# \[DRAFT PROPOSAL\]: Protocol Delegation Program

**URL:** <https://gov.optimism.io/t/draft-proposal-protocol-delegation-program/3946>\
**Category:** Reflection Period Proposal\
**Tags:** season-3\
**Created:** [November 8, 2022, 8:06pm UTC](https://gov.optimism.io/t/draft-proposal-protocol-delegation-program/3946 "2022-11-08T20:06:39Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 20

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![StrategicReserve](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/bc41dd/user_avatar/gov.optimism.io/strategicreserve/32/6837_2.png) [@StrategicReserve](https://gov.optimism.io/u/StrategicReserve)\
**Post date:** [November 30, 2022, 5:21pm UTC](https://gov.optimism.io/t/draft-proposal-protocol-delegation-program/3946/20 "2022-11-30T17:21:43Z")

</div>

> [@millie](#):
>
> Thank you for the info, but from the looks of it the newly formed Uniswap Foundation has essentially outsourced the program to projects which already have their own OP allocations.

To clarify, three programs are competing in Uniswap’s in-house OP LM program. Of those three, Arrakis Finance [did not receive](https://gov.optimism.io/t/draft-gf-phase-1-proposal-arrakis-finance/3805/18) an allocation from OP governance. Their solo application was rejected. xToken and Gamma [did receive](https://gov.optimism.io/t/ready-gf-phase-1-xtoken-terminal-gamma-strategies-and-uniswap-v3-staker/3001/71) a grant from OP governance.

I don’t think you are characterizing the Uniswap OP LM program fairly. The Uniswap Foundation didn’t blindly “outsource” this. They created a [competitive, staged program](https://gov.uniswap.org/t/rfc-the-optimism-uniswap-protocol-liquidity-mining-program/17820) that passed their governance process with community feedback. UF’s program includes an [analytics period](https://unigrants.notion.site/Bounty-20-Optimism-Liquidity-Mining-program-546d123fa03049fba4b0b8cd38781117) ([just awarded](https://twitter.com/fedeebasta/status/1597980572957421568?s=20&t=8sD1HLhIihLwC49sutZ8EA)) where the LM programs are scrutinized before moving forward to the next stage.

This is exactly the kind of due diligence many who participate in the OP governance process have been asking for. Especially in regard to incentivizing liquidity. That due diligence was prioritized over expediency.

> [@millie](#):
>
> I have no issue with that but I’m not convinced that they care about Optimism any more as a result of it since they decided not to host the LM program through their own interface, which would have obviously been far more beneficial to Optimism and reached a much wider audience.

Uniswap running their LM program would require them to manage the LP positions. That management could lead to wildly different results based on strategy. That is why they created a competitive program to manage the distribution of OP rewards. [Uniswap heavily promoted the program on Twitter.](https://twitter.com/UniswapFND). Likewise, all three managers had robust participation in the grant for the number of rewards allocated.

You can [read about some of the results here](https://twitter.com/fedeebasta/status/1597980574974906370?s=20&t=8sD1HLhIihLwC49sutZ8EA)

> [@millie](#):
>
> Looking at this dashboard: [Optimism - Popular Apps and Project Usage Trends 🧮 🔴✨](https://dune.com/optimismfnd/Optimism-Project-Usage-Trends), you can see that Synthetix is low on the list despite having one of the most active communities on Optimism and being deeply integrated with the rollup. Aside from under representation of some protocols, another thing that stands out to me is that both Uniswap and Galxe would end up with a large amount of delegated OP from this program, despite having hardly any activity and interest in Optimism governance.

I do feel it’s important to point out that **Uniswap allocated 0 OP of a 1m OP grant towards participating in OP governance**. In contrast, Synthetix [self-delegated 2m OP they received from the OP partner fund](https://discord.com/channels/667044843901681675/968498307913637919/1037427151382777866). That is your right to do so under the terms of Layer 0 rules and your internal SIP, but attempting to punish Uniswap for not “having any activity or interest in Optimism governance” when they had zero votes is not fair.

The whole point of the Protocol Delegation Program is to allocate funds for governance to the projects actually building on the platform. Uniswap should absolutely have a voice in Optimism governance based on its credentials, usage, and relevance with DeFi.

---

_[View the full topic](https://gov.optimism.io/t/draft-proposal-protocol-delegation-program/3946)._