404 DAO Delegate Platform

Delegation Pitch
1

404 DAO Delegate Platform

Contact & Delegation Address Information

Delegate ENS Address: 404dao-governance.eth

Delegate Address: 0xE93D59CC0bcECFD4ac204827eF67c5266079E2b5

Email: governance@404dao.io

Website: https://www.404dao.io/

Twitter: https://twitter.com/404dao

Our Voting History: Boardroom

About Us

Hello Uniswap Community! 404 DAO is Atlanta’s City DAO. We are a non-profit born out of Blockchain at Georgia Tech with the mission to provide web3 education and opportunities in Atlanta. Blockchain at GT is a student led blockchain organization at Georgia Tech.

In addition to partnering with Blockchain at GT for governance work, 404 DAO is the host of Web3 ATL, Atlanta’s largest web3 event, and the team behind the 404 Accelerator.

Blockchain at GT has four main committees: Governance, Non-Technical (primarily research), Technical (primarily Solidity development), and Macro (Encourage discussion at meetings and inform members on crypto news).

Delegate Statement

404 DAO seeks to support the development of new applications in the Uniswap ecosystem, expanding the range of users, and accumulating value to the holders of the Uniswap governance token and relevant stakeholders.

Reasons for wanting to be a delegate:

404 DAO prides itself on our ability to engage financially and technically on a range of protocols throughout the cryptocurrency industry. While we have focused primarily on layer-2 protocols, we see engaging in Uniswap governance as a unique opportunity to expand our coverage to DeFi applications. As one of the underpinning protocols that makes up the foundation of DeFi, we are excited to help grow and support Uniswap.

Skills and areas of expertise:

Our team encompasses a wide range of both technical and non-technical backgrounds. These range from analytics, tokenomics, and business development to cybersecurity and MEV. The 404 DAO governance team is composed primarily of current and former Georgia Tech students with a wide range of degrees including: Computer Science, Data Science, Business, Finance, Cybersecurity that makes us uniquely able to apply expertise in a wide range of interdisciplinary challenges.

Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest:

404 DAO is also a delegate for Arbitrum and Optimism

4 Likes
2

An update on 404 DAO’s voting rationale over the past 3 months:

March

Activate Uniswap Protocol Governance (Snapshot)

We voted FOR upgrading the owner of the UniswapV3Factory contract from the Timelock to a deployment of V3FactoryOwner to enable the permissionless and programmatic collection of protocol fee revenue. We are excited to see this long discussed upgrade finally become a reality and believe that it will strengthen Uniswap’s governance and competitive positioning.

Uniswap V3 Fees: Factory Owner Amendment (Snapshot)

We voted FOR this amendment to allow the DAO to make future changes to the protocol fee mechanism. However, our primary intention with accepting the amendment is to gather the opinions of other delegates and gauge overall sentiment. If the snapshot were to pass, we would like to see broad positive consensus amongst delegates before moving the proposal to an onchain vote.

Uniswap Revitalization and Growth Proposal (Tally)

We voted FOR this proposal and are generally supportive of deploying Uniswap V3 on EVM compatible blockchains. Instead of ad-hoc deployments, we support creating an onboarding package to make the process of deploying UNI on new chains more seamless, standardized, and secure.

April

Mobilizing the Uniswap Treasury (Snapshot)

We voted FOR this proposal because we believe that it’s imperative for the DAO to diversify its treasury, moving away from holding almost 100% of its assets in UNI. We support funding a working group for 8 weeks to perform research on treasury management initiatives, enabling the DAO to make an informed decision about next steps with treasury management diversification.

Onboard Uniswap to Sei (Snapshot)

We voted FOR to incentivize the Sei deployment with 500k. This is a great opportunity to establish strong market share on a promising new chain.

Update Uni v3/v2 Deployment Process (Snapshot)

We voted FOR this proposal and are in favor of streamlining the governance process for the DAO to approve new deployments. We are supportive of giving the Uniswap Accountability Committee multisig agency over altering the v3-deployments.uniswap.eth & v2deployments.uniswap.eth subdomains so that a deployment can be completed without going through an onchain vote.

Uniswap Onboarding Package - Manta (Snapshot)

A promising ecosystem and supportive of using 250k incentives to help the deployment.

Uniswap Treasury Working Group (UTWG) Election (Snapshot)

As a participant in this election we voted for all candidates equally to effectively abstain. It was great to see such a qualified field and congratulations to Karpatkey and Franklin DAO!

Onboarding Package Bundle (Tally)

We are generally supportive of deploying Uniswap V3 on EVM compatible blockchains. Therefore, we voted FOR the Uniswap Revitalization and Growth proposal back in February which kicked off the first bundle of onboarding packages. We are also supportive of this package which included Sei, Manta, Taiko, and Moonbeam and voted FOR.

Update Uni v3/v2 Deployment Process (Tally)

We voted FOR this proposal and our reasoning is unchanged from the Snapshot vote.

Mobilizing the Uniswap Treasury (Tally)

We voted FOR this proposal and our reasoning is unchanged from the Snapshot vote.

May

DeFi Education Fund Temp Check (Snapshot)

We abstained from this vote and indicated our desired funding amount (500k) in the follow up temp check with options.

DeFi Education Fund Temp Check- Options (Snapshot)

We voted FOR funding the DeFi Education Fund with 500k UNI. In today’s intense legal landscape, we believe in the value of funding teams that are dedicated for the long-term to shaping crypto policy and fighting pivotal legal battles. After extensive conversations with the DeFi Education Fund, we are confident in their ability and commitment to do this important work.

Uniswap Delegate Reward -3 Months-Cycle 1 (Snapshot)

We voted FOR this proposal. Our experience participating in delegate reward programs in other DAOs has shown us that rewarding delegates leads to an uptick in meaningful activity in the forums. In general, we support financial rewards for delegates who make meaningful contributions to the DAO.

Onboard Uniswap to Redstone (Snapshot)

Supportive of the deployment but do not think it is worth adding incentives due to current TVL of Redstone.

DeFi Education Fund (Tally)

While we originally voted to fund the DeFi Education Fund with 500k UNI, we are supportive of their work and think they should be funded and appreciate that the 1m UNI has been divided into two tranches. As a leader in DeFi we believe it is important for Uniswap DAO to support these efforts, but we hope to see the DEF continue to secure additional funding from other DAOs too.

Uniswap Delegate Reward- 3 Months Cycle 1 (Tally)

We voted FOR this proposal and our reasoning is unchanged from the Snapshot vote.

2 Likes
3

June Voting and Rationale

Snapshot

  1. Uniswap Arbitrum LTIPP Matching
    • Proposal: Link
    • Vote: (1) 250k; (2) $500k; (3) $750k; (4) $1M; and (5) Do not Fund.
    • Reasoning: We voted FOR Uniswap Arbitrum LTIPP Matching. Our ranked choice vote for the funding amount was (1) 250k; (2) $500k; (3) $750k; (4) $1M; and (5) Do not Fund. Although we support incentive programs, specifically the liquidity mining program run by Gauntlet, we are cautiously optimistic about the the long-term efficacy of these programs and voted to match with a lower amount to avoid overspending.

Tally

  • Uniswap Arbitrum LTIPP Matching
    • Proposal: Link
    • Vote: For
    • Reasoning We voted FOR the winning Snapshot amount of $750k. As discussed in our Snapshot reasoning, we are cautiously optimistic about incentive programs. With that said, we trust the judgement of Uniswap delegates and are supportive of the vote’s final outcome.
1 Like
4

July Voting and Rationale

Snapshot

1. Gnosis Onboarding Package
- Proposal: link
- Vote: 250K
- Reasoning: We voted FOR the 250K Onboarding Package for Gnosis. With a TVL of over $300M, we believe that 250K is a good starting amount for an incentive package. We are eager to see how these incentives impact network usage and would be willing to allocate more if the usage data trends upwards.

1 Like
5

August Voting and Rationale

Snapshot

  1. Uniswap Onboarding Package - OKX Chain

    • Proposal: Link
    • Vote: Abstain
    • Reasoning: We voted ABSTAIN for the OKX Onboarding proposal due to the change in request mid-vote. With that said, we are supportive of deploying on X Layer and have voiced our reasoning below (see #3).

  2. Forse Analytics for URGP

    • Proposal: Link
    • Vote: For: Base, Arbitrum, Blast, Scroll
    • Reasoning: We voted FOR Forse Analytics for the Uniswap Revitalization and Growth Program, with Base, Arb, Blast, and Scroll as the selected chains. We believe this selection of protocols provides a good balance chains that (1) have strong market share and (2) newer chains with the potential to capture future market share. Additionally, we are supportive of conducting further analytics on chains where there may not be a Uniswap Labs frontend. Specifically, we would like to see metrics benchmarking for DAO-endorsed frontends such as Oku.

  3. Revised - Uniswap Onboarding Package - OKX Chain

    • Proposal: Link
    • Vote: For
    • Reasoning: We voted FOR deploying Uniswap V3 on X Layer. We believe there is ample opportunity for Uniswap to be a first mover on X Layer and to capitalize on OKX’s user base as they move onchain.

  4. Activate 2, 3, 4 bps fee tiers on Uniswap v3 on Base

    • Proposal: Link
    • Vote: For
    • Reasoning: We voted FOR this temperature check because we believe that the DAO will benefit from flexibility in fee tiers. However, before any moves are made we would like to see more research on the expected impact to liquidity providers and trader stickiness.

  5. Uniswap Delegate Reward Initiative - Cycle 2

    • Proposal: Link
    • Vote: For
    • Reasoning: We voted FOR the Uniswap Delegate Reward Initiative - Cycle 2. Cycle 1 was efficiently run and promoted strong governance practices for delegates. As a result, over the last couple of months, we have seen new delegates join the DAO. We are excited to see an increase in governance participation in the upcoming delegate reward cycle.

Tally

  1. Onboarding Package for Gnosis Chain

    • Proposal: Link
    • Vote: For
    • Reasoning: We voted For the onchain onboarding package for Gnosis. Our previous rationale still stands and can be found here

  2. Deploy Uniswap v3 on X Layer

    • Proposal: Link
    • Vote: For
    • Reasoning: We voted FOR deploying Uniswap v3 on X Layer. Our previously stated reasoning is listed above (see #3 in Snapshot section) and has not changed.

  3. Uniswap Delegate Reward Initiative - Cycle 2

    • Proposal: Link
    • Vote: For
    • Reasoning: We voted FOR Cycle 2 of the Uniswap Delegate Reward Initiative and our previously stated reasoning, stated above (see #5) has not changed. Thanks to StableLab for their work on this initiative.
6

September Voting and Rationale

Snapshot

  1. Ethereum Foundation Attackathon
  • Proposal: Link
  • Vote: Do not sponsor
  • Reasoning: We voted Do Not Sponsor on this proposal because the Foundation and Uniswap Labs are already managing hackathons. We don’t see a strong argument right now for why the DAO should fund hackathons. Rather, we believe that having the Foundation and Labs continue to sponsor hackathons, leveraging their existing resources and experience, will lead to better ROI for the protocol.
  1. UAC Renewal S3
  • Proposal: Link
  • Vote: Renew UAC
  • Reasoning: We voted FOR renewing the UAC. The UAC plays a critical role in the DAO, overseeing new deployments of Uniswap and deploying incentives to these chains. This work is operationally rigorous and requires financial, business development, and technical skills. We are impressed with the committee’s work over the past two seasons and will gladly support renewal. With that said, we support the creation of new working groups to offload the expanded responsibility and scope creep that the UAC experienced in Season 2.
  1. Approved Budgets Rebalancing
  • Proposal: Link
  • Vote: Approve Rebalance
  • Reasoning: We voted FOR approving the Budgets Rebalancing. We understand that UNI’s volatility coupled with USD denominated payments has resulted in a need to rebalance accounts. We are pleased to see the UAC employ good accounting practices.
  1. Uniswap Delegate Race Tiebreaker
  • Proposal: Link
  • Vote: Both (create an extra 16th spot)
  • Reasoning: We voted to create an additional 16th spot to include all delegates who qualified for Delegate Rewards Cycle 2. In the interest of optimizing for maximum governance participation, and since the rules of the tie-break were not extensively defined, we believe it makes sense to create an additional spot and not exclude any delegate who qualified through the rubric scoring.

Tally

  1. Proposal to active 2, 3, 4 bps fee-tiers on Base
  • Proposal: Link
  • Vote: For
  • Reasoning: We voted FOR activating the 2, 3 and 4 bps tiers on Base. After reviewing the research presented by @aadams and engaging in some debate on the forum (see here), we believe that having fee tier optionality could improve the competitiveness of the Uniswap protocol. With that said, since this is an experiment, we look forward to seeing data presented to the DAO on how fee tiers have impacted LP profitability and retail volume aggregation.
  1. Uniswap Accountability S3 Renewal and Rebalance
  • Proposal: Link
  • Vote: For
  • Reasoning: We voted FOR both these proposals in the snapshot phase and our reasoning is stated above.
  1. Forse Analytics for Uniswap Revitalization and Growth Program
  • Proposal: Link
  • Vote: For
  • Rationale: We voted FOR this proposal during the temp check phase and our previously stated rationale has not changed. We look forward to seeing the dashboards for the selected chains in the URGP.
7

Rationale for Votes Occurring in October

Snapshot

  1. Uniswap Accountability Committee S3 Elections
  • Proposal: Link
  • Vote: 50/50 Jojo and Alice Corsini
  • Rationale: We voted to elect Jojo and Alice Corsini as the two new committee members. Alice brings extensive experience in Uniswap governance, serving as a delegate with Karpatkey and a member of the Uniswap Treasury Working Group. While Jojo is newer to the Uniswap DAO, he brings valuable expertise in DeFi and incentives through his work at Jones DAO and as an Arbitrum LTIPP advisor. We are confident in their abilities to be strong additions to the Uniswap Accountability Committee.
  1. Onboarding Package for Lisk
  • Proposal: Link
  • Vote: AGAINST
  • Rationale: We voted AGAINST the Onboarding Package for Lisk, primarily due to two concerns. First, Lisk’s TVL consists entirely of its own token, and the proposed incentives would nearly exceed this TVL. Second, the chain has minimal usage, despite being launched for some time, and we are unconvinced that this will change.
  1. Uniswap Growth Program Trial
  • Proposal: Link
  • Vote: IN SUPPORT
  • Rationale: We voted IN SUPPORT of the Uniswap Growth Program Trial. Business Development and Marketing are currently underserved areas in Uniswap DAO, and AlphaGrowth brings extensive growth marketing and outbound business development experience from DAOs such as Compound. With that said, we echo concerns raised on the forum about the potential compliance risks associated with marketing incentives. We’re pleased to see that the AlphaGrowth team has responded and committed to implementing a formal legal review process for all marketing efforts.

Tally

  1. Forse Analytics for Uniswap Revitalization and Growth Program
  • Proposal: Link
  • Vote: FOR
  • Rationale: We voted FOR this proposal during the temp check phase and our previously stated rationale has not changed.
  1. Uniswap Growth Program Trial
  • Proposal: Link
  • Vote: FOR
  • Rationale: We voted IN SUPPORT of this proposal during the temp check phase and our previously stated rationale has not changed.
8

Rationale for Votes Occurring in November

Snapshot

  1. Tally Uniswap Proposal
  • Proposal: Link
  • Vote: For
  • Rationale: We voted For this proposal as we believe Tally is heavily aligned with UniswapDAO and has proven this through their continued value and support. We welcome a deeper partnership with the DAO and are excited for increased collaboration on future technological developments.

Tally

  1. Supporting Tally’s Development and Enhancements for Uniswap DAO Governance
  • Proposal: Link
  • Vote: For
  • Rationale: We supported this proposal and our rationale is stated in the snapshot section of this comment.
9

Rationale for Votes Occurring in December

Snapshot

  1. Uniswap DAO Principles

    1. Proposal: Link
    2. Vote: For
    3. Rationale: We voted FOR this proposal. The proposed principles, categorized into the broad areas of “processual principles,” “conduct-related principles,” and “structural principles,” are strong complements to the existing DAO Code of Conduct. We support these principles potentially shaping a future DAO Constitution and integrating with initiatives like the Delegate Rewards Program and the Treasury Delegation Program.

  2. Adopt The SEAL Safe Harbor Agreement

    1. Proposal: Link
    2. Vote: For
    3. Rationale: We voted FOR this proposal. We support initiatives that enhance protocol security and protect user funds. Specifically, this proposal covers possible fund recovery during active exploits, a critical area not covered in Uniswap’s Bug Bounty Program.

  3. Scale Uniswap Liquidity on Celo

    1. Proposal: Link
    2. Vote: For
    3. Rationale: We voted FOR this proposal. Celo’s proposal aligns with other incentive packages we have supported. While we acknowledge the dissenting concerns about the quality of the metrics presented, such as transaction volume and active addresses, we find the team’s responses to these questions satisfactory. Additionally, we appreciate Stabila Foundation’s incentive matching and are eager to see the outcomes of this incentive package.

  4. Metal L2: Bridging TradFi and DeFi Through Uniswap V3

    1. Proposal: Link
    2. Vote: Against
    3. Rationale: We voted AGAINST this proposal. Despite Metal’s launch on the OP Superchain and its range of payment products, the chain’s usage metrics are surprisingly low. This raises concerns, leading us to vote against the incentive package.

  5. Discretionary Budget from UAC for Co-Incentive Campaigns

    1. Proposal: Link
    2. Vote: For
    3. Rationale: We voted FOR this proposal. We support the discretionary use of surplus UAC funds for operational needs, such as incentivizing LPs or traders, to streamline the negotiation and terms process. However, we strongly urge the AlphaGrowth team to maintain full transparency with the DAO regarding the specific allocation and use of these surplus funds.

  6. Incentive Package for Sonic (Formerly Fantom)

    1. Proposal: Link
    2. Vote: We voted For 250k incentive match.
    3. Rationale: We voted FOR the 250k incentive match. While we initially approached the rebranding from Fantom to Sonic with caution, we appreciate Sonic’s commitment to matching 250k in incentives. We are also satisfied with the chain’s TVL and volume metrics.

Tally

NA

10

Rationale for Votes Occurring in January

Snapshot

NA

Tally

  1. Incentive Package for Sonic

    1. Proposal: Link
    2. Vote: FOR
    3. Rationale: We voted FOR the incentive package on Sonic and our previously stated reasoning has not changed.

  2. Scale Uniswap Liquidity on Celo

    1. Proposal: Link
    2. Vote: FOR
    3. Rationale: We voted FOR scaling Uniswap Liquidity on Celo and our previously stated reasoning has not changed.

  3. Uniswap DAO Principles

    1. Proposal: Link
    2. Vote: FOR
    3. Rationale: We voted FOR the Uniswap DAO Principles proposal. As mentioned in our previous rationale, we believe it makes sense to outline soft principles for general stakeholder conduct.

  4. Adopt the SEAL Safe Harbor Agreement

    1. Proposal: Link
    2. Vote: FOR
    3. Rationale: We voted FOR adopting the SEAL Safe Harbor Agreement. As stated in our previous rationale, we support enhancing protocol security and believe the SEAL agreement compliments the existing bug bounty program.
11

Rationale for Votes Occurring in February

Snapshot

  1. Uniswap Delegate Reward Initiative - Cycle 3

    1. Proposal: Link
    2. Vote: FOR
    3. Rationale: We voted FOR the Uniswap Delegate Reward Initiative – Cycle 3. The previous two cycles were successful in increasing participation, ensuring quorum was met. The Community Call participation requirement was a positive addition, and each new cycle attracted more delegates, many of whom maintained perfect voting participation. Lastly, we are eager to see how the current cycle’s new requirement to require a 7-day window after the end of each vote for posting rationales will affect delegate participation in forum discussions.

Tally

NA

12

Uniswap Unleashed Rationale

We voted FOR the Uniswap Unleashed proposal to fund the four identified Uniswap Foundation priorities over the next two years: scaling network supply, scaling network demand, equipping governance and the community by activating revenue, and onboarding protocol core contributors. We believe this proposal represents a significant step toward strengthening Uniswap’s ecosystem, and we trust the Foundation’s ability to execute on its vision effectively.

However, we recognize that certain areas remain unclear and require further refinement. Specifically, there is ongoing uncertainty around the establishment of a legal entity, the timeline and feasibility of activating the fee switch, and broader transparency and accountability measures for the Uniswap Foundation (UF). Additionally, it remains unclear how core contributors’ work will align with the DAO’s long-term strategic goals and how value will ultimately flow back to the DAO.

To address these concerns, the Uniswap Accountability Committee (UAC) has already begun tightening feedback loops between the UF and delegates, ensuring that these critical areas receive the necessary attention and oversight. We look forward to continued engagement to refine these structures and enhance transparency and accountability as Uniswap evolves.

Unichain/v4 Incentives Rationale

We voted FOR Unichain and Uniswap v4 liquidity incentives. Our understanding is that additional incentives will be allocated to Unichain beyond the initial three-month period. Under the current design, there would be an unintended incentive to bridge off Unichain after three months with backloaded v4 incentives still live on other chains. We would encourage the Foundation to start discussions on Unichain’s next round of incentives as soon as possible to avoid relying on a late governance vote to avoid an unintentional capital migration off of Unichain.

After in-depth discussions with Gauntlet at ETHDenver, we are confident in their dynamic approach to adjusting incentives based on performance metrics.

While we acknowledge concerns from delegates regarding how Unichain will return value to the DAO, we believe that close collaboration between the DAO and the Uniswap Foundation is essential to refining these mechanisms. That said, it’s important to recognize that successfully bootstrapping liquidity and driving sustainable activity on Unichain will inherently generate long-term value for both the DAO and UNI tokenholders.

13

Uniswap Delegate Reward Initiative - Cycle 3 (Tally)

We voted FOR the Uniswap Delegate Reward Initiative - Cycle 3 and our previously stated reasoning has not changed. Overall, we look forward to observing how the changes in this cycle influence proposal feedback and forum discussions.

Additionally, we encourage discussions for Cycle 4 to begin earlier, allowing delegates sufficient time to review Cycle 3 outcomes and provide meaningful feedback.

14

Saga Uniswap v3 Incentives (Snapshot)

We voted AGAINST the Saga incentives due to concerns around their existing usage and TVL metrics. While we understand ecosystem growth and deployments are in the early stages, Uniswap v3 is the only defi deployment listed on DefiLlama for Saga. We would like to see more protocols launch with Saga along with more organic user growth before deploying any incentives. We are open to changing our view if Saga shows sustainable growth in these areas in the future.

Uniswap Unleashed (Tally)

We voted FOR Uniswap Unleashed at the snapshot phase and our previous rationale has not changed.

Uni v4/Unichain Incentives (Tally)

We voted FOR v4 and Unichain incentives at the snapshot phase and while our rationale has not changed, we are pleased to see the Foundation commit to only incentivizing pools that would have a return to the DAO. We believe this is an important commitment for aligning tokenholders with the DAO and its incentive programs.

15

Treasury Delegation Round 2

We voted FOR the Uniswap Treasury Delegation Round 2 Proposal. The existing program, established under the Active but Underrepresented Delegates initiative, has proven effective in helping the DAO consistently achieve quorum requirements. While the initial implementation was successful, there was room for improvements. The enhancements proposed by Tane and Scopelift—particularly the implementation of expiring delegations—represent a significant step forward. This time-bound approach ensures regular evaluation of delegate performance and creates accountability mechanisms that strengthen Uniswap’s governance ecosystem.

16

BoB Uniswap v3 Incentives Package

We have voted ABSTAIN on the BoB Incentives package snapshot after originally voting in support. This was due to our voting committee failing to reach consensus after revisiting our decision on the vote. While some members recognized the opportunity that BoB presented, others were concerned with the long-term viability of these incentives. We believe there is a deeper discussion to be had around continuing to issue v3 incentives while v4 and Unichain incentives ramp up. With the v4 licensing proposal in its final stages, it seems more prudent than ever to have these discussions.

17

Establish Uniswap v4 Licensing Process

We voted FOR the Uni v4 licensing proposal due to the efficiencies that will come from streamlining v4 licensing to the Uniswap Foundation. We believe this will reduce bottlenecks around governance deployments and effectuate the best use of the BSL license while creating the necessary transparency by incorporating the ENS subdomains framework. Overall this proposal will be powerful for the growth and expansion of Uniswap v4.

18

BoB Uniswap v3 Incentives Package (Tally)

We have voted ABSTAIN on the BoB Incentives package onchain vote, consistent with our Snapshot position. Our voting committee remains divided: while some members recognize the potential value in the proposal, others question the ROI of deploying these incentives.

19

UAC Renewal S4

We have voted FOR the recent UAC renewal proposal. The Uniswap Accountability Committee (UAC) is critical to the DAO, managing everything from cross-chain incentive coordination and negotiations to DAO budgeting and accounting. We’re impressed by both the breadth and rigor of their work and believe that renewing the UAC for Season 4 will solidify their momentum.

The UAC has proven its commitment and capability in ecosystem growth, operating transparently while maintaining accountability. We support the higher budget for additional weekly hours, due to a larger scope and the discretionary funds for tooling. Data dashboards, in particular, will help delegates to evaluate the ROI of deployed incentives.

Lastly, we look forward to the election that will add two new members, rounding out the team while the three returning members preserve legacy knowledge and context.

Approved Budgets Rebalancing (S4)

We voted FOR the UAC budget rebalancing Snapshot proposal. We remain supportive of the proposed budget rebalancing. As noted in our Season 2 rationale, UNI’s price volatility relative to the DAO’s USD-denominated obligations makes periodic top-ups unavoidable. We commend the UAC for its rigorous accounting practices.

Revised Treasury Delegation Round 2

We have voted ABSTAIN on the most recent iteration of the Treasury Delegation proposal. While this departs from our original support on Snapshot, we believe the latest version has become overly prescriptive and over-engineered for its intended purpose.

We continue to appreciate the work put into introducing expiring delegations in the Franchiser contract, and revisiting the treasury delegation initiative. However, with the anticipated launch of Unistaker later this year, it is unclear whether further revisions to the existing program are necessary.

Furthermore, the acknowledgment that this proposal is only a short-term solution further raises questions about the need for such detailed modifications. The original Treasury Delegation initiative has already proven effective at solving the core challenge of achieving quorum. As such, we believe it would be more prudent to allow the current system to continue operating until Unistaker can provide a more comprehensive and permanent solution.

Establish Uniswap v4 Licensing Process

Consistent with our Snapshot vote, we have voted FOR the Uniswap v4 licensing proposal. We believe this approach will streamline deployment processes, reduce governance inefficiencies, and ultimately foster broader growth and adoption of v4.

20

[Temp Check] Analytics Hub for Uniswap’s Revitalization and Growth Program

Four Chains for Analytics Hub for Uniswap’s Revitalization and Growth Program

We voted ABSTAIN on both the Analytics Hub proposal and the succeeding Four Chains selection vote. For context, we previously voted FOR the use of Forse Analytics in the Uniswap Revitalization and Growth program, which focused on Base, Arbitrum, Blast, and Scroll. We are pleased with the dashboards and insights delivered to date.

However, before approving funding to expand analytics to additional chains, we believe it’s critical that current insights be meaningfully integrated into the DAO’s broader deployment and incentive strategies. One area of opportunity is using Forse’s data to inform the work of the UAC—ensuring incentives are directed toward protocols and pools with long-term stickiness.

For example, Forse has highlighted that volatile ETH-stablecoin pairs (e.g., WETH/USDC and WETH/USDT) demonstrate better liquidity retention over time, albeit with higher upfront costs. Insights like this should guide where and how incentives are deployed.

We appreciate StableLab’s work with Forse to date. However, before supporting further funding, we’d like to see a more cohesive strategy that ties analytics to action—ensuring data-driven deployments and incentives are prioritized across the DAO.