Uniswap should grant $25M to fund Flipside Community-Enabled Analytics via a sustainable yield-generating investment strategy that:
Uniswap should grant $25M to fund Flipside Community-Enabled Analytics via a sustainable yield-generating investment strategy that:
Hi all, our proposal has passed Temperature Check. Very much appreciate all the responses and voter participation thus far.
We are currently reviewing feedback & formulating responses for our Consensus Check - and will be back post US holiday break for this next phase.
Hi all, our proposal has passed Temperature Check. Very much appreciate all the responses and voter participation thus far.
We are currently reviewing feedback & formulating responses for our Consensus Check - and will be back post US holiday break for this next phase.
Thanks @willprice - great feedback.
A few thoughts:
Thanks @willprice - great feedback.
A few thoughts:
It’s important to recognize that every grant has some form of risk. For example, funding a service that fails to deliver on its outlined objective is a relatively simple risk. In this case, the risk is more complex and relates to managing funds responsibly to deliver the service outcomes. We would make the argument that Flipside has a long history in treasury management and certainly in analytics. Our efforts here will also help shape how these strategies can be applied to additional use cases.
These are keen observations around the effects that market making strategies can have on UNI price and LPs - we’ve debated them internally as well. In fact, our sustainable yield-based approach to program funding was inspired by an attempt to avoid the downward selling pressure inherent in straight grants (where we’d have to directly sell UNI to fund the program). Effectively, the most important question to assess is whether the program will produce a significant net-positive impact on the Uniswap ecosystem.
As such, the net-benefits here are all extremely significant for Uniswap: 1) analytics solutions that drive significant network usage and liquidity, 2) UNI perpetually allocated to participants helping build the ecosystem, and 3) new paradigms for treasury management.
*An important footnote to the discussion on this: It’s essential that the ecosystem continue to evolve and experiment in finding new frameworks that deliver results. Proposals will inevitably face a plethora of competing perspectives, and the requirement to solve for each point of view makes it difficult to foster the ethos of finding evolutionary opportunities (i.e. perfect is the enemy of good). Ultimately, our goal here is to develop programs that yield significant net-benefits for the Uniswap ecosystem, while sufficiently balancing & aligning differing perspectives.
Thanks for the proposal! Some comments:
Positive
Uncertain
Thanks for the proposal! Some comments:
Positive
Uncertain
Could you elaborate on the passive yield strategies for UNI? Are you referring to switching on fees?
I’m also pro-analytics. Especially if they come from the community. I really like the yield tool linked by Flipside. It looks to be built internally, but enabling community built tools like this could be really exciting and lead to more informed decisions.
Could you elaborate on the passive yield strategies for UNI? Are you referring to switching on fees?
I’m also pro-analytics. Especially if they come from the community. I really like the yield tool linked by Flipside. It looks to be built internally, but enabling community built tools like this could be really exciting and lead to more informed decisions.
I see the benefit of an “endowment” here vs. a continually funded program, but entrusting this large amount to be well managed without any clear recourse is a risk.
Appreciate it, @welldone -- we're excited about the potential here too.
Flipside actually began as a registered fund, and we currently manage a significant balance sheet of crypto assets with both passive and active strategies across 11 different protocols on 4 different chains. We use a variety of above industry-standard custody solutions including: multi-sigs, secure hardware wallets, and independent entities to ensure that our funds are secure.
Appreciate it, @welldone -- we're excited about the potential here too.
Flipside actually began as a registered fund, and we currently manage a significant balance sheet of crypto assets with both passive and active strategies across 11 different protocols on 4 different chains. We use a variety of above industry-standard custody solutions including: multi-sigs, secure hardware wallets, and independent entities to ensure that our funds are secure.
Our assets themselves reside in a Cayman entity that is established independently of Flipside Crypto Inc. So we may be known as a data company (and that is and should be the main thrust of this proposal), but we also have an established track record of competent asset management.
For this CEA program, the foundation we proposed will have oversight over the investment strategies and solutions used.
By passive strategies, I mean simply lending them out on other platforms, or turning on fees and lending those tokens out. I'm not in favor of turning on fees at this point, but it's not unreasonable to use a portion of treasury UNI to earn yield. One simple option is to be an LP on v3, or just lend them out on a yield platform like Compound or Aave.
We've appreciated all of the input, are listening - and will be making updates as we progress.
The Temperature Check snap poll is now live with voting from June 22nd at 18:45pm UTC through Friday June 25th at 18:45pm UTC
Yea, I echo what Holistic said + this proposal would be rendered ineffective if the fee switch turns on and the treasury would generate income which would be substantially more than 300k so.
Thanks for the feedback @holistic_shepard and @buckerino - great points raised.
On the fee switch --> valid concern, but this is purposefully not about the treasury earning yield -- it's about a mechanism where the treasury avoids selling UNI to fund a program, and instead deploys a chunk of tokens that will be managed to fund a program with yield (so whether the fee switch turns on or not is moot). Ultimately, our goal is to create a sustainable, continuous way to redistribute UNI to motivated, aligned members of the community - incentivizing them to produce analytics and solutions that drive protocol usage - not to create revenue for the treasury.
On clarifying our broader model --> the main idea here is that the scale of a perpetual yield stream would enable us to reward the best builders and analysts in the space to focus their time on building useful, meaningful tools, and analytics for Uniswap -- don't want to lose that thread as we dig into the finer points of how the grant would be managed.
This proposal seems poorly designed.
Community-Enabled Analytics are a cool idea, and increased incentives for analysts and data-driven users are a good idea.
That said, the incentives here are poorly aligned - Flipside is essentially asking for a $25m, interest-free loan to operate a proprietary hedge fund from which they take 0/50 fees.
This proposal seems poorly designed.
Community-Enabled Analytics are a cool idea, and increased incentives for analysts and data-driven users are a good idea.
That said, the incentives here are poorly aligned - Flipside is essentially asking for a $25m, interest-free loan to operate a proprietary hedge fund from which they take 0/50 fees.
Aside from the incentive structure, from the website Flipside Crypto seems like a data company, so I'm not sure why they are the best entity to operate an actively managed strategy.
Speaking more broadly - Uniswap should of course look to earn yield from its treasury, but it's not clear to me why active management at this point is required. There are ample opportunities to earn yield passively or through various toolings.
Thanks @willprice - great feedback.
A few thoughts:
Thanks @willprice - great feedback.
A few thoughts:
It’s important to recognize that every grant has some form of risk. For example, funding a service that fails to deliver on its outlined objective is a relatively simple risk. In this case, the risk is more complex and relates to managing funds responsibly to deliver the service outcomes. We would make the argument that Flipside has a long history in treasury management and certainly in analytics. Our efforts here will also help shape how these strategies can be applied to additional use cases.
These are keen observations around the effects that market making strategies can have on UNI price and LPs - we’ve debated them internally as well. In fact, our sustainable yield-based approach to program funding was inspired by an attempt to avoid the downward selling pressure inherent in straight grants (where we’d have to directly sell UNI to fund the program). Effectively, the most important question to assess is whether the program will produce a significant net-positive impact on the Uniswap ecosystem.
As such, the net-benefits here are all extremely significant for Uniswap: 1) analytics solutions that drive significant network usage and liquidity, 2) UNI perpetually allocated to participants helping build the ecosystem, and 3) new paradigms for treasury management.
*An important footnote to the discussion on this: It’s essential that the ecosystem continue to evolve and experiment in finding new frameworks that deliver results. Proposals will inevitably face a plethora of competing perspectives, and the requirement to solve for each point of view makes it difficult to foster the ethos of finding evolutionary opportunities (i.e. perfect is the enemy of good). Ultimately, our goal here is to develop programs that yield significant net-benefits for the Uniswap ecosystem, while sufficiently balancing & aligning differing perspectives.
Thanks for the proposal! Some comments:
Positive
Uncertain
Thanks for the proposal! Some comments:
Positive
Uncertain
Could you elaborate on the passive yield strategies for UNI? Are you referring to switching on fees?
I’m also pro-analytics. Especially if they come from the community. I really like the yield tool linked by Flipside. It looks to be built internally, but enabling community built tools like this could be really exciting and lead to more informed decisions.
Could you elaborate on the passive yield strategies for UNI? Are you referring to switching on fees?
I’m also pro-analytics. Especially if they come from the community. I really like the yield tool linked by Flipside. It looks to be built internally, but enabling community built tools like this could be really exciting and lead to more informed decisions.
I see the benefit of an “endowment” here vs. a continually funded program, but entrusting this large amount to be well managed without any clear recourse is a risk.
Appreciate it, @welldone -- we're excited about the potential here too.
Flipside actually began as a registered fund, and we currently manage a significant balance sheet of crypto assets with both passive and active strategies across 11 different protocols on 4 different chains. We use a variety of above industry-standard custody solutions including: multi-sigs, secure hardware wallets, and independent entities to ensure that our funds are secure.
Appreciate it, @welldone -- we're excited about the potential here too.
Flipside actually began as a registered fund, and we currently manage a significant balance sheet of crypto assets with both passive and active strategies across 11 different protocols on 4 different chains. We use a variety of above industry-standard custody solutions including: multi-sigs, secure hardware wallets, and independent entities to ensure that our funds are secure.
Our assets themselves reside in a Cayman entity that is established independently of Flipside Crypto Inc. So we may be known as a data company (and that is and should be the main thrust of this proposal), but we also have an established track record of competent asset management.
For this CEA program, the foundation we proposed will have oversight over the investment strategies and solutions used.
By passive strategies, I mean simply lending them out on other platforms, or turning on fees and lending those tokens out. I'm not in favor of turning on fees at this point, but it's not unreasonable to use a portion of treasury UNI to earn yield. One simple option is to be an LP on v3, or just lend them out on a yield platform like Compound or Aave.
We've appreciated all of the input, are listening - and will be making updates as we progress.
The Temperature Check snap poll is now live with voting from June 22nd at 18:45pm UTC through Friday June 25th at 18:45pm UTC
Yea, I echo what Holistic said + this proposal would be rendered ineffective if the fee switch turns on and the treasury would generate income which would be substantially more than 300k so.
Thanks for the feedback @holistic_shepard and @buckerino - great points raised.
On the fee switch --> valid concern, but this is purposefully not about the treasury earning yield -- it's about a mechanism where the treasury avoids selling UNI to fund a program, and instead deploys a chunk of tokens that will be managed to fund a program with yield (so whether the fee switch turns on or not is moot). Ultimately, our goal is to create a sustainable, continuous way to redistribute UNI to motivated, aligned members of the community - incentivizing them to produce analytics and solutions that drive protocol usage - not to create revenue for the treasury.
On clarifying our broader model --> the main idea here is that the scale of a perpetual yield stream would enable us to reward the best builders and analysts in the space to focus their time on building useful, meaningful tools, and analytics for Uniswap -- don't want to lose that thread as we dig into the finer points of how the grant would be managed.
This proposal seems poorly designed.
Community-Enabled Analytics are a cool idea, and increased incentives for analysts and data-driven users are a good idea.
That said, the incentives here are poorly aligned - Flipside is essentially asking for a $25m, interest-free loan to operate a proprietary hedge fund from which they take 0/50 fees.
This proposal seems poorly designed.
Community-Enabled Analytics are a cool idea, and increased incentives for analysts and data-driven users are a good idea.
That said, the incentives here are poorly aligned - Flipside is essentially asking for a $25m, interest-free loan to operate a proprietary hedge fund from which they take 0/50 fees.
Aside from the incentive structure, from the website Flipside Crypto seems like a data company, so I'm not sure why they are the best entity to operate an actively managed strategy.
Speaking more broadly - Uniswap should of course look to earn yield from its treasury, but it's not clear to me why active management at this point is required. There are ample opportunities to earn yield passively or through various toolings.
