Hey @jonsnow, thanks for this! Great to hear your concerns and see your thinking.

That said, it’s not clear to me how a (hypothetical) hack of Voltz would cause rational actors to sell off 10-20% of Uni without first checking the underlying cause of the exploit. In addition, if a hack were to occur then the likelihood of it being caused by Uni’s codebase (before digging into the details) is only around 5% given that only c.5% of our code is like-for-like from v3, with another c.15% refactored to make it work for interest rate swaps / our model. So it feels like the downside risk to Uniswap is extremely low.

But when looking at the upside, it’s worth adding that derivative trading volumes tend to be orders of magnitude higher than spot volumes. So if Voltz has the potential to be worth 1bn, then arguably we’d have found product-market-fit and have the potential to be worth $20-100bn, meaning the “opportunity” is heavily skewed to the upside for the Uni community. That’s before accounting for all the additional second-order benefits of helping the whole ecosystem grow and what that means to Uniswap over the long-term.

Hi @eek637 @tobyshorin, we really like the suggestions here! From a Voltz perspective we'd be supportive of this proposal - we'd be keen to ensure the Uni-Voltz relationship is successful and the Uniswap community has an effective mechanism to vote in Voltz governance decisions. Though we appreciate the mechanism used is ultimately a Uniswap governance decision. We’d also be supportive of this taking place in the build up to the Voltz Token Generation Event - though again appreciate this is a decision for the Uni community.

To respond to your comment about the Temperature Check snapshot on our Additional Use Grant proposal. It was great to talk to the Uniswap community on Wednesday - off the back of that conversation we'll be looking to start the Temperature Check next week.

We’ve also reached out to the Uniswap Labs team to clarify their interpretation of the language that will need to be used at v3-core-license-grants.uniswap.eth. In the event there is a successful Temperature Check vote, we (Voltz) will suggest this language to Uniswap governance in advance of the Consensus Check.

Any comments or thoughts in the meantime, we’d look forward to responding to. Otherwise, we’re excited to make this happen!

⚡️🦄

I am in favor of having a framework like the one you have proposed to get the full scope of how this allocation will function beyond just approving it to the treasury, and also making sure that the license is used appropriately.

A few questions of clarity on your proposal:

• The total amount of voting power in Voltz governance is delegated equally to each individual. In this format each individual has 1/3 of voting power. (We are opting not to use a multisig for flexibility).

Can you expand a bit more on technicals of how this would work? The Voltz tokens would be in the Uniswap treasury; so would the tokens have to be split into three address within the treasury in order for the community to set each delegate to each committee member? The Voltz allocation would not be leaving the treasury to any committee member controlled address correct?

• The Uniswap Voltz Committee is a paid position, compensated with $1,200 per person, per quarter, denominated in equal parts UNI and Voltz tokens. Members of the committee will hold one-year terms that must be renewed by Uniswap governance annually, beginning on the date of delegation.

Are the Voltz coming out of the 1% allocated to Uniswap treasury or is this payed by Voltz treasury to the comittee members? Since Uniswap is paying the committee from its treasury, should Voltz also pay this fee outside of the 1% allocation?

Voltz governance is not live yet, so we intend to put together a proper temperature check for this proposal closer to the date of Voltz’s token launch that will incorporate any feedback collected here.

Is this a Proposal Merge? Would this new temperature check be a combination of the "Other Internet and Avantgarde" proposal outline which sets a precident for future license grants and Voltz (i.e. Other Internet/Avantgarde: Voltz V3 Additional Use Grant Proposal)? A merger of two proposals into one to then be put up for an eventual vote?

Hey @jonsnow, thanks for this! Great to hear your concerns and see your thinking.

That said, it’s not clear to me how a (hypothetical) hack of Voltz would cause rational actors to sell off 10-20% of Uni without first checking the underlying cause of the exploit. In addition, if a hack were to occur then the likelihood of it being caused by Uni’s codebase (before digging into the details) is only around 5% given that only c.5% of our code is like-for-like from v3, with another c.15% refactored to make it work for interest rate swaps / our model. So it feels like the downside risk to Uniswap is extremely low.

But when looking at the upside, it’s worth adding that derivative trading volumes tend to be orders of magnitude higher than spot volumes. So if Voltz has the potential to be worth 1bn, then arguably we’d have found product-market-fit and have the potential to be worth $20-100bn, meaning the “opportunity” is heavily skewed to the upside for the Uni community. That’s before accounting for all the additional second-order benefits of helping the whole ecosystem grow and what that means to Uniswap over the long-term.

Hi @eek637 @tobyshorin, we really like the suggestions here! From a Voltz perspective we'd be supportive of this proposal - we'd be keen to ensure the Uni-Voltz relationship is successful and the Uniswap community has an effective mechanism to vote in Voltz governance decisions. Though we appreciate the mechanism used is ultimately a Uniswap governance decision. We’d also be supportive of this taking place in the build up to the Voltz Token Generation Event - though again appreciate this is a decision for the Uni community.

To respond to your comment about the Temperature Check snapshot on our Additional Use Grant proposal. It was great to talk to the Uniswap community on Wednesday - off the back of that conversation we'll be looking to start the Temperature Check next week.

We’ve also reached out to the Uniswap Labs team to clarify their interpretation of the language that will need to be used at v3-core-license-grants.uniswap.eth. In the event there is a successful Temperature Check vote, we (Voltz) will suggest this language to Uniswap governance in advance of the Consensus Check.

Any comments or thoughts in the meantime, we’d look forward to responding to. Otherwise, we’re excited to make this happen!

⚡️🦄

I am in favor of having a framework like the one you have proposed to get the full scope of how this allocation will function beyond just approving it to the treasury, and also making sure that the license is used appropriately.

A few questions of clarity on your proposal:

• The total amount of voting power in Voltz governance is delegated equally to each individual. In this format each individual has 1/3 of voting power. (We are opting not to use a multisig for flexibility).

Can you expand a bit more on technicals of how this would work? The Voltz tokens would be in the Uniswap treasury; so would the tokens have to be split into three address within the treasury in order for the community to set each delegate to each committee member? The Voltz allocation would not be leaving the treasury to any committee member controlled address correct?

• The Uniswap Voltz Committee is a paid position, compensated with $1,200 per person, per quarter, denominated in equal parts UNI and Voltz tokens. Members of the committee will hold one-year terms that must be renewed by Uniswap governance annually, beginning on the date of delegation.

Are the Voltz coming out of the 1% allocated to Uniswap treasury or is this payed by Voltz treasury to the comittee members? Since Uniswap is paying the committee from its treasury, should Voltz also pay this fee outside of the 1% allocation?

Voltz governance is not live yet, so we intend to put together a proper temperature check for this proposal closer to the date of Voltz’s token launch that will incorporate any feedback collected here.

Is this a Proposal Merge? Would this new temperature check be a combination of the "Other Internet and Avantgarde" proposal outline which sets a precident for future license grants and Voltz (i.e. Other Internet/Avantgarde: Voltz V3 Additional Use Grant Proposal)? A merger of two proposals into one to then be put up for an eventual vote?

Hey @tobyshorin. Great to see your support for the proposal :D

Will be awesome to host a discussion on the Uniswap Discord community call. Let us know the best way to set this up / intro us to Boris!

On the governance point - I’ve just replied to Erin above on how we’ll go about deciding which mechanism we use. However, the delegation point sounds sensible and we’d be more than happy to allow Uniswap Governance to do this should you wish to.

Hey @eek637 sorry didn’t mean for your first message to not get replied to! Great to see your support and appreciate the detail on your understanding of the license!

On the governance mechanism for VoltzDAO - this hasn’t been finalised yet, but what we do end up implementing will clearly be in the best interest of the community (which, if this proposal is approved, Uniswap governance would then be a part of). It’s worth adding that we take a research-first approach to everything we do. So, until we complete the research, I can’t confirm the exact mechanism we’ll use.

It is worth adding that Voltz transition to a DAO will be incremental, meaning Voltz protocol will go through the process of progressive decentralisation. We’ll likely make our research on the governance mechanics open source at the point we start transitioning Voltz to a DAO to ensure we collect sufficient feedback from our community.

Appreciate you may have a few Q off the back of this answer?

Hey @tobyshorin. Great to see your support for the proposal :D

Will be awesome to host a discussion on the Uniswap Discord community call. Let us know the best way to set this up / intro us to Boris!

On the governance point - I’ve just replied to Erin above on how we’ll go about deciding which mechanism we use. However, the delegation point sounds sensible and we’d be more than happy to allow Uniswap Governance to do this should you wish to.

Hey @eek637 sorry didn’t mean for your first message to not get replied to! Great to see your support and appreciate the detail on your understanding of the license!

On the governance mechanism for VoltzDAO - this hasn’t been finalised yet, but what we do end up implementing will clearly be in the best interest of the community (which, if this proposal is approved, Uniswap governance would then be a part of). It’s worth adding that we take a research-first approach to everything we do. So, until we complete the research, I can’t confirm the exact mechanism we’ll use.

It is worth adding that Voltz transition to a DAO will be incremental, meaning Voltz protocol will go through the process of progressive decentralisation. We’ll likely make our research on the governance mechanics open source at the point we start transitioning Voltz to a DAO to ensure we collect sufficient feedback from our community.

Appreciate you may have a few Q off the back of this answer?

Great to hear you're supportive of the proposal! :D

On your questions:

Additional Use Grant No we haven't ever received a grant from Uniswap. Instead, our understanding is that Voltz needs what's described as an "Additional Use Grant" from Uniswap Governance to use the v3 code. According to the License, this then needs to be listed at v3-core-license-grants.uniswap.eth (as shown here). But happy to be corrected if we've misunderstood something!

Tokens Yes that's right - we're not asking for any UNI token's. Instead we're proposing we provide Uniswap with 1% of Voltz's future tokens for the Additional Use Grant

Just some initial thoughts off the top of my head for the 1% fee.

If I hypothetically value Voltz in the future at 1 billion dollars market capital, then the license fee for V3 license and additional value to the Uniswap Treasury is around 10 million dollars. This 10 million as a fee seems pretty good to me as it equates to a 3 cent EPT (earning per token, 290k holders~ /10million) for very low engagement other than the initial vote.

However, the 1% stake in Voltz might not be enough at stake for UNI governance to actively engage participants around Voltz DAO proposals in the future. This is a bigger unknown with DAO voting on other DAO's and how to incentives participation. The 1% is good for just the narrow scope of the V3 Additional Use Grant, with future incentive for UNI treasury/ or UNI holder's to engage in active participation in the Voltz Governance.

Also, Thank you for answering my questions on the Additional Use Grant. I am not familar with how it is suppose to be used. Your research look like it is the right interpretation.

From a Voltz perspective, we were keen to put a "stake in the ground" with something we felt was attractive for the Uni community that also recognised the R&D that had gone into v3.

When considered alongside the non-financial benefits to Uni and the sector as a whole, plus the fact the Voltz model is completely unique except for the concentrated liquidity logic, we felt 1% was directionally correct.

But we were keen to initiate conversations off the back of our proposal - so curious to hear your thoughts too?

We recognise the significant R&D that went into v3. As a result, we would like to offer the Uniswap Treasury 1% of Voltz’s future token supply.

A great way to set a precedent on cooperative interactions between DAO's!

The proposal is straight forward, it does not ask for any Uni Funds, rather it is providing a symbiotic association through the acknowledgement of Uniswap's innovation and effort.

1. Interest Rate Swaps are a core pillar of well-functioning financial systems. By supporting Voltz, Uniswap is helping create a fundamental DeFi primitive, which will ultimately help fuel the growth of the entire sector. This will benefit everyone wanting decentralised finance to become the future financial system for billions of people around the world.

I am not familar with how Intrest Rate Swap's work, but it is something I would be intrested in learning more about.

Our Proposal

We recognise the significant R&D that went into developing the concentrated liquidity logic used within Uniswap v3. Therefore, we would like to offer the Uniswap Treasury 1% of Voltz’s future token supply for the Additional Use Grant. Voltz Tokens will be provided to Uniswap Treasury following the Voltz Token Generation Event.

Have you recieved a Uniswap's Grant in the past, or is the name Additional Use Grant a new term relating to using the V3 code in a novel way?

Also just to clarify: this proposal is not asking for any UNI token transfer, rather it is looking to distribute an allocation to the Uniswap Treasury for use of the V3 code?

I like the direction of the proposal, and I am in support of a Additonal Use Grant Model.

Great to hear you're supportive of the proposal! :D

On your questions:

Additional Use Grant No we haven't ever received a grant from Uniswap. Instead, our understanding is that Voltz needs what's described as an "Additional Use Grant" from Uniswap Governance to use the v3 code. According to the License, this then needs to be listed at v3-core-license-grants.uniswap.eth (as shown here). But happy to be corrected if we've misunderstood something!

Tokens Yes that's right - we're not asking for any UNI token's. Instead we're proposing we provide Uniswap with 1% of Voltz's future tokens for the Additional Use Grant

Just some initial thoughts off the top of my head for the 1% fee.

If I hypothetically value Voltz in the future at 1 billion dollars market capital, then the license fee for V3 license and additional value to the Uniswap Treasury is around 10 million dollars. This 10 million as a fee seems pretty good to me as it equates to a 3 cent EPT (earning per token, 290k holders~ /10million) for very low engagement other than the initial vote.

However, the 1% stake in Voltz might not be enough at stake for UNI governance to actively engage participants around Voltz DAO proposals in the future. This is a bigger unknown with DAO voting on other DAO's and how to incentives participation. The 1% is good for just the narrow scope of the V3 Additional Use Grant, with future incentive for UNI treasury/ or UNI holder's to engage in active participation in the Voltz Governance.

Also, Thank you for answering my questions on the Additional Use Grant. I am not familar with how it is suppose to be used. Your research look like it is the right interpretation.

From a Voltz perspective, we were keen to put a "stake in the ground" with something we felt was attractive for the Uni community that also recognised the R&D that had gone into v3.

When considered alongside the non-financial benefits to Uni and the sector as a whole, plus the fact the Voltz model is completely unique except for the concentrated liquidity logic, we felt 1% was directionally correct.

But we were keen to initiate conversations off the back of our proposal - so curious to hear your thoughts too?

We recognise the significant R&D that went into v3. As a result, we would like to offer the Uniswap Treasury 1% of Voltz’s future token supply.

A great way to set a precedent on cooperative interactions between DAO's!

The proposal is straight forward, it does not ask for any Uni Funds, rather it is providing a symbiotic association through the acknowledgement of Uniswap's innovation and effort.

1. Interest Rate Swaps are a core pillar of well-functioning financial systems. By supporting Voltz, Uniswap is helping create a fundamental DeFi primitive, which will ultimately help fuel the growth of the entire sector. This will benefit everyone wanting decentralised finance to become the future financial system for billions of people around the world.

I am not familar with how Intrest Rate Swap's work, but it is something I would be intrested in learning more about.

Our Proposal

We recognise the significant R&D that went into developing the concentrated liquidity logic used within Uniswap v3. Therefore, we would like to offer the Uniswap Treasury 1% of Voltz’s future token supply for the Additional Use Grant. Voltz Tokens will be provided to Uniswap Treasury following the Voltz Token Generation Event.

Have you recieved a Uniswap's Grant in the past, or is the name Additional Use Grant a new term relating to using the V3 code in a novel way?

Also just to clarify: this proposal is not asking for any UNI token transfer, rather it is looking to distribute an allocation to the Uniswap Treasury for use of the V3 code?

I like the direction of the proposal, and I am in support of a Additonal Use Grant Model.

Following up on the last conversation, this is Other Internet and Avantgarde Finance’s proposal for how a future Uniswap-Voltz relationship might work.

Authors: Toby Shorin (tobyshorin), Bryan Lehrer (bryanlehrer), Erin Koen (eek637)

What we’re solving for

We’re overall in support of Voltz’s proposal to license Uniswap V3 codebase. However, should the proposal pass, we want to ensure there are proper governance structures in place to ensure the success of the relationship between these two communities.

In proposing such a framework, our goal is to ensure that the governance rights that come along with the token grant are 1) in fact used and 2) that their use does not come at a cost to Uniswap’s own governance.

Instances of the first concern are obvious and widespread. Voter fatigue and lack of governance participation on important issues is a common criticism of tokenholder voting. When those issues are related to a different protocol altogether, it’s reasonable to expect participation to drop even further, and we’ve seen instances such as Index Coop’s metagovernance where this is the case. They have taken similar steps to what we are proposing here, and have empowered a small group to vote on issues when token holders do not reach a quorum.

The second concern is a bit less common but potentially more destructive. We have found that when a significant amount of Project A token and voting power is granted from to Project B, it is costly to use regular tokenholder voting to determine actions taken with those tokens. For example, in May 2021, a significant portion of the AKITA token supply was donated to the brand new GitcoinDAO treasury by Vitalik. Without a plan for how to handle this, the entire Gitcoin steward community got embroiled in discussion over how to handle the tokens, hijacking the governance process and leading to steward churn.

We suggest that Voltz and Uniswap will have a more successful relationship if Voltz voting power is delegated to a small committee of Uniswap community members.

Proposed delegation committee

• Three individuals from the Unsiwap community are selected to represent Uniswap’s interests in Voltz governance votes. Let’s call this the Uniswap Voltz Committee.
• Committee members are selected through a process that includes 1) an open nomination process, 2) a brief interview to prevent sybil attacks, and 2) a snapshot to elect the three committee members.
• The total amount of voting power in Voltz governance is delegated equally to each individual. In this format each individual has 1/3 of voting power. (We are opting not to use a multisig for flexibility).
• The Uniswap Voltz Committee is a paid position, compensated with $1,200 per person, per quarter, denominated in equal parts UNI and Voltz tokens. Members of the committee will hold one-year terms that must be renewed by Uniswap governance annually, beginning on the date of delegation.
• Full responsibility for voting is delegated from the community to the Committee. To facilitate transparency in representation, a new thread on the Uniswap governance form should be created for the Committee to post updates when it conducts a vote. It may also solicit feedback from the community using that thread at its own discretion.

We believe this proposal will ensure the Uniswap community’s interests in Voltz are represented, while also de-risking the token allocation from Voltz’s perspective to ensure that there is a party responsible for the significant amount of voting power it is offering to Uniswap. Furthermore we believe that this framework can be reused for similar types of partnerships in the future where a licensing deal is struck in exchange for a percentage of the licensee’s governance tokens.

Next steps

We’d like to get feedback on this proposal in the thread below.

Voltz governance is not live yet, so we intend to put together a proper temperature check for this proposal closer to the date of Voltz’s token launch that will incorporate any feedback collected here.

Provided we sense support for this proposal, we’ll put forward a new comment or post with self-nomination guidelines for being part of the committee, and start a search process for members. People who are knowledgeable about tokenomics, have a broad understanding of the DeFi landscape and tokenized financial products, and prior governance experience (especially in Uniswap!) will be very well qualified. This will be a first-of-its kind committee, so it will be a great opportunity to gain governance experience and participate in a meaningful community partnership.

Looking forward to feedback on this.

I think this proposal is really interesting!

A few thoughts:

• Is 1% share of token supply appropriate compensation for use of the v3 codebase?

This is a completely new sort of deal, so there's not a lot of precedent to base the allocation from. It might be helpful for the Uniswap community to have some details about Voltz recent funding round(s) to get an idea of what 1% of token supply cost to your investors, as this would allow Uniswap to put a tentative dollar value on the license grant. This should help UNI holders make an informed opinion on whether 1% of supply is sufficient.

• Do you envision any restrictions on further use of the v3 codebase outside of the described rate swap AMM mechanism?

What I'm getting at here is, this deal will only work from Uniswap's perspective if we can be assured that you won't launch a competing general purpose concentrated liquidity AMM. Maybe this question should be directed at Uniswap Labs legal team - is it possible to grant a limited purpose exception to the license (just for IRS AMM) without opening up the risk of a full fork of Uniswap v3?

Appreciate any color you can give here! Both of the above concerns feel like they should be solvable, and I look forward to seeing how this proposal develops!

Yeah I was interested in token allocations to investors too, waiting on an answer above.

Re the 1% number, in chatting this through with @tobyshorin and bryan from Otherinternet last week, I sort of settled on thinking of the grant in similar terms as what you would pay to non-founding technical employee number 1 at a startup. In my experience and from my research, 0.50% / 3.00% is probably the range so 1% is defensible.

I'm not sure if that's right, but honestly I don't know that it matters all that much. In my view, the point of the license isn't to run a seed fund where Uniswap trades permission for token allocations. It's a forcing function to make sure that the code is used to better the defi ecosystem without diluting the value of Uniswap itself. To that end, your question about further restrictions is definitely important and it would be great to have someone from Labs weigh in about that issue in particular but also this proposal more generally.

Following up on the last conversation, this is Other Internet and Avantgarde Finance’s proposal for how a future Uniswap-Voltz relationship might work.

Authors: Toby Shorin (tobyshorin), Bryan Lehrer (bryanlehrer), Erin Koen (eek637)

What we’re solving for

We’re overall in support of Voltz’s proposal to license Uniswap V3 codebase. However, should the proposal pass, we want to ensure there are proper governance structures in place to ensure the success of the relationship between these two communities.

In proposing such a framework, our goal is to ensure that the governance rights that come along with the token grant are 1) in fact used and 2) that their use does not come at a cost to Uniswap’s own governance.

Instances of the first concern are obvious and widespread. Voter fatigue and lack of governance participation on important issues is a common criticism of tokenholder voting. When those issues are related to a different protocol altogether, it’s reasonable to expect participation to drop even further, and we’ve seen instances such as Index Coop’s metagovernance where this is the case. They have taken similar steps to what we are proposing here, and have empowered a small group to vote on issues when token holders do not reach a quorum.

The second concern is a bit less common but potentially more destructive. We have found that when a significant amount of Project A token and voting power is granted from to Project B, it is costly to use regular tokenholder voting to determine actions taken with those tokens. For example, in May 2021, a significant portion of the AKITA token supply was donated to the brand new GitcoinDAO treasury by Vitalik. Without a plan for how to handle this, the entire Gitcoin steward community got embroiled in discussion over how to handle the tokens, hijacking the governance process and leading to steward churn.

We suggest that Voltz and Uniswap will have a more successful relationship if Voltz voting power is delegated to a small committee of Uniswap community members.

Proposed delegation committee

• Three individuals from the Unsiwap community are selected to represent Uniswap’s interests in Voltz governance votes. Let’s call this the Uniswap Voltz Committee.
• Committee members are selected through a process that includes 1) an open nomination process, 2) a brief interview to prevent sybil attacks, and 2) a snapshot to elect the three committee members.
• The total amount of voting power in Voltz governance is delegated equally to each individual. In this format each individual has 1/3 of voting power. (We are opting not to use a multisig for flexibility).
• The Uniswap Voltz Committee is a paid position, compensated with $1,200 per person, per quarter, denominated in equal parts UNI and Voltz tokens. Members of the committee will hold one-year terms that must be renewed by Uniswap governance annually, beginning on the date of delegation.
• Full responsibility for voting is delegated from the community to the Committee. To facilitate transparency in representation, a new thread on the Uniswap governance form should be created for the Committee to post updates when it conducts a vote. It may also solicit feedback from the community using that thread at its own discretion.

We believe this proposal will ensure the Uniswap community’s interests in Voltz are represented, while also de-risking the token allocation from Voltz’s perspective to ensure that there is a party responsible for the significant amount of voting power it is offering to Uniswap. Furthermore we believe that this framework can be reused for similar types of partnerships in the future where a licensing deal is struck in exchange for a percentage of the licensee’s governance tokens.

Next steps

We’d like to get feedback on this proposal in the thread below.

Voltz governance is not live yet, so we intend to put together a proper temperature check for this proposal closer to the date of Voltz’s token launch that will incorporate any feedback collected here.

Provided we sense support for this proposal, we’ll put forward a new comment or post with self-nomination guidelines for being part of the committee, and start a search process for members. People who are knowledgeable about tokenomics, have a broad understanding of the DeFi landscape and tokenized financial products, and prior governance experience (especially in Uniswap!) will be very well qualified. This will be a first-of-its kind committee, so it will be a great opportunity to gain governance experience and participate in a meaningful community partnership.

Looking forward to feedback on this.

I think this proposal is really interesting!

A few thoughts:

• Is 1% share of token supply appropriate compensation for use of the v3 codebase?

This is a completely new sort of deal, so there's not a lot of precedent to base the allocation from. It might be helpful for the Uniswap community to have some details about Voltz recent funding round(s) to get an idea of what 1% of token supply cost to your investors, as this would allow Uniswap to put a tentative dollar value on the license grant. This should help UNI holders make an informed opinion on whether 1% of supply is sufficient.

• Do you envision any restrictions on further use of the v3 codebase outside of the described rate swap AMM mechanism?

What I'm getting at here is, this deal will only work from Uniswap's perspective if we can be assured that you won't launch a competing general purpose concentrated liquidity AMM. Maybe this question should be directed at Uniswap Labs legal team - is it possible to grant a limited purpose exception to the license (just for IRS AMM) without opening up the risk of a full fork of Uniswap v3?

Appreciate any color you can give here! Both of the above concerns feel like they should be solvable, and I look forward to seeing how this proposal develops!

Yeah I was interested in token allocations to investors too, waiting on an answer above.

Re the 1% number, in chatting this through with @tobyshorin and bryan from Otherinternet last week, I sort of settled on thinking of the grant in similar terms as what you would pay to non-founding technical employee number 1 at a startup. In my experience and from my research, 0.50% / 3.00% is probably the range so 1% is defensible.

I'm not sure if that's right, but honestly I don't know that it matters all that much. In my view, the point of the license isn't to run a seed fund where Uniswap trades permission for token allocations. It's a forcing function to make sure that the code is used to better the defi ecosystem without diluting the value of Uniswap itself. To that end, your question about further restrictions is definitely important and it would be great to have someone from Labs weigh in about that issue in particular but also this proposal more generally.

I’m Erin from Avantgarde Finance. We have done the majority of the dev work on Enzyme Finance, where among other things we have built integrations that allow Enzyme vault managers to trade and provide liquidity on both v2 and v3 of Uniswap. We are generally supportive of this proposal and the precedent it sets.

The Business Source License was implemented in Uniswap v3 to protect the Core codebase and allow for the Uniswap community to build an ecosystem around it (according to the blog post anyway, we weren’t in the strategy conversations) without having to fend off another vampire attack. Importantly, the post goes on to mention that “Uniswap governance can ... grant exemptions to the license at any time...”.

In our opinion, we should not interpret the protection this license confers not as “no one can build on the core codebase except Uniswap Labs” but rather “no one can build on the Core codebase except members of the Uniswap community as decided by Uniswap governance”.

Granting the Uniswap treasury a meaningful portion of the Voltz token supply provides at the very least an economic alignment of the two protocols that we think is a meaningful signal that Voltz fits the bill as a community member. And given that

Voltz Protocol will be managed by the VoltzDAO

the grant presumably enables Uniswap to have a say in how Voltz grows. That said, we’d be interested to know what governance mechanisms you’ll be using @simonj?

This is definitely an interesting additional use case. I had joined the Voltz Discord and asked about how Voltz AMM will interact with Uni-v3, but unfortunately I was not able to join the AMA that included this question (waiting for the post-AMA answer/update post to come out). I guess this post here somewhat answers the high-level question, though I am still very curious and interested in the details in implementation.

Also, one more question – what license will the Voltz AMM code fall under?

Thanks.

I’m Erin from Avantgarde Finance. We have done the majority of the dev work on Enzyme Finance, where among other things we have built integrations that allow Enzyme vault managers to trade and provide liquidity on both v2 and v3 of Uniswap. We are generally supportive of this proposal and the precedent it sets.

The Business Source License was implemented in Uniswap v3 to protect the Core codebase and allow for the Uniswap community to build an ecosystem around it (according to the blog post anyway, we weren’t in the strategy conversations) without having to fend off another vampire attack. Importantly, the post goes on to mention that “Uniswap governance can ... grant exemptions to the license at any time...”.

In our opinion, we should not interpret the protection this license confers not as “no one can build on the core codebase except Uniswap Labs” but rather “no one can build on the Core codebase except members of the Uniswap community as decided by Uniswap governance”.

Granting the Uniswap treasury a meaningful portion of the Voltz token supply provides at the very least an economic alignment of the two protocols that we think is a meaningful signal that Voltz fits the bill as a community member. And given that

Voltz Protocol will be managed by the VoltzDAO

the grant presumably enables Uniswap to have a say in how Voltz grows. That said, we’d be interested to know what governance mechanisms you’ll be using @simonj?

This is definitely an interesting additional use case. I had joined the Voltz Discord and asked about how Voltz AMM will interact with Uni-v3, but unfortunately I was not able to join the AMA that included this question (waiting for the post-AMA answer/update post to come out). I guess this post here somewhat answers the high-level question, though I am still very curious and interested in the details in implementation.

Also, one more question – what license will the Voltz AMM code fall under?

Thanks.