📝 **Revised** Funding Request for Liquidity Mining Program Extension from Polymarket

Project: Polymarket

Proposers:

Jared Kehlmann, Market Curator & Community Manager

Liam Kovatch, Head of Engineering

Dylan Golow, Technical Product Manager

Emails:

jared@polymarket.com

liam@polymarket.com

dylan@polymarket.com

Summary

Revised proposal to extend, and slightly expand, UMA-denominated liquidity mining rewards on Polymarket for 12 weeks with consideration for a longer extension, based on KPIs, that will be proposed and voted on in the extension period.

Previous Proposal

Description

This UMIP is a revision of Polymarket’s initial UMIP “Funding Request for Liquidity Mining Program Extension from Polymarket”. Based on discussions and the pending snapshot outcome, the funding amount of the initial proposal was too aggressive for the UMA community to get comfortable with, but there is expected agreement for a shorter proposal as suggested by community members and RL team members. As such, this proposal is meant to act as a bridge extension of the UMA-denominated liquidity mining program, on Polymarket, which ends May 14th 2022. A follow up proposal will be made during this proposed extension period which will suggest a further extension that will be based on explicit, community-informed, incentive-aligned metrics and will be structured using UMA KPI options. For the purpose of this proposal, the initial, successful integration should serve as the completed KPI that motivates such funding. Under this initial extension period, Polymarket is requesting 160,000 UMA over a 12 week period which reflects a slight (1.33x) reward-rate expansion.

Additionally, to accommodate a quick turnaround on this proposal Polymarket also proposes the following one-off changes to the UMIP proposal process:

  • 2-day discourse vote
  • 3-day snapshot vote with 4.5M UMA quorum requirement

Value Add:

See the prior proposal for a complete description of the value add of Polymarket and this UMIP. A simple rationale for voting on this proposal should be if you think a long-term partnership with Polymarket increases the value of UMA by more than 0.16% you should vote YES, since Polymarket is only asking for that much UMA.

TL;DR:

  • Polymarket’s integration
  • Polymarket significantly increasing the total economic value and activity within the UMA oracle network
  • Polymarket battle testing UMA oracle hardness
  • Polymarket growing the UMA community
  • Polymarket serving as a signal that UMA works at scale for other projects
  • Polymarket’s UMA-secured OI can be supercharged with extended reward experimentation
  • Contributing valuable protocol feedback

Deliverables:

The deliverable of this proposal is two fold 1) Polymarket’s integration of UMA (completed) and 2) prolonged incentivization of activity on UMA-resolved Polymarket markets with specific concentration on liquidity incentivization and LP fee rebates for traders. The proposed rewards distribution schedule is defined below:

Total Budget Requested:

160,000 UMA delivered to the following mainnet Ethereum multisig address:

0x8cBefc47656eCb2e9E2cb89731283CC1e8cD7f4E

The wallet is a 2 of 3 gnosis safe multisig. Two signers are Polymarket representatives and the third is Risk Labs’ multisig. Risk Labs’s position as a signer in the multisig does not represent an endorsement of the proposal; they are a neutral party.

Team/Project:

Polymarket is a leading decentralized finance (DeFi) project, with a global, technical team. It is the largest decentralized prediction markets platform in the world by volume.


(below section was added on 5/12/22)

Expectations on Future Rewards

Based on conversations with the community and members of the Risk Labs team, Polymarket wants to make an explicit clarification around its future expectation of rewards. Some UMA community members are concerned that Polymarket will make continuous funding requests for additional tokens and/or that Polymarket’s partnership with UMA is contingent on these funding requests.

Polymarket would like to clarify that this is not true: Polymarket has no expectations around additional funding requests, and Polymarket is excited to continue to deepen this partnership with UMA regardless of how the UMA DAO considers future proposals. Polymarket hopes to contribute in a net-positive way to the ecosystem and commits to approaching future DAO proposals with zero expectations and making them a collaborative process that produce positive sum results. "

Poll:

Do you support moving forward with this proposal?
  • Yes
  • No

0 voters

3 Likes

I’m afraid there is no mechanism to alter the process by which Risk Labs is prepared to front the 5K proposer bond and propose on-chain. It requires a 7 day discourse poll and a 5 day snapshot.

However UMA is a permissionless protocol. Anyone may make a proposal directly to the Governor contract directly on-chain for tokenholders approval by putting up a 5K bond in $UMA.

This proposal will not move forward to a snapshot vote unless there is a majority in support after the poll has been open 7 days.

(note posted as forum admin)

@Mhairi-UMA I am unsure why Risk Labs would require Polymarket to go through another 2 week process on this. The first proposal had support on discourse and then was no where near passing on snapshot. Discourse is obviously not a good proxy for support, and Polymarket has already gone through the discussion process on a proposal that was very similar in substance (but 3x larger). I think it’s fair to assume that the discourse poll will again pass easily and for that reason Polymarket is eager to get to snapshot. The 5-day snapshot vote is fair; if that’s what it will take for RL to build enough confidence to front the 5k UMA bond I think Polymarket would accept this. Polymarket is trail blazing this UMIP process and I personally don’t think it makes sense to be extremely rigid as it’s obvious this process can be improved.

3 Likes

Agreed with L-Kov here. The 5 day snapshot makes sense, as it comprises of people voting based on their UMA holdings. But the discourse vote is not representative of how the snapshot will go; the previous proposal already had support on discourse, and having another 7 days to (likely) get the same result would slow down the process.

2 Likes

@Mhairi-UMA I went ahead and struck out the suggested change to the snapshot vote length and quorum size. Polymarket would still like to move this proposal quickly to snapshot though, forgoing the 7-day discourse vote, instead substituting a 2-day period, due to the proposal being a direct revision of anther proposal with the required discourse support.

Just want to make sure i understand this, under the new proposal the uma dao would provide 160k uma for a 12 week program that is just a continuation of the current LM program, correct ?
Then during those 12 weeks polymarket will come up with a KPI based liquidity mining program ?

Yes, that is correct.

1 Like

This proposal is very good. It fully considers the needs of users and is very beneficial to the long-term development of the project. thanks.

Given that this is a revision of a previous proposal, I’m happy to cut the discourse poll to 2 days and if supported in the poll, have the snapshot up for May 13th to end on May 18th.

(note - posted as forum admin)

1 Like

Thanks @Mhairi-UMA that’s a good timeline. Also I am happy to attend the community call again this week. Remind me when that is?

1 Like

The UMIIP community review call was on Monday and reviews technical considerations.

I’m happy to set up another Discord event tho for you to present your revised proposal.
DM me a date/time and I’ll arrange. Peak server hours tend to be 14.00 to 21.00 UTC

10am PT on Friday would be perfect. Does that work?

2 Likes

Just want to flag that I made a revision to the original proposal that clarifies Polymarket’s expectations on future rewards.

We discussed this proposal at length in the original post; I commented there about my regard for the Polymarket + UMA partnership, so I wont repeat everything.

As an UMA tokenholder, I feel more comfortable with the sizing of this request than the first one. I also think it’s good for the DAO to show support for Polymarket in this way. I hope this will deepen the relationship between these organizations – And I plan to vote in support.

I will say that a motivating factor for my change from the negative to the positive was the final section Expectations on Future Rewards. I do think that it’s not really the UMA DAO’s place to subsidize liquidity mining on Polymarket for an ongoing basis. I found this addendum to be comforting, and I would refer to it in the future if there are subsequent requests of the same nature.

I also look forward to getting back to building, as I know Liam does too. The content of these requests aside, it’s an honor to co-participate a DAO governance system with such bright people. We’re simultaneously discussing the matter at hand and paving the way forward for these new forms of organizations.

Still, we build!

5 Likes

The final results on the snapshot vote for this proposal were

  • Against - 5.9M UMA (100%)
  • For - 0 UMA (0%)
  • Quorum - 5.9M / 6.6M

Given the universal support for this proposal by all those who voted, RiskLabs is happy to put this proposal forward for an on-chain vote in recognition that the quorum (10% of circulating supply) was set too high for non-incentivised voting.

Note that it is planned to reduce the quorum to 5% of circulating supply for future proposals.