Introduction
The Uniswap Deployments Accountability Committee is providing this 6-month update to the Uniswap community and will use this thread for future updates. This update also comes as we approach the conclusion of the inaugural term of the Deployments Accountability Committee.
The following provides additional information about the current status of operations and process, the projects and proposals supported, and budget - including adjustments and noted savings over the term of the Committee. It also addresses constraints and forward-looking recommendations for accountability within the community and the role of this Committee.
With the first term of this Committee coming to an end shortly, we look forward to the continued efforts in this space.
Operations and Process
Current/Retro: In the processes laid out earlier, the operation should have gone as the following:
The Accountability Committee comprises members with diverse backgrounds including governance and technical expertise. At least one member with technical knowledge and another member from a different area of expertise will review and provide input on proposals. They are tasked with asking questions and comments on various aspects, such as the proposal’s guidelines and its potential benefits or drawbacks to the Uniswap community.
This entire process will be conducted in a timely manner to ensure that Uniswap governance receives a basic assessment of the proposals’ accountability and transparency levels from the Accountability Committee.
The process has been posted on the forum here.
Over the six months, the Committee met and helped with various interested parties and proposals including assistance regarding the structure of Uniswap’s governance. In addition, the Committee checked all the onboarding proposals including previous applications to bring attention to commitments that were not yet addressed by the relevant committee members. This included, for example, mainnets / L2s that committed to provide a certain amount of liquidity or marketing incentive which failed to materialize despite Uniswap supporting their onboardings. The Committee has prepared a structure for teams who have committed financial or non-financial incentives on past proposals for Uniswap Community to submit a quarterly update. The form can be found here: https://forms.gle/h4WHPUfFNQRJRTsN6
However, in practice, while some parts of the process were followed, several parts were difficult to implement. For example, the Committee members were recommended to provide public feedback especially on the forum to relevant proposals. Unfortunately, many of the Committee’s feedback were given in private, and one on one calls with team members. In addition, as the Committee lacked enforcement mechanisms, several actions were limited such as requesting more information from mainnets / L2s that did not keep their commitment to provide a certain amount of liquidity or marketing incentive.
Projects and Proposals Supported
Current/Retro: Similarly in line with our first quarterly report, when the Committee was first approved, we estimated about two new chains interested in deploying Uniswap v3 a month. We’re happy to report that the number of teams interested over the first six months was well over that. We talked with almost 20 new chains and continued discussion with many prior voted in chains as well.
All in all, these discussions ranged from introductory meetings and process walkthroughs to more technical deep dives. Often, we helped with connecting teams to delegates and ecosystem members important on the proposal timeline. Similarly to the quarterly report, some projects have already been proposed to the forums and are in the governance process, while some have already passed the final on-chain vote, and some are in drafting stages.
Over these 6 months, we’re grateful to have spent time chatting and helping teams from these ecosystems (in no particular order): Linea, Base, Filecoin, Scroll, Kava, Rootstock/IOV, Moonbeam, Casper, Fantom, Conflux, Hedera, Ontology, Findora, Injective, Solana, Canto, Metis, Evmos, etc. Again, if you’re a chain interested in possibly getting involved, please feel free to DM us anytime and we’ll help direct you where you need to go!
As this first iteration of the committee nears its end, the next iteration in our opinions will focus more on upkeep and managing the pipeline of chains that are in the process. There will be many chains that promise incentives and ensuring they are accounted for diligently will be a high priority. Further, as v4 nears the corner, the rush of chains looking to secure a v4 deployment will surely be many of these chains we’ve talked to and that have passed through governance prior. Expect a large wave of inbound around then.
Budget
Current/Retro: The committee, during its six-month term, expended $27,350, which represents about 30% of the initially proposed budget of $87,500. No legal reserve fee was used.
In the initial proposal, the committee sought $87,500. This amount included an upfront retainer of $3,500, a $1,000 legal fee per member (totaling $22,500 for five members), and a $65,000 project budget, with an anticipated $6,500 allocated for each project appraisal.
In our quarterly report, we significantly reduced our compensation plan and estimated a total cost of $28,200 for the six-month period. The final expenditure of $27,350 closely aligns with our quarterly estimate. (Note: in the quarterly report, our calculation for the six month project separated the retainer from the project costs in case they were both used.)
Over the last six months, no committee member has engaged in any legal services. As a result, the $5,000 legal reserve fee has also been waived.
We aim to leverage this opportunity to establish a positive precedent for future committee members regarding compensation, underscoring the DAO's interests above our own.
Recommendations
As the Committee did not have ability to enforce, the Committee’s role was restricted to informational and liaison, which is of course valuable itself, but the next Committee should further consider its ability to enforce certain actions, and if appropriate, ask for enforcement ability if it wants to function beyond such roles.
As mentioned frequently in recent votings, there are calls for the Uniswap governance to implement transparency and accountability regarding various topics that arise, but as the current Committee is about “Deployments” such as launching Uniswap on mainnets and L2s, the above areas technically do not fall under the Committee’s mandate or scope. The next committee should consider whether they have the bandwidth to focus on accountability in other areas or broaden their scope and seek approval from necessary parties (DAO, UF, etc.).
Some parts of needed accountability might be better to be “outsourced.” For example, enforcement of commitments would require a combination of both legal and/or technical ability or specialized custody, and outsourcing to an entity that specializes in enforcing such might be better to avoid reinventing the wheel. For example, the Committee may want to consider any future plans for legal/accountability language in proposals.
It should be important to have clear objectives and compare the available time and budget.
It should continue to consider how commitments are made and enforced in proposals (recommendation to assess how to build in stronger legal and/or community-governed enforcement capabilities)
For future committee payment and compensation, we found a method that worked well and ended up introducing significant cost savings to the DAO. Specifics are outlined above but we recommend the next cycle to follow a similar approach outlined below: Each member will retain an initial payment of $3,500 and a legal fee reserve of $1,000. The payment for each member will comprise an hourly rate, paid semi-annually. Each member will track their own contribution hours. Hourly rate for all member is: $200/hour.
Conclusion
It has been a pleasure to have served on the inaugural Uniswap Deployments Accountability Committee, and look forward to successful continuation of the work that the Committee has done over the past 6-months. Anyone interested in reaching out can message one or multiple members of our committee on Telegram with general and/or specific questions.
In the upcoming weeks, stay tuned for more information regarding elections for the next committee’s term!
Deployment Process & Delegate Comms (or any questions!): @Juanbug (tg: juanbugsun) Technical Questions: @rafaelsolari (tg: rafso), @Kydo (tg: kydo0x) Operational Focus: @Doo_StableLab (tg: doowannam), @kendraleong (tg: kendra_leong)
Introduction
The Uniswap Deployments Accountability Committee is providing this 6-month update to the Uniswap community and will use this thread for future updates. This update also comes as we approach the conclusion of the inaugural term of the Deployments Accountability Committee.
The following provides additional information about the current status of operations and process, the projects and proposals supported, and budget - including adjustments and noted savings over the term of the Committee. It also addresses constraints and forward-looking recommendations for accountability within the community and the role of this Committee.
With the first term of this Committee coming to an end shortly, we look forward to the continued efforts in this space.
Operations and Process
Current/Retro: In the processes laid out earlier, the operation should have gone as the following:
The Accountability Committee comprises members with diverse backgrounds including governance and technical expertise. At least one member with technical knowledge and another member from a different area of expertise will review and provide input on proposals. They are tasked with asking questions and comments on various aspects, such as the proposal’s guidelines and its potential benefits or drawbacks to the Uniswap community.
This entire process will be conducted in a timely manner to ensure that Uniswap governance receives a basic assessment of the proposals’ accountability and transparency levels from the Accountability Committee.
The process has been posted on the forum here.
Over the six months, the Committee met and helped with various interested parties and proposals including assistance regarding the structure of Uniswap’s governance. In addition, the Committee checked all the onboarding proposals including previous applications to bring attention to commitments that were not yet addressed by the relevant committee members. This included, for example, mainnets / L2s that committed to provide a certain amount of liquidity or marketing incentive which failed to materialize despite Uniswap supporting their onboardings. The Committee has prepared a structure for teams who have committed financial or non-financial incentives on past proposals for Uniswap Community to submit a quarterly update. The form can be found here: https://forms.gle/h4WHPUfFNQRJRTsN6
However, in practice, while some parts of the process were followed, several parts were difficult to implement. For example, the Committee members were recommended to provide public feedback especially on the forum to relevant proposals. Unfortunately, many of the Committee’s feedback were given in private, and one on one calls with team members. In addition, as the Committee lacked enforcement mechanisms, several actions were limited such as requesting more information from mainnets / L2s that did not keep their commitment to provide a certain amount of liquidity or marketing incentive.
Projects and Proposals Supported
Current/Retro: Similarly in line with our first quarterly report, when the Committee was first approved, we estimated about two new chains interested in deploying Uniswap v3 a month. We’re happy to report that the number of teams interested over the first six months was well over that. We talked with almost 20 new chains and continued discussion with many prior voted in chains as well.
All in all, these discussions ranged from introductory meetings and process walkthroughs to more technical deep dives. Often, we helped with connecting teams to delegates and ecosystem members important on the proposal timeline. Similarly to the quarterly report, some projects have already been proposed to the forums and are in the governance process, while some have already passed the final on-chain vote, and some are in drafting stages.
Over these 6 months, we’re grateful to have spent time chatting and helping teams from these ecosystems (in no particular order): Linea, Base, Filecoin, Scroll, Kava, Rootstock/IOV, Moonbeam, Casper, Fantom, Conflux, Hedera, Ontology, Findora, Injective, Solana, Canto, Metis, Evmos, etc. Again, if you’re a chain interested in possibly getting involved, please feel free to DM us anytime and we’ll help direct you where you need to go!
As this first iteration of the committee nears its end, the next iteration in our opinions will focus more on upkeep and managing the pipeline of chains that are in the process. There will be many chains that promise incentives and ensuring they are accounted for diligently will be a high priority. Further, as v4 nears the corner, the rush of chains looking to secure a v4 deployment will surely be many of these chains we’ve talked to and that have passed through governance prior. Expect a large wave of inbound around then.
Budget
Current/Retro: The committee, during its six-month term, expended $27,350, which represents about 30% of the initially proposed budget of $87,500. No legal reserve fee was used.
In the initial proposal, the committee sought $87,500. This amount included an upfront retainer of $3,500, a $1,000 legal fee per member (totaling $22,500 for five members), and a $65,000 project budget, with an anticipated $6,500 allocated for each project appraisal.
In our quarterly report, we significantly reduced our compensation plan and estimated a total cost of $28,200 for the six-month period. The final expenditure of $27,350 closely aligns with our quarterly estimate. (Note: in the quarterly report, our calculation for the six month project separated the retainer from the project costs in case they were both used.)
Over the last six months, no committee member has engaged in any legal services. As a result, the $5,000 legal reserve fee has also been waived.
We aim to leverage this opportunity to establish a positive precedent for future committee members regarding compensation, underscoring the DAO's interests above our own.
Recommendations
As the Committee did not have ability to enforce, the Committee’s role was restricted to informational and liaison, which is of course valuable itself, but the next Committee should further consider its ability to enforce certain actions, and if appropriate, ask for enforcement ability if it wants to function beyond such roles.
As mentioned frequently in recent votings, there are calls for the Uniswap governance to implement transparency and accountability regarding various topics that arise, but as the current Committee is about “Deployments” such as launching Uniswap on mainnets and L2s, the above areas technically do not fall under the Committee’s mandate or scope. The next committee should consider whether they have the bandwidth to focus on accountability in other areas or broaden their scope and seek approval from necessary parties (DAO, UF, etc.).
Some parts of needed accountability might be better to be “outsourced.” For example, enforcement of commitments would require a combination of both legal and/or technical ability or specialized custody, and outsourcing to an entity that specializes in enforcing such might be better to avoid reinventing the wheel. For example, the Committee may want to consider any future plans for legal/accountability language in proposals.
It should be important to have clear objectives and compare the available time and budget.
It should continue to consider how commitments are made and enforced in proposals (recommendation to assess how to build in stronger legal and/or community-governed enforcement capabilities)
For future committee payment and compensation, we found a method that worked well and ended up introducing significant cost savings to the DAO. Specifics are outlined above but we recommend the next cycle to follow a similar approach outlined below: Each member will retain an initial payment of $3,500 and a legal fee reserve of $1,000. The payment for each member will comprise an hourly rate, paid semi-annually. Each member will track their own contribution hours. Hourly rate for all member is: $200/hour.
Conclusion
It has been a pleasure to have served on the inaugural Uniswap Deployments Accountability Committee, and look forward to successful continuation of the work that the Committee has done over the past 6-months. Anyone interested in reaching out can message one or multiple members of our committee on Telegram with general and/or specific questions.
In the upcoming weeks, stay tuned for more information regarding elections for the next committee’s term!
Deployment Process & Delegate Comms (or any questions!): @Juanbug (tg: juanbugsun) Technical Questions: @rafaelsolari (tg: rafso), @Kydo (tg: kydo0x) Operational Focus: @Doo_StableLab (tg: doowannam), @kendraleong (tg: kendra_leong)
