uIP 01 - UWP Process Initialization

UIP 01 - UWP Process Initialization


The purpose of this proposal is to suggest an unshETH Whitelisting Proposal (UWP) introduction, voting, and implementation process that would enable Liquid Staking Token protocol teams to request to be added to the unshETH Index.


This is a proposal of a formal process for introducing, voting, and implementing UWPs. Rather than relying on the standard UIP process.

Should this be approved by a DAO vote and implemented, proposals will voted on at the end of each UWP governance Epoch. Valid UWP proposals are to be discussed for at least 7 days on unshETH’s governance forum. They must be posted 14 days before the end of an Epoch to be considered. Should more than 2 UWP proposals meet the criteria for voting during any given Epoch a “runoff” Snapshot will be conducted, the 2 most popular UWP proposals will be voted on via subsequent individual Snapshot votes. In order for a UWP vote to pass it must have a super-majority support (> 66.66%) after at least five days of voting. Following a successful vote, necessary changes will be implemented by unshETH protocol team and signed by the multi-sig, if necessary. Changes to this policy, including quorum requirements or what constitutes a majority vote, can only be enacted by a valid UIP that overwrites this policy.


This UIP defines and formalizes the governance proposal process in order for proposals to be valid and binding, and reduce any confusion in the UWP introduction and voting process.

UWP Specification:

Introducing UWP Epochs & Voting

  1. The duration of a standard governance Epoch is four weeks.
  2. Epochs start always start on Thursday at 00:00:00 UTC,
  3. One week before the start of a new epoch is the voting period.
  4. Each voting period may have two Whitelisting votes (if there is at least one LST protocol applying for inclusion. There is a possibility for a third in case of a failed vote), and any number of General Proposals to vote on.
  5. Two LST protocol tokens can be whitelisted each Epoch. If one or two proposals have been made in any given Epoch a vote will be held for each. If more than two LST protocols have made a proposal for whitelisting an initial vote to determine which two will be voted in will occur, after which the whitelisting votes will be initiated.
  6. Should a Whitelisting Proposal fail to pass its governance vote, the LST protocol is allowed to resubmit an updated proposal in the next governance epoch. If an LST protocol fails to pass two consecutive votes it must wait two governance epochs before its next attempt.
  7. Should one or both of a given governance epoch’s LST whitelisting proposals fail to pass their governance vote a new vote can be initiated for a third LST to have its proposal voted on.
  8. Snapshot is used for formal, binding votes. A moderator of the unshETH governance forum will create the Snapshot proposal(s).
  9. No quorum requirements.
  10. Votes are final and irreversible.
  11. General proposals require a 2/3 super majority vote (66.66% in favor).
  12. No proposals are accepted during active voting periods.
  13. At the start of each epoch, new assets are whitelisted
  14. unshETH contributors may add proposal warning notes but are not required to. No proposal review process exists.

UWP Epoch 0

  1. Epoch 0 should be an accelerated Epoch
  2. The duration of UWP Epoch 0 should be two weeks.
  3. Epoch 0 will should be targeted to start on Friday May 19th at 00:00:00 UTC,
  4. Epoch 0’s voting period will start start on Friday May 28th at 00:00:00 UTC,
  5. UWP proposals to be considered for inclusion in the voting period should be submitted by Tuesday May 23rd at 00:00:00 UTC, this means there will be a minimum of 72 hours of community discussion.
  6. All other aspects of Epoch 0 match those of the standard governance Epoch detailed above.

Introducing the UWP

In order to submit a potential UWP for voting a user must first create a thread for the proposal on the unshETH governance forum.

No poll is required to be included. A thread which been on the governance forum for at least 7 days prior to the start of the Epoch’s voting period can proceed to voting via Snapshot. This allows the community to suggest potential changes to the proposal before it moves to the formal voting phase on Snapshot. Please do not assign your proposal a UWP number; numbers will be assigned by moderators prior to a vote taking place.

If a proposal was introduced on the governance forum but either did not get selected for voting or did not get successfully passed via Snapshot vote, the author of the proposal may re-submit the proposal to the governance forum and restart the process in the following Epoch. This ensures that proposals that previously received support from governance still retain support from the community.

UWP Voting Phase

Snapshot is used for formal, binding votes. A moderator of the unshETH governance forum will create the Snapshot proposal.

There will be a voting window of 6 days. In order for a vote to pass it needs to have a super majority approval (>66.66%) by eligible voters. If the Snapshot vote does not meet a 66.66% majority approval then the vote is rejected. Authors of proposals that are rejected may resubmit their proposal, but should include significant changes that address issues that may have prevented the UWP from passing during the initial vote. If an LST protocol fails to pass two consecutive votes it must wait two governance epochs before its next attempt.

Other Uses for Snapshot

Snapshot may still be used for informal signal voting, including community contests, but its primary purpose will be to conduct formal, binding votes.

For: Formalize the UWP introduction, voting, and implementation processes as specified above

Against: Do not formalize these processes. No changes made.

Harpe is an independent contributor to the unshETH protocol, pursuing growth of the unshETH protocol through collaboration with other DeFi teams and DAOs. Harpe is not a member of the protocol development team.


Reserved for future updates

i love this process of decentralization. it gets my ushies very gushy being able to vote for my favorite protocol as a holder of many gUSHers in my wallets. vanguards REPRESENT


1 Like

i approve of this proposal, but i want to farm more than 2 tokens a month - how do we fix this? btw i love defi

2 is a lot, takes dev work to integrate and we want to get the arbitrum proposal going too right? Well you’ll still have USH to farm :slight_smile:


Most of it sounds fine to me, however is ‘no quorum’ standard in other protocols?

1 Like

Arbitrum proposal should be a priority for sure. Arb is the foremost L2, by far, and having a presence there is paramount tbh.


Thanks for this. I love unshETH.

1 Like

My only concern would be that it’s a rather slow process and may hamper growth and expansion at the current protocol’s state.

Minimum two weeks to consider, 5 days of voting period, implementation of proposal on top.


in times of crisis we need a real, HARD man to guide us through. personally i vote for dictatorship of the dev until tvl reaches 1 bil, then we can slowly transition into an autonomous, democratic, and socialist commune.

1 Like

Great point - what would you recommend?

This is why we have discussion period btw :slight_smile:

I agree - dictatorship is bullish.

1 Like

There are limited number of LST provider options & it is better to ensure safety with a slower process with new entrants… Also, I presume that there is a lot of Dev work integrating new partners safely?

Would have to brainstorm how to define multiple change groups and how the flow should differ between groups.
Usually impact severity can be used as a guideline on when the process should be more thorough but it may not be directly applicable here due to the risk any change on contract level introduces.

Integrations aren’t the only item that affects protocol growth. It might as well be operational, contribution, marketing or other efforts necessary to be voted on.

True! I think the team should have the latitude to expedite decisions/votes as the situation requires… but for non urgent stuff - the slower process should be fine.

Thx for all the feedback.

On Epoch 0:

  • want to give LST protocols a chance to put together their proposals
  • Based on community feedback and timelines think we can move to a vote sooner than May 28 if most of the proposals are in and there’s been 72 hrs of discussion after each proposal (meaning no need to wait 72 hrs after the deadline, just 72 hrs wait after the proposal are in is fine).
  • For example, if proposals are in by Friday this week, we can move to vote as soon as Tuesday next week.

Our DAO Ops team will make this edit and move to Snapshot vote later today.

Note, this proposed process is only for Whitelisting new LST protocols into the unshETH basket. Other changes such as partnerships, chain expansion, liquidity incentives, treasury management are not in scope for the process outlined here. Will be establishing committees for each that are empowered to make some degree of decisions - all this will be run through governance process in the coming days / weeks. Didn’t want to slow down the whitelisting process as we’re working through all that.


As a Chinese, I hope to add more Chinese content so as to attract more investors from China to make pledged deposits, especially in such a bear market where the FOMO sentiment is serious, and can tell them that they might as well increase their deposit returns honestly, as I still learned about this project from the news media, hopefully it is still in an early stage

Great feedback - we’ll work on putting up localized content soon!


I agree with this proposal, and I think the whitelisting process’ timelines are adequate.


Cheers :slight_smile:

1 Like