Proposal - Uniswap LP Pool fees - withdraw to multisig

Title: Deposit fees from theUNIv3 liquidity position to the multisig

Squad: Icedcool, Tomahawk, Ernest of Gaia, Sprinklesforwinners

Date Created: 1/26/23

Date Posted:



The snapshot vote Tokenomics - Migrate DAO-Owned Liquidity to Uniswap V3 pulled the liquidity acquired from OlympusPro Bonding, owned by the treasury, and migrated that over to Uniswap v3 as a full-range position. This was sought in order to have a price oracle that could integrate with RARI (which now no longer supports borrowing) or other DeFi platforms in the future. The UNIv3 position has additionally benefited us by consolidating the BANK-ETH liquidity, driving the majority of the volume to Uniswap and improving fee revenue to the DAO treasury.

Uniswap offers a 1% fee pool for smaller market cap tokens with higher volatility (perfect for BANK), and this pool is now where the majority of the existing liquidity lives. Making Uniswap v3 the primary source of liquidity for BANK has shown to be a clear benefit, supporting the majority of transaction volume and maximizing fee revenue to the DAO treasury.


The steps would be as follows:

  1. BDAO multisig would submit a fee-collecting transaction to collect accrued fees from the UNIv3 liquidity position.

  2. The fees that have been earned would then be deposited into the BanklessDAO multisig.


  1. Gather consensus in the Treasury Department.

  2. Via poll found here.

  3. Get approval on the forum proposal

  4. This proposal is presented as a patch as it does not alter the constitution. Therefore should this proposal reach a quorum of 40 votes with at least 70% approval

  5. Take to Snapshot for final ratification.

  6. Add a recommendation for the treasury dept to review this on some type of annual or 6 month basis.

POLL (Discourse Post Usage Only)

Do you agree to withdraw the revenue that has been earned from fees in the UNIv3 liquidity position and deposit them into the multisig?
  • Yes
  • No

0 voters


Fully support this; any thoughts on redeploying this on L2?


I believe there have been a few suggestions in the tokenomics Dept that could be explored


unrealized profit until it’s in our multi-sig. I support.


Hey @Sprinklesforwinners this post is in uncategorised section.
WDYT of moving to governance, or maybe we need an extra category for such proposals

1 Like

Curious why this proposal (or the next one) can’t be a more permanent policy proposal. It could instead phrase it as a maximum % of fees spent on gas and just claim when the claims meet that standard. It could alternatively be phrased as a net return standard.

Setting this up as a framework is a good idea to reduce operational overhead


You have my support on this, let’s go

1 Like

I vote no until it can be shown that reasonable care has been taken to understand the tax implications have been properly considered. At this stage it is unclear:
a) where the DAO is resident for tax purposes (as a taxable permanent establishment, or a controlled foreign company, other, or none or the above), and what fiat currency the DAO’s accounts are required to be kept in (and taxes calculated);
b) whether there was a tax disposal event (giving rise to a gain or loss) upon contribution of the BANK and ETH following migration to uniswap v3, and before that during interactions with OlympusPro Bonding;
c) at what point taxable income is derived by the DAO (or in the control or dominion of the DAO) on account of earned fees - as and when earned or when withdrawn into the DAO treasury
d) whether the Treasury Department has taken advice on the above points and if so, considered allocating a reserve on account of uncertain tax positions of the DAO.

**This comment is not legal advice.