Instadapp/boardroom-inc-protocol-Info
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/Instadapp/boardroom-inc-protocol-Info.git synced 2024-07-29 22:37:02 +00:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Merge pull request #34 from AngelDeBenji/AngelDeBenji-Uniswap-W8-Update

Browse Source 
Angel de benji uniswap w8 update
This commit is contained in:
Kevin Nielsen 2021-02-23 18:09:54 -05:00 committed by GitHub
commit 4658acbcee
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG Key ID: 4AEE18F83AFDEB23
2 changed files with 89 additions and 0 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

50
gnosis/Gov Weekly/Update Week 8 2021, 02-22-2021.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
### Governance Update
#### Live Votes
| Name | Category | Link |
| ------------- |:-------------:| :-----:|
| GIP-6 Deploy Gnosis Auction | Development | [Vote](https://snapshot.page/#/gnosis/proposal/QmUA5aYzD7nRdPQhqMTH3GWus4Bj62SGcSfjPEb6QcDdnM) |
This GIP intends to answer the question: Should GnosisDAO deploy GnosisAuction?
GnosisAuction would build on the proven success with token sales that Gnosis Protocol (GP) v1 (Mesa) had. It will provide a sturdy mechanism that supports fair price finding in token sales. It will also aim to be modular enough to work in other scenarios where auctions are needed.
#### Recent Votes
| Name | Category | Link |
| ------------- |:-------------:| :-----:|
| GIP-5: Remove Gnosis Impact from the GnosisDAO Governance Process | Meta | [View](https://snapshot.page/#/gnosis/proposal/QmfEpoQtvjWMeRwfeFvothLDkFqaXCZNHU9ZFb3S3cuLRU) |
Gnosis Impact is currently an integral component of the Gnosis governance process.
The current implementation of Gnosis Impact has known flaws and poses uncalled-for obstacles to pass proposals through the governance process.
This proposal aims to exclude the obligatory utilization of Gnosis Impact as part of the GnosisDAO’s governance process phase 3 until a proposal passes amending its shortcomings.
This proposal passed on Feb 19th.
| Name | Category | Link |
| ------------- |:-------------:| :-----:|
| GIP-3: Set the quorum for "yes" votes to 4% of the circulating supply of GNO | Meta | [View](https://snapshot.page/#/gnosis/proposal/QmdjWuBnBnPUafW9jBNNsJJvaeQAVExGcFZ7zB38VtNuu4) |
Lower the quorum threshold for required YES GNO to increase the chance of acceptance of proposals. Instead of the current 10%, the threshold could be lowered to 4% of circulating supply.
This proposal passed on February 22nd.
#### Discussions
| Name | Category | Link |
| ------------- |:-------------:| :-----:|
| GIP-4: Should GnosisDAO pay additional GNO rewards for GNO<>ETH LP on Sushiswap? | Marketing | [Discuss](https://forum.gnosis.io/t/gip-4-should-gnosisdao-pay-additional-gno-rewards-for-gno-eth-lp-on-sushiswap/1013) |
The objective of this proposal is to kick off a crossDAO collaboration attempting to increase number of stakeholders for both communities (Sushi and GnosisDAO). The proposal seeks a liquidity incentivisation campaign with the following goals:
- Creating stakeholders for both communities
- Foment cross-DAO collaborations in the future
- Increase GNO liquidity
| Name | Category | Link |
| ------------- |:-------------:| :-----:|
| Should GnosisDAO establish OWL as a stable coin? | Product | [Discuss](https://forum.gnosis.io/t/should-gnosisdao-establish-owl-as-a-stable-coin/1088) |
This proposal suggests to morph OWL into an asset backed stable coin - similar to DAI.
Compared to DAI there would be key differences:
1) Holding OWL should accrue interest. (similar to DSR - but in contrast to DAI all OWL should benefit from this interest) OWL == CHAI
2) Minting of OWL is (at least in the beginning) primarily done by GnosisDAO
3) All assets controlled by GnosisDAO are essentially collateral for OWL
4) In contrast to Maker - GnosisDAO could freely use the assets to do e.g. yield farming

39
uniswap/Gov Weekly/Update Week 8 2021 02-22-21.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
### Governance Update
#### Discussions
| Name | Category | Link |
| ------------- |:-------------:| :-----:|
| [Phase 2: Consensus Check] Staking & Tokenomics | Marketing | [Discuss](https://gov.uniswap.org/t/consensus-check-staking-tokenomics/9019/5) |
Discussion proposing measures to reward long-term investors through four suggested measures:
1) Staking - Reward longer lock-up with higher yield.
2) Buy-back and Burn - Incentive for holding.
3) UNI hodler access - Own 25 UNI and you get access to cheaper fees and more trading features such as Stop Market, Limit Orders, Iceberg etc.
4) Loyalty Rewards - Instead of 6% yield, you get 7% staking yield if you have been using for a longer period of time.
| Name | Category | Link |
| ------------- |:-------------:| :-----:|
| [Phase 1: Temperature Check] Fee switch date approaching, time to act | Treasury/Marketing | [Discuss](https://gov.uniswap.org/t/fee-switch-date-approaching-time-to-act/10418) |
Discussion advocating for the fee switch to be flipped on at the earliest possible time.
Proposes that the mechanism for rewarding uni stakers also be made a buyback and distribution of uni tokens like the sushiswap model.
| Name | Category | Link |
| ------------- |:-------------:| :-----:|
| Ability to toggle fees is next week, do we do it? | Treasury/Marketing | [Discuss](https://gov.uniswap.org/t/ability-to-toggle-fees-is-next-week-do-we-do-it/10288) |
Discussion concerned with the positive and negative implications of turning the fee switch ON:
1) Yes - UNI becomes an income-generating token and will appreciate in price
2) No - Incentives becomes misalign between LPs and Token holders.
Its porposed solution is to add back liquidity mining for UNI to certain pools (at a much lower rate) with the goal of incentivizing LP to stay so they can earn an appreciating asset.
| Name | Category | Link |
| ------------- |:-------------:| :-----:|
| Uniswap Liquidity Incentive Plan | Treasury/Marketing | [Discuss](https://gov.uniswap.org/t/discussion-uniswap-liquidity-incentive-plan/8590) |
This discussion post originally proposed the continuation of UNI Liquidity Mining, with reduced incentives.
On February 13th the author of this proposal posted an [update](https://gov.uniswap.org/t/discussion-uniswap-liquidity-incentive-plan/8590/227)
arguing that it is not in Uniswap’s best interest to extend liquidity incentives and Uniswap governance and community efforts should be refocused in areas that are likely to drive long term value and enduring network effects.
The proposal will not move forward to an on-chain vote.