logo
ENS Avatar
0xaa...0bcd
Voting power406.6K
Delegated addresses29
Proposals created0
For/Against/Abstain
3834

Delegate Statement

Platform: Evidence-based approach in making Uniswap governance decisions.

Voting history and up-to-date delegate platform: at Uniswap's governance forum.

Original delegate statement:

Next year: One key issue is the fee switch. I'd vote against turning on fee switch at this point (Q2 2023), as the stakes are high, and many unresolved issues remain. I expect to see careful, but clear progress here. Ideally I'd like to see more supporting evidence collected and presented before making any specific decisions. Following that, I'd expect to see an iterative process with initial deployments on L2 chains (lower-risk), and keeping the future options open depending on the results.

I'd also like to see some experimentation in meta-governance, giving more power to smaller delegates (using e.g. gitcoin passports for sybil resistance). The goal is to increase decentralization, in this way becoming more resistant against regulatory actions and the capture of "special interests".

My reasons: I'm interested in the Uniswap protocol, see the protocol and it's ecosystem as among the most important in crypto, and want to bring alternative viewpoints to Uniswap governance.

I believe that research perspective is important for other groups (builders, LPs, traders, tokenholders). For one, I'm keeping up to date with academic papers published in the field, and expect that to illuminate my take on governance decisions. This includes being aware of the open research questions about the Uniswap protocol, in particular about the profitability of LPs and potential protocol improvements for their benefit. The LP perspective is critical and needs more thought before making any final decisions on the fee switch. Moreover, answering such questions is required to build sustainable foundations for DeFi, with the assumption of rational actors. I see myself collaborating closely with the Uniswap Foundation on e.g. proposing specific grants.

Skills: Scientific research: I'm a professional researcher with a good track record in my area, which demonstrates the ability to understand and analyze complex questions using evidence-based approaches. Governance experience: I'm the chairman of the scientific council in my research institute. The council formally governs this organization with 100+ employees. Technical: I'm deeply familiar with the technical aspects of Uniswap.

Past contributions:

  • written an explainer on Uniswap v3 math that is widely read in the dev community;
  • consulted a number of companies and individuals who build on top of Uniswap or provide liquidity;
  • actively answer questions in Stack Overflow and the Uniswap discord;
  • became a Uniswap Foundation grantee to write on LP strategies.

3 past proposals:

  • v3deployments.uniswap.eth subdomain and text fields: support, seems like a no-brainer.
  • Uniswap Deployments Accountability Committee: support the idea in general, no opinion on the specific selection of candidates.
  • Uniswap v3 Gnosis chain: weak support, Gnosis is a solid chain. I'd also support launch on Polygon's zkEVM and zkSync Era due to their future potential, and the possibility to have a comparatively trustless bridges. I'd have voted "no" for the BNB chain deployment, due to decentralization and reputation concerns.

Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest: Don't have significant conflicts of interest. If they're going to arise, depending on the severity will abstain in specific votes, or stop being a delegate.

Top Issues

Fee switch
Fee switch
Proceed carefully
Public goods
Public goods
Public goods funding is important, but keeping Uniswap credibly neutral is more important. I'd only support funding initiatives that clearly benefit the protocol itself
Meta governance
Meta governance
Increase decentralization, apply the best practices in the field

Represented Stakeholders

Researcher
I represent
Researchers