. If needed, this also allows for reflection, course correction, and community oversight. We would like to explore the best way to proceed on this topic.
Setting up a dedicated team will follow, composed of experts well-versed in DAO governance, blockchain tech, and investment management. This team will be responsible for overseeing fund operations, conducting due diligence, and making investment decisions.
Lastly, we’ll establish an investment schedule that lays out a timeline for deploying the funds. It will detail key milestones for the initial disbursement of funds and subsequent follow-on investments, ensuring an organized and effective allocation of resources to foster the growth and success of the ecosystem.
Thinking this should be defined before deciding on the ecosystem Fund, If defining this with the community is not achievable, we should discuss what kind of oversight this process we as a community will have while establishing these details. I.e., Potential oversight from community members or the UF?
At the end of the day. Grant programs are operationally heavy, especially when these are community driven. Some of our general questions and considerations are below before fully supporting:
We should highlight, discuss, or consider what kind of accountability this program will provide to the community. There was also a recently established Accountability Committee found here. Could this team play a key role here? I would love to see how they can be looped into this discussion.
Some questions and thoughts:
We look forward to your thoughts/input on these points. We believe that addressing these questions will contribute significantly to the overall quality and feasibility of the proposed working groups.
Great proposal! Congrats on forming the UNI-ARB Working Group. Excited to see the positive impact ahead.
Can you explain the selection process for the committee members who will serve as Protocol Delegates? What criteria will be considered in choosing these representatives?
Update on the UNI-ARB Grant (UAGP) and Delegate Program (UADP) Proposal - Voting Has Passed
The on-chain vote for the proposal has concluded surpassing the quorum with 50M/40M votes and 99% approval. Thank you to everyone for the thoughtful feedback, active participation, and deep engagement with the proposal. The shared vision to enhance Uniswap, while strengthening the bonds between the Uniswap and Arbitrum ecosystems is clear.
Update on the UNI-ARB Grant (UAGP) and Delegate Program (UADP) Proposal - Voting Has Passed
The on-chain vote for the proposal has concluded surpassing the quorum with 50M/40M votes and 99% approval. Thank you to everyone for the thoughtful feedback, active participation, and deep engagement with the proposal. The shared vision to enhance Uniswap, while strengthening the bonds between the Uniswap and Arbitrum ecosystems is clear.
With the conclusion of the vote - here is a TL;DR on the proposal:
Next steps:
As we press forward, we want to stay transparent and work in a collaborative manner - for any insights, questions, or concerns feel free to reach out to @Doo_StableLab, @Jun, @bernard
Thank you!
The onchain vote for the UNI-ARB Grant Program (UAGP) and Protocol Delegate Program has been posted and will be live in two days. The voting schedule as is follows:
Voting goes live on Thursday Sep 14 10:09am ET
Voting ends on Wednesday Sep 20 12:33am ET
The onchain vote for the UNI-ARB Grant Program (UAGP) and Protocol Delegate Program has been posted and will be live in two days. The voting schedule as is follows:
Voting goes live on Thursday Sep 14 10:09am ET
Voting ends on Wednesday Sep 20 12:33am ET
After aggregating feedback from the community and key DAO stakeholders, the Working Group Zero (WG0) members for this proposal (@bernard, @Stastny, @Doo_Stablelab, and @Juanbug) have made relevant alterations. Please see the full, final proposal here.
As delegates for both Uniswap and Arbitrum, we Michigan Blockchain are in support of and have sponsored this proposal because we believe that it introduces harmonious relationships between two prominent DAOs. It takes 25% of the total ARB airdrop and dedicates it to funding Uni-Arb-based projects; the other 25% of the total ARB airdrop will be allotted to a meta-governance initiative, where a Uniswap DAO-led multisig will vote on Arbitrum DAO proposals.
It will likely be a customary practice in the coming years to commingle governance tokens between different DAO treasuries, thereby aligning incentives and strategies to grow the Ethereum ecosystem as a whole. This proposal allows Uniswap to begin leading such initiatives.
Another highlight of this proposal is that the theoretical benefits are substantiated with a detailed plan. A structure for how the allocated $ARB will be utilized operationally is submitted, with clear goals and mechanisms to sustain the longevity of this proposal--such as the transition of multisig signers and the continual reporting of KPIs relating to both the UAGP and Protocol Delegate Program.
Great work by the WG0. We will be voting in favour of the plan outlined for this vote!
Thanks for this proposal @Stastny, and the subsequent review and mention @DAOstrat.C!
Cameron, a lot of your points above I am personally in agreement with, and as we see more and more teams vie for their share of the Arb distribution, a lot of your points of consideration remain unanswered. As the playing field dwindles after a snapshot and on-chain votes, I'd also love to get some more clarity on the remaining proposals.
Thanks for this proposal @Stastny, and the subsequent review and mention @DAOstrat.C!
Cameron, a lot of your points above I am personally in agreement with, and as we see more and more teams vie for their share of the Arb distribution, a lot of your points of consideration remain unanswered. As the playing field dwindles after a snapshot and on-chain votes, I'd also love to get some more clarity on the remaining proposals.
Thanks for thinking of and mentioning the Uniswap deployment accountability committee in your response. We have been closely following these RFC's and on behalf of the committee, @kendraleong, @Doo_StableLab, @rafaelsolari, @Kydo, and I believe that it is within our best interest to separate this proposal from our current work providing help and accountability for teams interested in deploying Uniswap v3.
While some of us, including myself, are personally interested in getting involved here, we believe it is best we do so outside of the Deployment Accountability Committee's context. This group would require additional resources and much more time, and is best suited for longer term work agreements (our committee runs on 6 month cycles).
Huge thanks to @eek637 and the rest of the UF team for setting this RFC up; this is a great example for other protocols to hopefully one day follow. Seeing all of the great proposals currently out there, I am personally amazed and confident the final approved group(s) will work very well!
Yes, echoing @Juanbug 's comment, thank you for the mention @DAOstrat.C . And also yes, I am quite interested in getting involved here as well. My experience in serving in various committees and council including Uniswap, MakerDAO, and Compound would be helpful to this Working Group.
Great detailed proposal. On a high level, we're supportive of this and it has the potential to fuel even more growth for Uniswap on Arbitrum.
Our only question mark is focused on the ecosystem fund and if it is necessary to be 25% of total airdrop when considering all the other proposals made.
Great detailed proposal. On a high level, we're supportive of this and it has the potential to fuel even more growth for Uniswap on Arbitrum.
Our only question mark is focused on the ecosystem fund and if it is necessary to be 25% of total airdrop when considering all the other proposals made.
For example, we're in favour of Gauntlet’s proposal given their track record and extremely detailed/quantitative approach which is 2M ARB and then we'd like to support this proposal which asks for 2.2M ARB.
This leaves us 200k ARB left if that would be the community consensus. In that scenario we'd also support the Flashstake proposal that is asking for 200k ARB.
In our view this seems like a good allocation and diversification of initiatives but we would like to openly question the community regarding the ecosystem fund and if it is maybe too much?
Update on the UNI-ARB Grant (UAGP) and Delegate Program (UADP) Proposal - Voting Has Passed
The on-chain vote for the proposal has concluded surpassing the quorum with 50M/40M votes and 99% approval. Thank you to everyone for the thoughtful feedback, active participation, and deep engagement with the proposal. The shared vision to enhance Uniswap, while strengthening the bonds between the Uniswap and Arbitrum ecosystems is clear.
Update on the UNI-ARB Grant (UAGP) and Delegate Program (UADP) Proposal - Voting Has Passed
The on-chain vote for the proposal has concluded surpassing the quorum with 50M/40M votes and 99% approval. Thank you to everyone for the thoughtful feedback, active participation, and deep engagement with the proposal. The shared vision to enhance Uniswap, while strengthening the bonds between the Uniswap and Arbitrum ecosystems is clear.
With the conclusion of the vote - here is a TL;DR on the proposal:
Next steps:
As we press forward, we want to stay transparent and work in a collaborative manner - for any insights, questions, or concerns feel free to reach out to @Doo_StableLab, @Jun, @bernard
Thank you!
The onchain vote for the UNI-ARB Grant Program (UAGP) and Protocol Delegate Program has been posted and will be live in two days. The voting schedule as is follows:
Voting goes live on Thursday Sep 14 10:09am ET
Voting ends on Wednesday Sep 20 12:33am ET
The onchain vote for the UNI-ARB Grant Program (UAGP) and Protocol Delegate Program has been posted and will be live in two days. The voting schedule as is follows:
Voting goes live on Thursday Sep 14 10:09am ET
Voting ends on Wednesday Sep 20 12:33am ET
After aggregating feedback from the community and key DAO stakeholders, the Working Group Zero (WG0) members for this proposal (@bernard, @Stastny, @Doo_Stablelab, and @Juanbug) have made relevant alterations. Please see the full, final proposal here.
As delegates for both Uniswap and Arbitrum, we Michigan Blockchain are in support of and have sponsored this proposal because we believe that it introduces harmonious relationships between two prominent DAOs. It takes 25% of the total ARB airdrop and dedicates it to funding Uni-Arb-based projects; the other 25% of the total ARB airdrop will be allotted to a meta-governance initiative, where a Uniswap DAO-led multisig will vote on Arbitrum DAO proposals.
It will likely be a customary practice in the coming years to commingle governance tokens between different DAO treasuries, thereby aligning incentives and strategies to grow the Ethereum ecosystem as a whole. This proposal allows Uniswap to begin leading such initiatives.
Another highlight of this proposal is that the theoretical benefits are substantiated with a detailed plan. A structure for how the allocated $ARB will be utilized operationally is submitted, with clear goals and mechanisms to sustain the longevity of this proposal--such as the transition of multisig signers and the continual reporting of KPIs relating to both the UAGP and Protocol Delegate Program.
Great work by the WG0. We will be voting in favour of the plan outlined for this vote!
Thanks for this proposal @Stastny, and the subsequent review and mention @DAOstrat.C!
Cameron, a lot of your points above I am personally in agreement with, and as we see more and more teams vie for their share of the Arb distribution, a lot of your points of consideration remain unanswered. As the playing field dwindles after a snapshot and on-chain votes, I'd also love to get some more clarity on the remaining proposals.
Thanks for this proposal @Stastny, and the subsequent review and mention @DAOstrat.C!
Cameron, a lot of your points above I am personally in agreement with, and as we see more and more teams vie for their share of the Arb distribution, a lot of your points of consideration remain unanswered. As the playing field dwindles after a snapshot and on-chain votes, I'd also love to get some more clarity on the remaining proposals.
Thanks for thinking of and mentioning the Uniswap deployment accountability committee in your response. We have been closely following these RFC's and on behalf of the committee, @kendraleong, @Doo_StableLab, @rafaelsolari, @Kydo, and I believe that it is within our best interest to separate this proposal from our current work providing help and accountability for teams interested in deploying Uniswap v3.
While some of us, including myself, are personally interested in getting involved here, we believe it is best we do so outside of the Deployment Accountability Committee's context. This group would require additional resources and much more time, and is best suited for longer term work agreements (our committee runs on 6 month cycles).
Huge thanks to @eek637 and the rest of the UF team for setting this RFC up; this is a great example for other protocols to hopefully one day follow. Seeing all of the great proposals currently out there, I am personally amazed and confident the final approved group(s) will work very well!
Yes, echoing @Juanbug 's comment, thank you for the mention @DAOstrat.C . And also yes, I am quite interested in getting involved here as well. My experience in serving in various committees and council including Uniswap, MakerDAO, and Compound would be helpful to this Working Group.
Great detailed proposal. On a high level, we're supportive of this and it has the potential to fuel even more growth for Uniswap on Arbitrum.
Our only question mark is focused on the ecosystem fund and if it is necessary to be 25% of total airdrop when considering all the other proposals made.
Great detailed proposal. On a high level, we're supportive of this and it has the potential to fuel even more growth for Uniswap on Arbitrum.
Our only question mark is focused on the ecosystem fund and if it is necessary to be 25% of total airdrop when considering all the other proposals made.
For example, we're in favour of Gauntlet’s proposal given their track record and extremely detailed/quantitative approach which is 2M ARB and then we'd like to support this proposal which asks for 2.2M ARB.
This leaves us 200k ARB left if that would be the community consensus. In that scenario we'd also support the Flashstake proposal that is asking for 200k ARB.
In our view this seems like a good allocation and diversification of initiatives but we would like to openly question the community regarding the ecosystem fund and if it is maybe too much?
