IIP-67: Delegate UNI to Flipside for Community-Enabled Analytics

@Pepperoni_Joe Per our conversation on the Org call, let’s run as an IIP. And can you assign a number?

1 Like

Awesome – just in case @Pepperoni_Joe needs details on timing, from Flipside’s perspective it would be great to get this up Monday, August 9. Thanks @fallow8 :slight_smile:

1 Like

Just noticed this went up for snapshot vote: Snapshot

This is a bit surprising as there were a number of questions shared on the Wednesday Org call that remain open*

@fallow8 is it intentional for this vote to begin on Monday? I am asking b/c it doesn’t appear that you personally called for the vote to being Monday [EDITs made for clarity]

Yes, we should move forward on Monday.

In my view, the open questions are on how we handle third-party requests for delegation in the future. I think that should include a written request and a Gold Owl/WGL/Full-time Contributor sponsor. In the absence of formal guidelines, I think we should press forward with Flipside’s request and consider this the minimum. I’m happy to answer further questions and I know @catjam has offered that as well.

1 Like

can we get the specific amount of UNI being delegated clarified @fallow8 @metfanmike. I presume its all or nothing, but would like to have that spelled out instead of TBD.

Hi @fallow8 - I have now numbered this as IIP-67.

I think @oneski22 raises a good point and it would be great if you could provide more detail on the specific amount of UNI to be delegated.

It would also be good to define some high-level next steps so the community can understand what will happen if this proposal is passed?

Once these questions are resolved we can put this proposal through Snapshot.

Hi @oneski22 and @Pepperoni_Joe - Dave here from Flipside.

Thanks to everyone for taking the time to discuss and consider the opportunity.

The total delegation required to submit a proposal is 2.5M. We already have about 1M committed, so we’d be seeking 1.5M of delegation for submission.

Happy to answer any other questions as needed.


@flipdave will provide a little more detail around the logistical steps of delegation, but after the vote I was intending to coordinate with those who had managed this before within the Coop to handle the delegation and return. After Dave sounds off, let us know what degree of specificity is needed prior to the IIP.

1 Like


  • In order to formally delegate the UNI, you must go to the following link

  • Connect to the site using a Web3 wallet such as Metamask. [Cold storage solutions (eg Ledger or Trezor) will work, as well]

  • After connecting, there will be an option to “unlock voting” that appears on the center of the page for the wallet address holding the UNI.

  • Click on this button and then choose “add delegate.” We will provide the address directly when ready.

  • Select “delegate votes”. Simply confirm the transaction and it’s done.

  • After the transaction clears, you will see a “delegated to” address at the top of the Uniswap UI, with the amounts voted above that. This confirms that the delegation is complete.

  • Following the formal governance proposal, simply connect your wallet to the Uniswap UI again and click “edit” to delegate the tokens back to yourself (or elsewhere).

Thanks for the quick follow-up @flipdave and @fallow8.

Those responses address all of my questions and so I have queued this vote on snapshot to go live August 9th at 6pm UTC.



can you provide the address now?

typically we have an address upfront, i.e.

The incentives on this grant request are quite misaligned, and it received significant negative feedback in the forum.

The “profit creation” part is a bit of a boondoggle, and eliminates long run accountability. There is not a good reason $25M must be granted outright IF the goal is to provide low six figure amounts in bounties. What happens to the $25M grant when the initiative is finished running its course is not discussed.

In addition the seemingly amazing “99.97% approval” on temp check is really just jesse walden voting 8,000,000 UNI in favor of this proposal and only 12,000 other UNI voting. And while i like jesse and appreciate his contributions to the space, his support, by itself, does not signal that this decision will have consensus.

Index Coop must establish reputation for good metagovernance, which means avoiding proposals that may later be viewed as pork barrel politics. we should not be getting involved in potentially controversial high dollar grant requests with limited accountability. If uniswap VCs want this to happen, then it will of course happen, but i suggest we let them push this thru.


Hi greg, the address is: 0x52886bd557Eb46b70949D7C857230d6a32F6D119

1 Like

@scott_lew_is thanks for the thoughtful feedback here. It’s truly appreciated.

I’m not sure we’d agree with the perspective of significant negative feedback; there were some questions as there should be - it is certainly not the simplest of proposals - yet compared to some of the charged discourse related to current proposals (ie: liquidity mining, lobby grant) I’d say the feedback is light at best.

The request on accountability is a great one. The proposal includes an Oversight Commitee, with the majority of participants not affiliated with the program. Individuals will be well known to the community - they will be named in the final proposal. Their sole role is to ensure the funds are delivering value (or…the yield from the funds as the original funds will be maintained as whole); in the event they aren’t, the funds return to the governance process for re-assignment to other purposes. We believe this sets the foundation for effective management of funds; currently there are limited checks and balances on proposals and funds in the market. We can all do better on this front and we’re excited to set a new foundation for returning funds to the treasury as needed.

I hear you on pork barrel politics. The whole process of governance these days are still very political which is also something that we are hopeful will evolve over time. We are attempting - maybe insanely - to avoid leaning on the VCs to make this a reality for the ecosystem. Thus the relationship with Index and others to allow for the submission (not the actual vote).

Finally, it would be shortsighted for me to not highlight the value this program proposes. We received a pilot grant from UGP and that delivered the Uniswapv3 Fee Calculator [18,000 unique users, 2,000 new adds to Uniswap Liquidity Pools since mid-may]. More analytics like this enables valuable understanding of how to utilize Uniswap.

The pilot program drove 77% retention of the bounties delivered - that’s vs. 27% retention of assets from the UNI airdrop in 2020. 69% of the users in this program had never held UNI before > net this helps drive new community growth. At scale this program can continue to enable Uniswap to grow and thrive, which is the aligned goal of all parties.

Our request is to have Index delegate so we can submit. Not to support the vote or otherwise. I would hope Index community would be supportive of getting this live so the Uniswap community can dialogue and determine whether to support via an official vote.

Again, super appreciative of your input and happy to discuss further as you’d like.


Hi @Pepperoni_Joe I think that link is returning a null outcome.

Is this the correct link now? Snapshot

Link is here

Voting is now live.

1 Like

I generally agree with @scott_lew_is 's comments.

Just to confirm - when we say “Index Coop controlled UNI tokens”, are we referring to the UNI that’s held in the DPI contract, or are we referring to UNI that the Index Treasury controls, e.g. through Treasury-controlled DPI?

It’s one thing if we’re using INDEX votes to delegate UNI that our treasury controls, and quite another to use INDEX to delegate UNI that our users have entrusted us with in our index products. In general, index products have a premise of neutrality, whereas this proposal is extremely non-neutral.

I actually find it generally uncomfortable to conduct metagovernance with tokens that we don’t actually own. Theoretically, our users are the ones who own the governance tokens, just wrapped up in a neat bundle.

IMO, the right way to do metagovernance for assets that are under our management is to pass the voting power directly back to the users who own the DPI, or the MVI, or whatever. The pass-through of governance ability is something that’s not possible in TradFi, and so tradfi fund managers wield outsize voting power, but it is possible in DeFi. This kind of neutrality is something we should aspire to, and I would prefer that we do not make a centralized power grab for the voting power that is not rightfully ours.

Obviously if we’re only delegating UNI tokens in the Index Coop treasury, that’s a whole 'nother thing entirely and i’m totally for that.


I believe it’s “UNI that’s held in the DPI contract”

[EDIT] Tagging @fallow8 and @Metfanmike in case I’m totally wrong about that


@gregdocter @Pepperoni_Joe With the IIP passage, who in the Coop can help execute the delegation?

Edit: Disregard. Found coverage here.

1 Like

Noting here that Flipside have confirmed that they will not be seeking any further action in relation to this IIP. Additional discussion/context here.

cc: @fallow8 @sixtykeys