[Temp] Uni Onboarding Package - Scroll

[Temp] Uni Onboarding Package - Scroll | proposals.app

posted 2 years ago

Hey Pablo from Merkl here. I'm sorry I should have commented earlier on this, and we've been in communication with the GFX Labs and other stakeholders on this proposal. We're excited on our side to collaborate with the Uniswap governance to facilitate the growth of the protocol on Uniswap V3. On every chain where Uniswap deploys, we want to provide tools for Uniswap governance and also any protocol to incentivize liquidity on the DEX in the most efficient way possible. The Merkl engine rewards people based on the efficiency of their liquidity, while leaving them the flexibility to LP however they want, tight range, wide range, through an ALM and without facing any opportunity cost. On top of providing the engine to distribute rewards, we are also going to provide with the interface for everyone to find the yield opportunities and take advantage of them. We provide reporting tools for people to assess as well the efficiency of their budget.

Note that Merkl is evolving and what was once meant around concentrated liquidity will soon be able to cover any type of use cases. We're working so people can add custom rules to the base Merkl implementation, like only reward LPs who stayed more than x amount of time, or only reward LPs which have been LP-ing across several pools, ... And all of this will be offered on all these new chains so this program will enable Uniswap to bootstrap on new chains and give everyone the tools to pursue this growth rather than seeking for liquidity from other forks.

Uniswap V3 has been the reason for Merkl being built, and we can't wait to accompany it on its future phases of growth.

sogipec

posted 2 years ago

Uniswap V3 has been the reason for Merkl being built, and we can't wait to accompany it on its future phases of growth.

drllau_LexDAO

posted 2 years ago

edited 2 years ago

another major area where uniswap wins is through a powerful brand. a lot of newer chains have DEXs from anonymous teams, and rug pulls have become very common across a lot of these chains,

I note that recent court case in UK suggest that exchanges be interpreted as constructive trustee. Whilst onboarding new deployments is a short-term subsidy, the long-term is to create legitimacy that underpins trust that LPs and users will get a fair bite of the cherry (balanced treatment)

another major area where uniswap wins is through a powerful brand. a lot of newer chains have DEXs from anonymous teams, and rug pulls have become very common across a lot of these chains,

Jahangir Piroozzadeh v Persons Unknown & Others [2023] EWHC 1024 (Ch)

Victims of crypto fraud have so far been bringing claims against fraudsters (who are typically identified as a group of “persons unknown”) and including crypto exchanges as defendants. This is done to seek disclosure of account information from the crypto exchange but also to impose a role of constructive trustee on the crypto exchange to help preserve any crypto that remains in wallets held on the crypto exchange.

The above judgment demonstrates that the proposition of crypto exchanges being constructive trustees cannot be taken for granted. It will be fact dependent and needs careful consideration. Also, there will need to be good reason for why crypto exchanges are added as defendants, particularly where applications are being made without notice to them. This judgment could help streamline the process between victims and crypto exchanges by encouraging greater pre-action communication and limiting the scope of the orders being sought against crypto exchanges. The goal being to build an ecosystem in which victims of crypto fraud can recover their crypto at minimal cost and without having to put the crypto exchanges off-side.

drllau_LexDAO

posted 2 years ago

edited 2 years ago

another major area where uniswap wins is through a powerful brand. a lot of newer chains have DEXs from anonymous teams, and rug pulls have become very common across a lot of these chains,

Jahangir Piroozzadeh v Persons Unknown & Others [2023] EWHC 1024 (Ch)

Victims of crypto fraud have so far been bringing claims against fraudsters (who are typically identified as a group of “persons unknown”) and including crypto exchanges as defendants. This is done to seek disclosure of account information from the crypto exchange but also to impose a role of constructive trustee on the crypto exchange to help preserve any crypto that remains in wallets held on the crypto exchange.

The above judgment demonstrates that the proposition of crypto exchanges being constructive trustees cannot be taken for granted. It will be fact dependent and needs careful consideration. Also, there will need to be good reason for why crypto exchanges are added as defendants, particularly where applications are being made without notice to them. This judgment could help streamline the process between victims and crypto exchanges by encouraging greater pre-action communication and limiting the scope of the orders being sought against crypto exchanges. The goal being to build an ecosystem in which victims of crypto fraud can recover their crypto at minimal cost and without having to put the crypto exchanges off-side.

Thank you Getty. Looks like we're on track to send this through via an onchain vote--just a couple of things:

The Deployment Accountability Committee is currently having meetings with each of the target chains from the series of snapshots. Our goal for these conversations is to see whether or not the target chain is open to matching a portion of the incentives provided by Uniswap. The forms of contributions that we’re looking for are either bootstrapping pool liquidity on the target chain or also providing incentives on such pools. Another important point is to note that most of these chains are not aware of this program. We believe that there should be a degree of alignment between Uniswap and the target chains, so making sure they’re conscious of our commitment is important. It could open up more opportunities in the future, even if the target chains aren't open to matching today.

So far, we’ve conversed with Base, Moonbeam, Blast, and Taiko--but have active chats with all. Four meeting are taking place this week.

Base is on board with helping on the marketing side, if the Uni Foundation or Oku Tweet something related to the incentives that is pre-approved by Base's team, they'll RT. They're also very interested in exploring collaborations in the long-run, like with v4 permissioned pools where KYC'd actors can use Uniswap. That's tangential to this post, but again, good to know from an alignment perspective. It's also worth having these conversations since the chain can give input on the pools, like Base told us not to incentivize wBTC pools on their chain since it wasn't native--yet. So, that pool was replaced with a cbETH pool.
Blast is a straight "no" since they don't want to inflict bias towards any DEX, which is fine since this deployment is more so an immediate go-to-market strategy from Uniswap's end to quickly capture trading volume.
Moonbeam has spend some money on boostrapping pools as well as Oku integration costs, and they don't want their efforts to be wasted, so they'll come back to us shortly with a matching proposition from Moonbeam foundation. Not sure on the exact amounts yet.
Taiko will be mainnet sometime in April. Their team is keen on adding incentives and/or liquidity--currently discussing numbers.

Another final point is that chains like Mantle are prioritizing their native ecosystem. That's verbatim what they texted us. That's another good datapoint for the DAO to consider. Some chains are not worth incentivizing if we're just going to see mercenary liquidity. A Uni v3 fork on one of these chains will do better simply because of a brand shift and new token.

So, before we more to an onchain vote that bundles all of these up, perhaps its best to stagger them, with multiple rounds of voting. Biweekly, we could put up an onchain vote with three target chains, for example. Delegates should have a datapoint included in the onchain vote regarding where our relationship stands with the target chain. As of today, Base and Blast are the only ones we have a definite answer from regarding their alignment with this program.

kfx from atiselsts.eth

2.8K TOKEN

posted 2 years ago

edited 2 years ago

Hey, a couple questions / suggestions:

I could not find any communication from Merkl in this thread, even though we're planning to give them $260k. Maybe they could confirm that they're ready to fulfill their side of the work, ideally provide some transparency on the tasks required to add support to a new chain.
Can we discuss more details about the potential success criteria and follow-ups? For one, analyzing the success of the program seems a more suitable task for a subDAO or the deployment committee, I don't think realistically each delegate can do that individually. Would be nice if there was some budget included for running analytics. At least would be nice to look at the evolution of the liquidity before / during / after the incentive program, comparing that with liquidity and Uniswap's market share in similar pools that are not incentivized by the program. The ultimate success anyway is "one of these chains grows into a major player", which can only be measured on much longer timeframes.

Hey, a couple questions / suggestions:

I could not find any communication from Merkl in this thread, even though we're planning to give them $260k. Maybe they could confirm that they're ready to fulfill their side of the work, ideally provide some transparency on the tasks required to add support to a new chain.
Can we discuss more details about the potential success criteria and follow-ups? For one, analyzing the success of the program seems a more suitable task for a subDAO or the deployment committee, I don't think realistically each delegate can do that individually. Would be nice if there was some budget included for running analytics. At least would be nice to look at the evolution of the liquidity before / during / after the incentive program, comparing that with liquidity and Uniswap's market share in similar pools that are not incentivized by the program. The ultimate success anyway is "one of these chains grows into a major player", which can only be measured on much longer timeframes.

~~At the moment I'm inclined to vote "Abstain" in particular because the vote is for all 10 chains at once and ~25% of the funds are planned to be spent on BSC.~~ It's difficult to see the justification for that, as I have doubts about the future growth potential of that chain relative to others (it's already one of the largest!) and the fit of Uniswap v3 and it's ability to take market share, as most of the tokens launched on BSC are fee-on-transfer, not supported by Uni v3. I might be wrong, but as of now it looks like opBNB would be much better fit, conceptually, to the incentive program.

Edit: voted for in the end, see here.

AbdullahUmar from abdullahumar.eth

posted 2 years ago

edited 2 years ago

Just want to provide some more clarity here. We’ve been in close contact with Getty through this process, although the recent forum posts may not seem to display this. As the accountability committee finalizes its conversations, the majority of the feedback we’ve received from target chain has been, well, more disappointing than we hoped. Most are not looking to match our incentive package, unfortunately. They’re open to co market on X, but providing liquidity or incentives seems to be a no-go for most chains. To that end, these multi chain expansions seem primarily to hinge on the Uniswap dao. It’s up to us to decide whether or not we’d like to expand into these markets with more force, even if the target chain isn’t willing to contribute to this initiative. The accountability committee will remain in close contact with these teams in case any forms of reciprocity arise.

I’ll be putting in a Yes vote shortly for this proposal since, as a potential bull run ensues, it's ideal for Uniswap to be well-positioned across these deployments.

Another note--chains aren't exactly incentivized to match this program. They have Uni v3 forks that are native to their ecosystem that naturally attract new users. It's akin to Uniswap, an established brand, expanding to a "new country"--but that country is more focused on supporting its "local businesses". The edge that Uniswap has is brand. People can rely on a trusted product that's uniform no matter where they go. The target chains see value in this secure brand. Many of their own users will only want to use Uniswap due to this value proposition. BUT the main issue here is front-end. The value of a front-end for retail is perhaps the most important aspect behind reliability and familiarity, and that's a large reason why chains don't want to double down with us regarding incentives. I'm not too sure how we can immediately address this. The current direction is using Oku. Target chains, however, are not quite as comfortable with this. I just wish we could do some type of white labeling with Oku and Uni Labs. It'll be interesting to see how the BNB incentives do since that deployment is on the Labs front-end.

Getty from getty.gfxlabs.eth

posted 2 years ago

Thank you to everyone who participated in the ten polls.

Here is the summary of the outcomes

Linea: $250k
Scroll: $250k
Polygon zkEVM: $250k
zkSync: $500k
Blast: $500k
Base: $500k
Taiko: $250k
Moonbeam: $250k*
BSC: $1m
Mantle: $250k

Thank you to everyone who participated in the ten polls.

Here is the summary of the outcomes

Linea: $250k
Scroll: $250k
Polygon zkEVM: $250k
zkSync: $500k
Blast: $500k
Base: $500k
Taiko: $250k
Moonbeam: $250k*
BSC: $1m
Mantle: $250k

Some of the temperature checks were quite close. For those, I default toward the popular vote, but if a delegate feels strongly that one of the amounts should be different, please post a comment.

Pools I have gone through the top DEXs for each chain and came up with 3-5 pools for each chain and the allocation amount of the incentives. Please take a look here and feel free to message me with comments or post on this thread. In addition to the pools, I also included the top DEXs for each chain. Generally, I was looking for three things: top pools by volume, top pools where the volume traded exceeds the liquidity available, and how the liquidity was distributed.

Next steps I'd like to send an onchain proposal this week that approves the following Onboarding Packages.

Linea: $250k (w/Oku + Merkl)
Scroll: $250k (w/Merkl)
Polygon zkEVM: $250k (w/Merkl - UniV3 only)
zkSync: $500k (w/Merkl)
Blast: $500k (w/Oku + Merkl)
Base: $500k (w/Merkl)
BSC: $1m (w/Merkl)
Mantle: $250k (w/Oku + Merkl)

This excludes Taiko because their chain deployment is a few months away but includes Blast because the mainnet is expected in the immediate future. As for Moonbeam, the temperature check seemed indecisive. I figure we can always grant it an onboarding package at a later date.

Of the eight above chains, Oku currently supports all except for Blast, Mantle, Linea, and Polygon zkEVM. Oku has already announced Polygon zkEVM will be supported, so this proposal would only require three new additions.

Angle Merkl's current support can be found here. Merkl will need to support five new chains and their Uniswap v3 deployments; they support Polygon zkEVM, so they only need to add UniV3; they currently fully support base, and I need to confirm before the on-chain proposal that they can support zkSync.

Please review the linked spreadsheet and either post here or message me if you have feedback.

WintermuteGovernance from wintermutegovernance.eth

453.8K TOKEN

posted 2 years ago

edited 2 years ago

This is a great initiative and we are super supportive of it.

Designing the onboarding package for new/nascent chains seems rather straightforward as we’re providing incentives in the hope of gaining meaningful TVL that then grows with the ecosystem.

102

This is a great initiative and we are super supportive of it.

Designing the onboarding package for new/nascent chains seems rather straightforward as we’re providing incentives in the hope of gaining meaningful TVL that then grows with the ecosystem.

But for existing and new(ish) chains the decision is a bit more nuanced so we quickly dug a little deeper into Uni V3’s market share for chains with available data:

(Note we are still working on data for BSC & Linea, but given discussion is moving quickly we thought we’d post what we have thus far)

Uni V3 TVL Rank Across Deployments

While the main focus is on volume market share, having context of Uni V3’s TVL position is still an important consideration as that’s what these LM efforts are targeting.

The table below illustrates Uni V3’s TVL rank on each respective deployment (ranked by worst to best). Clearly, there are a couple of deployments that could benefit from the growth program: zkSync Era, Scroll, Moonbeam, Avalanche, and BSC.

image|663x425 Source: DefiLlama

However, as we know TVL is not the clearest indicator of volume market share due to differing smart contract configurations amongst competitors, so let’s take a look at volume market share for chains with available data.

Uni V3: DEX Monthly Trading Volume Market Share Summary Stats

When looking at the 6-month (+ Jan) volume market share of Uni V3 across available deployments vary considerably.

Key takeaways:

It’s very dominant on Celo (TVL: Rank 1) and Optimism (TVL Rank: 2).
While still dominant on Arbitrum (TVL: Rank 1) market share is starting to decrease.
Polygon (TVL: Rank 1) has seen nice market share growth over the past 6 months and is now in a strong position.
This is also true for Base (TVL: Rank 2) as we’ve seen a nice climb in market share. Note, Uni V3 still remains the dominant DEX on Base despite a smaller market share value. Volume market share is just more equally disbursed.
For zkSync Era (TVL: Rank 12) and Avalanche (TVL: Rank 7), Uni V3 has a very low market share.

image|690x430 Source: DefiLlama

(Missing chains: Moonbeam, Linea, Scroll, Rootstock, Boba)

Thus, we think it’s important for the DAO to assess the benefits of a growth packages for zkSync Era and Avalanche based on each chain’s activity and future prospects. Furthermore, it could be valuable to provide Base with a growth package despite being the dominant DEX to ensure we can solidify Uni V3’s position.

We’ve also included some charts below for individual chains to illustrate Uni V3’s volume market share amongst top competitors:

Celo: Untitled|690x433

Polygon: image|690x404

zkSync Era: image|690x444

Avalanche: image|690x452

Optimism: image|690x472

Base: image|690x439

Arbitrum:

Thank you Getty. Looks like we're on track to send this through via an onchain vote--just a couple of things:

So far, we’ve conversed with Base, Moonbeam, Blast, and Taiko--but have active chats with all. Four meeting are taking place this week.

Base is on board with helping on the marketing side, if the Uni Foundation or Oku Tweet something related to the incentives that is pre-approved by Base's team, they'll RT. They're also very interested in exploring collaborations in the long-run, like with v4 permissioned pools where KYC'd actors can use Uniswap. That's tangential to this post, but again, good to know from an alignment perspective. It's also worth having these conversations since the chain can give input on the pools, like Base told us not to incentivize wBTC pools on their chain since it wasn't native--yet. So, that pool was replaced with a cbETH pool.
Blast is a straight "no" since they don't want to inflict bias towards any DEX, which is fine since this deployment is more so an immediate go-to-market strategy from Uniswap's end to quickly capture trading volume.
Moonbeam has spend some money on boostrapping pools as well as Oku integration costs, and they don't want their efforts to be wasted, so they'll come back to us shortly with a matching proposition from Moonbeam foundation. Not sure on the exact amounts yet.
Taiko will be mainnet sometime in April. Their team is keen on adding incentives and/or liquidity--currently discussing numbers.

kfx from atiselsts.eth

2.8K TOKEN

posted 2 years ago

edited 2 years ago

Hey, a couple questions / suggestions:

I could not find any communication from Merkl in this thread, even though we're planning to give them $260k. Maybe they could confirm that they're ready to fulfill their side of the work, ideally provide some transparency on the tasks required to add support to a new chain.
Can we discuss more details about the potential success criteria and follow-ups? For one, analyzing the success of the program seems a more suitable task for a subDAO or the deployment committee, I don't think realistically each delegate can do that individually. Would be nice if there was some budget included for running analytics. At least would be nice to look at the evolution of the liquidity before / during / after the incentive program, comparing that with liquidity and Uniswap's market share in similar pools that are not incentivized by the program. The ultimate success anyway is "one of these chains grows into a major player", which can only be measured on much longer timeframes.

Hey, a couple questions / suggestions:

I could not find any communication from Merkl in this thread, even though we're planning to give them $260k. Maybe they could confirm that they're ready to fulfill their side of the work, ideally provide some transparency on the tasks required to add support to a new chain.
Can we discuss more details about the potential success criteria and follow-ups? For one, analyzing the success of the program seems a more suitable task for a subDAO or the deployment committee, I don't think realistically each delegate can do that individually. Would be nice if there was some budget included for running analytics. At least would be nice to look at the evolution of the liquidity before / during / after the incentive program, comparing that with liquidity and Uniswap's market share in similar pools that are not incentivized by the program. The ultimate success anyway is "one of these chains grows into a major player", which can only be measured on much longer timeframes.

Edit: voted for in the end, see here.

AbdullahUmar from abdullahumar.eth

posted 2 years ago

edited 2 years ago

I’ll be putting in a Yes vote shortly for this proposal since, as a potential bull run ensues, it's ideal for Uniswap to be well-positioned across these deployments.

Getty from getty.gfxlabs.eth

posted 2 years ago

Thank you to everyone who participated in the ten polls.

Here is the summary of the outcomes

Linea: $250k
Scroll: $250k
Polygon zkEVM: $250k
zkSync: $500k
Blast: $500k
Base: $500k
Taiko: $250k
Moonbeam: $250k*
BSC: $1m
Mantle: $250k

Thank you to everyone who participated in the ten polls.

Here is the summary of the outcomes

Linea: $250k
Scroll: $250k
Polygon zkEVM: $250k
zkSync: $500k
Blast: $500k
Base: $500k
Taiko: $250k
Moonbeam: $250k*
BSC: $1m
Mantle: $250k

Some of the temperature checks were quite close. For those, I default toward the popular vote, but if a delegate feels strongly that one of the amounts should be different, please post a comment.

Next steps I'd like to send an onchain proposal this week that approves the following Onboarding Packages.

Linea: $250k (w/Oku + Merkl)
Scroll: $250k (w/Merkl)
Polygon zkEVM: $250k (w/Merkl - UniV3 only)
zkSync: $500k (w/Merkl)
Blast: $500k (w/Oku + Merkl)
Base: $500k (w/Merkl)
BSC: $1m (w/Merkl)
Mantle: $250k (w/Oku + Merkl)

Please review the linked spreadsheet and either post here or message me if you have feedback.

WintermuteGovernance from wintermutegovernance.eth

453.8K TOKEN

posted 2 years ago

edited 2 years ago

This is a great initiative and we are super supportive of it.

Designing the onboarding package for new/nascent chains seems rather straightforward as we’re providing incentives in the hope of gaining meaningful TVL that then grows with the ecosystem.

102

This is a great initiative and we are super supportive of it.

Designing the onboarding package for new/nascent chains seems rather straightforward as we’re providing incentives in the hope of gaining meaningful TVL that then grows with the ecosystem.

But for existing and new(ish) chains the decision is a bit more nuanced so we quickly dug a little deeper into Uni V3’s market share for chains with available data:

(Note we are still working on data for BSC & Linea, but given discussion is moving quickly we thought we’d post what we have thus far)

Uni V3 TVL Rank Across Deployments

While the main focus is on volume market share, having context of Uni V3’s TVL position is still an important consideration as that’s what these LM efforts are targeting.

image|663x425 Source: DefiLlama

Uni V3: DEX Monthly Trading Volume Market Share Summary Stats

When looking at the 6-month (+ Jan) volume market share of Uni V3 across available deployments vary considerably.

Key takeaways:

It’s very dominant on Celo (TVL: Rank 1) and Optimism (TVL Rank: 2).
While still dominant on Arbitrum (TVL: Rank 1) market share is starting to decrease.
Polygon (TVL: Rank 1) has seen nice market share growth over the past 6 months and is now in a strong position.
This is also true for Base (TVL: Rank 2) as we’ve seen a nice climb in market share. Note, Uni V3 still remains the dominant DEX on Base despite a smaller market share value. Volume market share is just more equally disbursed.
For zkSync Era (TVL: Rank 12) and Avalanche (TVL: Rank 7), Uni V3 has a very low market share.

image|690x430 Source: DefiLlama

(Missing chains: Moonbeam, Linea, Scroll, Rootstock, Boba)

We’ve also included some charts below for individual chains to illustrate Uni V3’s volume market share amongst top competitors:

Celo: Untitled|690x433

Polygon: image|690x404

zkSync Era: image|690x444

Avalanche: image|690x452

Optimism: image|690x472

Base: image|690x439

Arbitrum:

Great to see community discussion to align objectives, thanks for posting and setting up the approach Getty! The questions you pose are all important to ensuring funded programs are structured properly. We faced similar challenges and decisions for the ARB LM program that we are currently working on with the DAO, and we have found valuable insights that could benefit this initiative.

As we understand it and similar to above community sentiments, three key questions to think about when considering leveraging liquidity mining for this purpose are:

Which Optimization Metrics should the DAO focus on? :
- Should the DAO's focus be on capturing market share, increasing volume, or enhancing LP revenue?
Which Chains or Ecosystems should the DAO target? :
- What makes a chain a more or less promising candidate? How should these “scores” of suitability affect their corresponding budgets? We need criteria to identify suitable chains for liquidity mining initiatives.
- It is valuable to see Wintermute’s comment around TVL and market share ranking to inform this decision.
How should the Selection of Pools for Incentivization be decided? :
- How should rewards be allocated within chain deployments among the selection of pools? Strategically, it's wise to incentivize "blue-chip" pools, as they can be considered to have a higher likelihood of sustainability over time, but what about native token pools to the chains selected for deployment? Blue chip pools typically require more substantial incentive allocations for meaningful and sustained growth, as they have more competition and a naturally higher liquidity depth.

From our experience, without alignment on definitions of success, due diligence on the environment where funds are deployed, and constant monitoring and optimization of the rewards allocations, liquidity mining programs can incur significant decreases in spend efficiency. Blue chip pools have higher variations in elasticity to rewards, requiring special attention and data insights per deployment. Is the community willing to spend more on these pools to capture market share? This could also be included in the vote.

Gauntlet’s Findings

In our latest liquidity mining work on Uniswap Arbitrum, we found that liquidity incentives are especially useful in bootstrapping liquidity and/or reviving pools with previously little to no activity, whereas large, blue-chip pools require more incentive capital to order for meaningful effects on market share, volume and LP revenue to be observed. Liquidity mining seems more effective on chains where Uniswap is still gaining a foothold, as shown by the stronger results on Arbitrum compared to Ethereum. This insight is particularly relevant to your plan of expanding Uniswap on emerging chains.

It’s important to strategically distribute these incentives. The goal should be to enhance the baseline activity of a pool sustainably, rather than merely creating a temporary spike in market share that dissipates once the incentives are withdrawn. The key is to ensure that improvements in price execution (as a result of increased liquidity) are maintained even after the removal of these incentives, thereby supporting a lasting increase in market share as more traders will be drawn to the destination with the best price execution.

We've detailed the performance of our liquidity mining program on Arbitrum in our midpoint retro report, which will be published on Monday. This report also includes insights on our methodology for future pool selection and other strategic considerations. For those interested in learning more on the key findings and how it relates to optimal allocation decisions, we will post it to the forums and follow up on this thread. For this current ARB program, it is too early to confidently assert the lasting impact ('stickiness') of the incentives, however, once these rewards are diminished or ceased, we are eager to share these findings with the community.

Incentive Budgets and Ongoing Optimization

When it comes to allocating the budget for incentives, it's crucial to base our decisions on the projected ROI (with respect to the primary objective function of this initiative). If the DAO agrees to extend rewards across various emerging chains, we should thoughtfully consider how to distribute the budget. For instance, should we allocate $300K for a Base rewards program and $200K for Binance Smart Chain? The key factors driving these decisions should include potential growth, chain-specific dynamics, and community engagement levels. Furthermore, what is the community’s approach to ongoing optimization efforts? We have observed that incentivized pools respond in a variety of ways, and require detailed monitoring to institute possible pivots in funding.

All to say there’s a trade off between speed via standards and efficacy enabled by optimization. We are keen to hear community feedback on the above thoughts and questions!

104

Getty from getty.gfxlabs.eth

posted 2 years ago

Ditto to @AbdullahUmar's points. We must get our ducks in a row before approaching the chains.

Also, we, delegates, need to recalibrate Uniswap's leverage and marketability toward these new chains. A core reason that I made this topic was because Uniswap's market position is pretty different today than what it was a year ago. It might not be realistic to request matching incentives or liquidity from some of the rising EVMs. Uniswap often goes up against local concentrated liquidity protocols or literal Uniswap v3 clones that the chain team favors.

Ditto to @AbdullahUmar's points. We must get our ducks in a row before approaching the chains.

We need to approach this Onboarding Package as an introduction of Uniswap v3 to a new chain.

Contracts deployed
Frontend goes live
Incentives to drive initial liquidity

Quoted from Getty

Uniswap could quickly take the lead on 5-10 chains without spending more than $2.5m. 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.

Let's keep this topic to a modest Onboarding Package. Once we have established it, we can determine which chains/deployments make sense to double down on.

AbdullahUmar from abdullahumar.eth

posted 2 years ago

Thank you for providing this TVL and volume overview @WintermuteGovernance!

Off the bat, there are a couple of chains worth circling back to regarding this program. The accountability committee will get started with this process as soon as the incentive package is finalized. But from the data above, and after skimming DeFiLlama a bit further, it seems like Base, zkSync, Scroll, Linea, Polygon zkEVM, and Avalanche are decent contenders from a growth perspective.

Thank you for providing this TVL and volume overview @WintermuteGovernance!

Base: we currently have decent marketshare, and incentives have a high likelihood of further propelling Uniswap dominance
Scroll: Uniswap is the 8th most dominant DEX, which really shouldn't be the case. Uniswap's brand is enough to propel it to at least second place behind Ambient if we introduce incentives.
Linea: nascent and ripe for disruption
Polygon zkEVM: on Polygon (original), there's been a battle between Quickswap and Uniswap, and Uniswap is currently ahead. Today, by TVL, Quickswap leads on the zkEVM--no reason why Uniswap can't compete with Quickswap here as well
Avalanche: Trader Joe is a formidable competitor. There is also just a natural gravitation towards the chain's native DEX. Market share may be tough to capture here, but since Avalanche has been in the limelight as of late, Uniswap could try and make a play on capturing more of the ecosystem's volume going forward with incentives. Plus, the Avax deployment is on the Uni Labs front-end, which could help attract users more easily.

This is just food for thought. First priority should be finalizing the incentive package.

Getty from getty.gfxlabs.eth

posted 2 years ago

edited 2 years ago

Happy Monday, everyone. I've created ten polls. Each temperature check has the same text and options.

[quote] This temperature check will gauge delegates' interest/support for deploying the onboarding package to [chain].

I've attached the forum thread for the full context.

101

Happy Monday, everyone. I've created ten polls. Each temperature check has the same text and options.

[quote] This temperature check will gauge delegates' interest/support for deploying the onboarding package to [chain].

I've attached the forum thread for the full context.

TLDR: The Uniswap Onboarding Package is for new deployments of Uniswap v3 to get set up with three-month liquidity incentives, a frontend (Oku), and incentives distribution tooling (Angle Merkl). These resources will help position Uniswap to have a formidable presence on new EVM chains.

How the vote works: The temperature check will be considered met as long as the total number of votes cast for the funding options is over >10M. If there isn't a clear winner for which level of incentives the chain should receive, a discussion can be had before the onchain proposal.

Notes:

Applies to recent deployments of Uniswap v3 where delegates vote for them
Pools will be primarily blue chips (ETH-USDC, ETH/WBTC, USDC-USDT) and a local pool if applicable. The onchain vote will include the final details for pool info.
The Accountability Committee will escrow the inflight incentives.
Oku will only be paid for new deployments, not existing ones or ones already contracted. Oku prices all standard deployments at $45k for the initial integration and $5k/month for 12 months.
Angle Merkl will only be paid their integration fee for new deployments. For new deployments and new chains, Merkl is €20k. For existing chains, new Uni v3 deployments are €10k.
Angle Merkl charges 3% on incentives distributed with their system. They have offered a 25% discount on their base 3% fee for incentives distributed between $2.5m-$5m, a 50% discount on incentives distributed between $5m-$10m, and a 75% discount on all incentives above $10m in a 365-day period. [/quote]

Polls:

Voting closes Saturday

101

AbdullahUmar from abdullahumar.eth

posted 2 years ago

edited 2 years ago

There are two things we're trying to take care of. The first aspect is finalizing the package. The second part is determining which chains we should retroactively enable incentives on. Before speaking to chains about this program, we should first finalize the package itself.

We need to determine how stringent or flexible we'll be with the package. I’d encourage maintaining a degree of flexibility with the package parameters since this is a not a one size fits all scenario. Perhaps the initial package should give a range of guidelines, like the incentive amount a chain is eligible for lies between $250k - $1M. Getty lays out some of the parameters as follows:

Quoted from Getty

amount of incentives, the pools to incentivize, duration, incentivization tool, and frontend

jump to post →

Incentive amount, pools, and duration should ideally be more flexible. Each chain has a different degree of maturity, and quite often, they're the best judges of which pools to activate and the level of incentivization required. The most probable conclusion will be incentivizing USDC, WBTC, WETH, and/or native token pools, but the final decision should be made after discussion with the target chain. Of course, if the chain wants to incentivize non-standard pools with, say, long-tail assets, we have the authority to deny such requests.

We can use different criteria to determine incentive amount and duration. One key aspect from the DAO's side will be our perspective on how much growth the target chain will bring to Uniswap. A new chain with a lot of potential and a nascent DeFi ecosystem should receive a larger allotment and perhaps a more aggressive incentive timeline. Another aspect is a matching program. We could offer better terms to chains that would like to offer incentives or protocol owned liquidity themselves to further compound the effects of this program. These determinations, I think, should be recommended by the accountability committee to reduce the DAO's overhead.

Potential Parameter and Chain Selection Process:

The accountability committee discusses the incentive parameters with the target chain
The committee posts its opinions on how promising incentives seem on the target chain, along with a recommended set of parameters
A discussion regarding the above transpires on the forum
The forum discussion helps finalize the parameters for the temp check
Upon successful temp check, we go to the onchain vote

As for the other parameters, I doubt most protocols would have issues with tooling (Merkl) & front-end (Oku), as long as we have a streamlined process for implementing these incentives, so these two parameters can be more or less fixed.

Getty from getty.gfxlabs.eth

posted 2 years ago

Thank you, I'm glad you think it is a good initiative.

Quoted from kpk

Assuming a deploying chain is not guaranteed liquidity for bootstrapping, and there will be a request process, it is appropriate that the deploying chain specify an amount that is right-sized for them with a specific plan in place for its utilization. The goal here is to increase the efficiency of the funding while encouraging the recipient to provide clear intentions for its use.

106

Thank you, I'm glad you think it is a good initiative.

Quoted from kpk

jump to post →

Sure, the requestor can always ask for a different amount. My goal for this onboarding package is to set a standard to deploy easily, but amendments can always be made with delegates' support.

Quoted from kpk

Would you be open to this decision being tasked to a smaller group or attached to the incumbent chain’s deployment proposal? Not to expand their scope, but for the sake of simplicity we would be comfortable if the existing Uniswap Deployments Accountability Committee had some discretion or authority here.

jump to post →

Overall, I'd like to keep the Onboarding Package as simple as possible to limit the points that require decisions or administration. The core decisions of the package, like the amount of incentives, the pools to incentivize, duration, incentivization tool, and frontend, can be decided by delegates. We will need a party to do the ops work to bridge incentives to the destination chain and trigger the incentives. After the incentives are set, nothing further should be required. I'm checking if the UF can take on this role; if not, I think the Accountability Committee would be the next logical group to do it.

Quoted from kpk

To mitigate spam or any misuse of funds, we suggest a pre-defined list of pools that would be valuable in attracting liquidity for Uniswap ahead of time.

jump to post →

For the pools to direct incentives toward, ETH-USDC 0.30%, WBTC-USDC 0.30%, and USDC-USDT 0.01% would be the three anchor pools; then, a fourth pool could be considered if there is a popular chain-specific asset. This should be defined in the governance proposal when requesting the package.

kpk from governance.kpk.eth

20.1K TOKEN

posted 2 years ago

Thanks for starting this discussion @getty; we agree with an incentive program to bootstrap liquidity on promising chains deploying Uniswap. This could strengthen our position where we are not the leading protocol in these chains' early stages of growth. Some initial thoughts:

Incentive Amounts

Regarding the amount discussed, a higher incentive would allow chains to add more pools, extend the incentive period or raise the incentives on specific pools as the chains see fit. For this reason, we support up to the 750k option, but as a maximum amount to be requested.

Management of Requests

Quoted from Getty

So, it will be key that delegates decide which chains make sense to deploy this onboarding package and which do not.

jump to post →

Would you be open to this decision being tasked to a smaller group or attached to the incumbent chain's deployment proposal? Not to expand their scope, but for the sake of simplicity we would be comfortable if the existing Uniswap Deployments Accountability Committee had some discretion or authority here.

To mitigate spam or any misuse of funds, we suggest a pre-defined list of pools that would be valuable in attracting liquidity for Uniswap ahead of time. This list would also have the added benefit of streamlining decision-making and serve as a guide for the deploying chains.

Distribution of Funds

karpatkey has experience working with Gnosis Chain bootstrapping AMM pools and pairs. In addition, we would happily serve this initiative as a non-custodial layer between the incentives protocol (like Merkl) and the DAO-related wallets. With the use of the Zodiac protocol and its role modifiers, it is possible to grant specific permission for a manager who will act on the DAO's behalf when interacting with external protocols.

Getty from getty.gfxlabs.eth

posted 2 years ago

GM. Thanks for the quick reply.

I agree it's important for the process to be open. I welcome anyone in the ecosystem to post other avenues for delegates to consider for both the frontend or the reward system.

101

GM. Thanks for the quick reply.

I agree it's important for the process to be open. I welcome anyone in the ecosystem to post other avenues for delegates to consider for both the frontend or the reward system.

Regarding the Merkl compensation. The one-time setup fee of €20k for going to an entirely new chain and €10k for a new Uniswap v3 instance on a chain they support were based on $250k of incentives. Since we're discussing increasing the incentives, I spoke with Merkl about updating their pricing. They have offered a 25% discount on their base 3% fee for incentives distributed between $2.5m-$5m, a 50% discount on incentives distributed between $5m-$10m, and a 75% discount on all incentives above $10m in a 365-day period.

For the pools to direct incentives toward, ETH-USDC 0.30%, WBTC-USDC 0.30%, and USDC-USDT 0.01% would be the three anchor pools; then, a fourth pool could be considered if there is a popular chain-specific asset. For example, if we were to deploy this program on Polygon, a MATIC-USDC pair would be a good idea. Generally, we should stick with blue chips.

As for the Merkl configuration, I've been trying to gather some data points as there doesn't seem to be a "best" configuration. Currently, the Uniswap Arbitrum Merkl incentives use a 1%-1%-98% (token0-token1-fees), which heavily directs liquidity toward the most actively contributing liquidity positions. That may be good for blue-chip pairs like the ones I'm suggesting. If you or other delegates have thoughts on the configuration, it would be great to exchange notes.

Now, for amounts, when in doubt, we should default to less rather than more for the program's inception, but then, in exchange, we should be liberal in deploying the program. If we default with a lower amount, like $250k or $500k, but then decide for a specific chain to go with a higher number, it's easier to go up rather than down.

You're right that creating a new chain has never been easier. So, it will be key that delegates decide which chains make sense to deploy this onboarding package and which do not. Although, we should be hesitant to set hard rules like a TVL requirement. I suggest we leave it to chains to make their pitch to the DAO and for delegates to conduct their due diligence. Ultimately, this package is meant to be easily deployable to new chains, but changes could be made on a chain-by-chain basis.

Getty from getty.gfxlabs.eth

posted 2 years ago

@kfx, thanks for the support.

Regarding the reward distribution options. Setting aside a custom build, there aren't too many options. Merkl seems to have the most flexible one because it doesn't require users to stake their position. Merkl runs an off-chain program once an hour to direct incentives. Since it's an off-chain calculation, they can allocate rewards more easily and efficiently than in an on-chain program.

109

@kfx, thanks for the support.

Another important thing to remember is the ease of integrating new chains. When I spoke with them about this idea at the end of last week, they were excited and said that going to new EVMs is not too hard for them. They need a one-time setup fee of €20k for going to an entirely new chain and €10k for a new Uniswap v3 instance on a chain they have support for.

It's also worth noting that other projects on the new chain looking for a liquidity incentive management system could use Merkl and Uniswap v3.

If there is a particular avenue you think should be explored, feel free to post it here.

As for frontend options, I'm biased, of course, but I think Oku is in its own category. The other Uniswap v3 frontends tend to be much simpler and generally rely on other infrastructure. With Oku, we've built it to be entirely standalone, and we have a lot of experience deploying the core protocol and the necessary periphery contracts for new deployments. Outside of Uniswap Labs, I don't think more than a few other folks have that experience. Lastly, we only support Uniswap v3 on Oku. Most other interfaces support competing DEXs.

@Doo_StableLab Good question. My hope is that three months of incentives and the deployment of Merkl and Oku will give Uniswap a good hold. Obviously, when incentives end, we can expect a drop in liquidity, but the hope is it's not substantial. Perhaps in the 3rd month, the DAO can discuss further incentives if delegates think it would be useful. It will be easier since Merkl and Oku will already be live.

As we understand it and similar to above community sentiments, three key questions to think about when considering leveraging liquidity mining for this purpose are:

Which Optimization Metrics should the DAO focus on? :
- Should the DAO's focus be on capturing market share, increasing volume, or enhancing LP revenue?
Which Chains or Ecosystems should the DAO target? :
- What makes a chain a more or less promising candidate? How should these “scores” of suitability affect their corresponding budgets? We need criteria to identify suitable chains for liquidity mining initiatives.
- It is valuable to see Wintermute’s comment around TVL and market share ranking to inform this decision.
How should the Selection of Pools for Incentivization be decided? :
- How should rewards be allocated within chain deployments among the selection of pools? Strategically, it's wise to incentivize "blue-chip" pools, as they can be considered to have a higher likelihood of sustainability over time, but what about native token pools to the chains selected for deployment? Blue chip pools typically require more substantial incentive allocations for meaningful and sustained growth, as they have more competition and a naturally higher liquidity depth.

Gauntlet’s Findings

Incentive Budgets and Ongoing Optimization

All to say there’s a trade off between speed via standards and efficacy enabled by optimization. We are keen to hear community feedback on the above thoughts and questions!

104

Getty from getty.gfxlabs.eth

posted 2 years ago

Ditto to @AbdullahUmar's points. We must get our ducks in a row before approaching the chains.

We need to approach this Onboarding Package as an introduction of Uniswap v3 to a new chain.

Contracts deployed
Frontend goes live
Incentives to drive initial liquidity

Quoted from Getty

Let's keep this topic to a modest Onboarding Package. Once we have established it, we can determine which chains/deployments make sense to double down on.

AbdullahUmar from abdullahumar.eth

posted 2 years ago

Thank you for providing this TVL and volume overview @WintermuteGovernance!

Base: we currently have decent marketshare, and incentives have a high likelihood of further propelling Uniswap dominance
Scroll: Uniswap is the 8th most dominant DEX, which really shouldn't be the case. Uniswap's brand is enough to propel it to at least second place behind Ambient if we introduce incentives.
Linea: nascent and ripe for disruption
Polygon zkEVM: on Polygon (original), there's been a battle between Quickswap and Uniswap, and Uniswap is currently ahead. Today, by TVL, Quickswap leads on the zkEVM--no reason why Uniswap can't compete with Quickswap here as well
Avalanche: Trader Joe is a formidable competitor. There is also just a natural gravitation towards the chain's native DEX. Market share may be tough to capture here, but since Avalanche has been in the limelight as of late, Uniswap could try and make a play on capturing more of the ecosystem's volume going forward with incentives. Plus, the Avax deployment is on the Uni Labs front-end, which could help attract users more easily.

This is just food for thought. First priority should be finalizing the incentive package.

Getty from getty.gfxlabs.eth

posted 2 years ago

edited 2 years ago

Happy Monday, everyone. I've created ten polls. Each temperature check has the same text and options.

[quote] This temperature check will gauge delegates' interest/support for deploying the onboarding package to [chain].

I've attached the forum thread for the full context.

101

Happy Monday, everyone. I've created ten polls. Each temperature check has the same text and options.

[quote] This temperature check will gauge delegates' interest/support for deploying the onboarding package to [chain].

I've attached the forum thread for the full context.

Notes:

Applies to recent deployments of Uniswap v3 where delegates vote for them
Pools will be primarily blue chips (ETH-USDC, ETH/WBTC, USDC-USDT) and a local pool if applicable. The onchain vote will include the final details for pool info.
The Accountability Committee will escrow the inflight incentives.
Oku will only be paid for new deployments, not existing ones or ones already contracted. Oku prices all standard deployments at $45k for the initial integration and $5k/month for 12 months.
Angle Merkl will only be paid their integration fee for new deployments. For new deployments and new chains, Merkl is €20k. For existing chains, new Uni v3 deployments are €10k.
Angle Merkl charges 3% on incentives distributed with their system. They have offered a 25% discount on their base 3% fee for incentives distributed between $2.5m-$5m, a 50% discount on incentives distributed between $5m-$10m, and a 75% discount on all incentives above $10m in a 365-day period. [/quote]

Polls:

Voting closes Saturday

101

AbdullahUmar from abdullahumar.eth

posted 2 years ago

edited 2 years ago

Quoted from Getty

amount of incentives, the pools to incentivize, duration, incentivization tool, and frontend

jump to post →

Potential Parameter and Chain Selection Process:

The accountability committee discusses the incentive parameters with the target chain
The committee posts its opinions on how promising incentives seem on the target chain, along with a recommended set of parameters
A discussion regarding the above transpires on the forum
The forum discussion helps finalize the parameters for the temp check
Upon successful temp check, we go to the onchain vote

Getty from getty.gfxlabs.eth

posted 2 years ago

Thank you, I'm glad you think it is a good initiative.

Quoted from kpk

106

Thank you, I'm glad you think it is a good initiative.

Quoted from kpk

jump to post →

Sure, the requestor can always ask for a different amount. My goal for this onboarding package is to set a standard to deploy easily, but amendments can always be made with delegates' support.

Quoted from kpk

jump to post →

Quoted from kpk

To mitigate spam or any misuse of funds, we suggest a pre-defined list of pools that would be valuable in attracting liquidity for Uniswap ahead of time.

jump to post →

kpk from governance.kpk.eth

20.1K TOKEN

posted 2 years ago

Incentive Amounts

Management of Requests

Quoted from Getty

So, it will be key that delegates decide which chains make sense to deploy this onboarding package and which do not.

jump to post →

Distribution of Funds

Getty from getty.gfxlabs.eth

posted 2 years ago

GM. Thanks for the quick reply.

I agree it's important for the process to be open. I welcome anyone in the ecosystem to post other avenues for delegates to consider for both the frontend or the reward system.

101

GM. Thanks for the quick reply.

I agree it's important for the process to be open. I welcome anyone in the ecosystem to post other avenues for delegates to consider for both the frontend or the reward system.

For the pools to direct incentives toward, ETH-USDC 0.30%, WBTC-USDC 0.30%, and USDC-USDT 0.01% would be the three anchor pools; then, a fourth pool could be considered if there is a popular chain-specific asset. For example, if we were to deploy this program on Polygon, a MATIC-USDC pair would be a good idea. Generally, we should stick with blue chips.

Getty from getty.gfxlabs.eth

posted 2 years ago

@kfx, thanks for the support.

109

@kfx, thanks for the support.

It's also worth noting that other projects on the new chain looking for a liquidity incentive management system could use Merkl and Uniswap v3.

If there is a particular avenue you think should be explored, feel free to post it here.

Thanks for the writeup @getty! Some more thoughts.

I think it's important to everyone to see that the options we select for the package are the best available options at the moment, not because of personal ties to delegates or other reasons. You have put forward a clear rationale why Oku and the Merkl protocol are good options suitable for the task. What would make most sense to me is to invite anyone to come forward with any alternatives they offer / could support with votes (perhaps in this thread itself). If there are alternatives, we vote for them. If there are not, we go with Oku & Merkl protocol.

Re: compensation. Would the 20k+10k EUR fee be additional to the 3% cut Merkl takes from the rewards? If the DAO distributes $1M rewards on a chain then Merkl already gets $30k in fees, which already sounds like a reasonable compensation for their integration efforts, which I imagine aren't too extensive?

Re: pools to incentivize. Maybe leave the exact pools to the chain itself, as well as the reward distribution settings. (Merkl needs to be told the % of rewards proportional to the fees collected / % for token0 in the pool / % for token1.) The DAO could put some only basic constraints, like that no more than 20% of the incentivizes should be spent on small-cap token pools, to avoid any shenanigans where they spend all of it to pump their own token.

Re: amounts. I'm not going to unconditionally support e.g. $1M for any chain. It's not super hard to set up you own rollup already now, and it's getting easier by the day. There will be many low-effort L2 and L3 popping up. The reward amount could be tied with some KPI the chain has to hit, either a minimum TVL upfront, or some minimum growth during the program, for a tiered distribution. On the opposite side, distributing even $1M on Arbitrum will be a drop in the bucket; IMO better to aim this incentive package to newer chains and go for dedicated grants on these larger chains, looking for external incentives to attract.

Also, should we allocate some initial budget for the program, like $10M, allocate it on first-come-first-serve basis, and then re-evaluate the results?

105

Getty from getty.gfxlabs.eth

posted 2 years ago

Thank you everyone for the support. Seems like this idea has some legs!

@TimeRows Uniswap did create the Uniswap v3 Staker Contract, but I don't believe it has been used by the DAO before. We need something that can quickly go to new chains and low-friction for users and developers. I will do more research on options, but I think Merkl, which is like a gen2 generalized rewards system for Uni v3, is probably our best bet. Their system doesn't require staking; it's proven, and they are already on some of the newer chains that would be good for deploying this onboarding package.

118

Thank you everyone for the support. Seems like this idea has some legs!

@0xkeyrock.eth I think for the purpose of this package, we should assume the chain doesn't have meaningful TVL or trading volume because the idea is to deploy this onboarding package at the chain launch or close to it. For example, Polygon zkEVM has a nascent DeFi ecosystem today, but that won't be the case in April. It would be ideal to deploy this package ASAP before it ramps up to secure Uniswap's position. Maybe there could be a follow-up package after this onboarding package that would be later developed for chains the DAO wants to further invest into.

@0xpibblez My goal is to create a package that is as concise and objective as possible to minimize the human management required. That said, we'll likely need a multisig to do the off-kick transactions that start incentives on new deployments, but once started, the ongoing work should be non-existent. Perhaps the Accountability Committee can assume that role or one of the other existing multisigs.

@Jl_Defiedge Yeah, I think Merkl is a good option. I'm going to do more research as well.

@Frisson Good call out on Arbitrum. Maybe the UADP can take the lead there. cc @Juanbug @AbdullahUmar

@BlockAdopter Great point. I'll reach out.

@Figu3 Uniswap v4 (by my guess) is 3-8 months away. Let's use that time to secure Uniswap a solid position at emerging chains before v2/v3 clones secure their first mover advantages so that when v4 is ready, we'll be in a great spot to roll it out across the ecosystem.

Thanks for the writeup @getty! Some more thoughts.

Also, should we allocate some initial budget for the program, like $10M, allocate it on first-come-first-serve basis, and then re-evaluate the results?

105

Getty from getty.gfxlabs.eth

posted 2 years ago

Thank you everyone for the support. Seems like this idea has some legs!

118

Thank you everyone for the support. Seems like this idea has some legs!

@Jl_Defiedge Yeah, I think Merkl is a good option. I'm going to do more research as well.

@Frisson Good call out on Arbitrum. Maybe the UADP can take the lead there. cc @Juanbug @AbdullahUmar

@BlockAdopter Great point. I'll reach out.

[Temp] Uni Onboarding Package - Scroll

[Temp] Uni Onboarding Package - Scroll

[Temp] Uni Onboarding Package - Scroll

[Temp] Uni Onboarding Package - Scroll

[Temp] Uni Onboarding Package - Scroll

[Temp] Uni Onboarding Package - Scroll

[Temp] Uni Onboarding Package - Scroll

[Temp] Uni Onboarding Package - Scroll

[Temp] Uni Onboarding Package - Scroll

[Temp] Uni Onboarding Package - Scroll

[Temp] Uni Onboarding Package - Scroll

[Temp] Uni Onboarding Package - Scroll

Incentive Amounts

Incentive Amounts

Management of Requests

Distribution of Funds

Uniswap v3 Onboarding Package Incentives

Incentive Amounts

Incentive Amounts

Management of Requests

Distribution of Funds

Uniswap v3 Onboarding Package Incentives