Authors: Abdullah (Arana Digital) & Doo (StableLab)
Treating the Uniswap Treasury as an Endowment
“Treasury” is a broad term that typically mirrors the nature of its underlying protocol. Some treasuries quite literally reflect a protocol’s balance sheet, where the holdings are used to cover capital expenditures, and income is either paid out as a dividend to token holders or used to further grow the protocol. Other treasuries are integral in managing risk, with Aave and Compound being prime examples. Then, some treasuries, like that of Uniswap, are structured more similarly to an endowment, where the DAO must manage a large pool of capital to further the sustenance of the protocol in the long-term.
The concept of an endowment refers to a collective pool of assets held by a nonprofit institution. These assets are employed to support an institution perpetually, with a clear directive of aligning with the desires of the contributing donor(s). In Uniswap’s case, the DAO was established upon the creation of the $UNI token–and 43% of the total supply was endowed to the DAO.
The goal of the DAO is to support Uniswap’s growth and development in a manner that aligns with the collective vision of the token holders and their entrusted cohort of delegates. These objectives can be achieved by funding development projects, liquidity incentives, community grants, and other programs that contribute to the ecosystem's growth and resilience. However, such pursuits cannot be facilitated without robust treasury management.
The Uniswap treasury is often touted as one of the largest sums of capital at the disposal of a DAO. As of today, Uniswap’s treasury boasts nearly ~$6B of assets, larger than any other DeFi protocol. That number, however, is highly inflated due to the composition of the treasury. Nearly 100% of the treasury is solely composed of one asset: the native $UNI token. Hence, the value of the treasury, in dollar terms, should be massively discounted.
Imagine if a traditional endowment was allotted billions of dollars in a singular, volatile asset, with a directive of using that treasury to sustain its core business–preposterous, right? That’s exactly the position where Uniswap is. What’s more is that there’s no current plan to mobilize this treasury in a productive manner. There lies a large amount of dormant capital simply sitting in the treasury without any explicit plan to be utilized. From our perspective, there needs to be an initiative to spur this dormant capital into action, even if it means doing so little by little. The goal of this proposal is to create a committee to begin researching ways by which we can put this treasury into effect.
This proposal optimizes for two variables:
Sustainability is the bare minimum. It acts as a floor. Unless the $UNI price continues to increase forever, the DAO, whenever it reaches into its treasury reserves, is reducing its runway. Hence, the first objective in any treasury management initiative should be to diversify out of the native token and into a more stable asset, like a basket of stablecoins. One could go as far as stating that any $UNI held in the treasury should actually be written down to zero. This mindset, where treasury $UNI is effectively treated as an unissued share, should spur us towards diversification.
Since crypto is prone to fat-tail events, the DAO should establish a more robust cushion in case the market crashes. In 2021, the Uni treasury value ran to nearly $19B, and it quickly fell into a limbo zone between $1.5B - $2B for nearly 1.5 years between Q2 2022 and Q1 2024. No endowment should be this volatile. We should be in a position where if the DAO needs to fund certain initiatives, there are reserves to draw from without causing significant impairment to the token price. For instance, when the Foundation needs to be funded again, it should ideally be the case that a large portion of those requested funds are given in the form of stablecoins for instant liquidity.
Beyond mere diversification, the DAO needs to pursue growth. Currently there are no programs in place for the treasury to increase its net asset value beyond $UNI appreciation. This is where the treasury can be used to generate revenue, either from operating or non-operating activities. Let’s break this concept down–distinguishing between the operating and non-operating income for the DAO is important for defining the source of treasury growth.
Operating Income: Operating income would pertain to any income generated from the primary business activities of the protocol, which, in Uniswap’s case, is fees from swaps. Currently, the DAO does not collect any income from fees and likely won’t in the future under the Uniswap Foundation’s recently proposed fee architecture. The Uniswap DAO will therefore not be sustainable in the long-run by relying on income from operations–fees generated will most likely be paid out to token holders in full, leaving the DAO with near zero income. To that end, we must rely on non-operating activities to ensure the sustainability of the Uni DAO.
Non-Operating Income: All income not generated from fees falls into this category. If the Uniswap DAO does not plan on attaining revenue from operations, then it must utilize its current treasury to collect income via alternative methods–likely through yield-bearing strategies and investments. Reliance on non-operating income further establishes why the Uni treasury mirrors the setup of an endowment, where the long-term sustainability of the protocol is built on indirect investments detached from the protocol’s core operations. These methods are to be further explored, and the present proposal aims to pioneer such exploration.
Based on the above reasoning, the UTWG will conduct 8 weeks worth of research into the types of treasury management initiatives that the DAO may reasonably pursue in the short-to-medium term. The group will note on the experience of treasury management practices of other DAOs, adopting practices that have historically worked well and c
... please visit link below to view full proposal