[TEMP CHECK] Scaling V4 and Supporting Unichain - Snapshot
Our voting rationale for the GFX/Oku Scaling V4 Proposal Snapshot can be found in the forum thread:
Our voting rationale for the GFX/Oku Scaling V4 Proposal Snapshot can be found in the forum thread:
We ABSTAINED from the UAC vote by equally voting for all candidates. Since Cole was running for the UAC we felt an abstain vote was most appropriate.
We voted FOR the updated Oku proposal to scale Uniswap v4 and advance Unichain after the grant-licensing clause was removed. We appreciate GFXâs responsiveness in revising the proposal and remain committed to Okuâs continued development. To guide any future funding decisions, we would like to see regular metrics reports âor something comparableâ so that the DAO can track impact and allocate resources based on clear data.
We voted AGAINST the Trial Advisory Board proposal. While we support efforts to unpack complex technical topics and deepen delegatesâ technical understanding of proposals, this proposal introduces an overly prescriptive and costly structure to address a problem that currently lacks urgency. Technical proposals represent a small share of governance activity today, and introducing a new board âspecifically one that is preselectedâ feels premature. Weâd prefer to see more organic demand for technical review emerge before committing to additional operational overhead.
We voted AGAINST the Etherlink Co-Incentives proposal. We do not believe the $150K co-incentive request will drive sustainable growth. Historical data from Forse Analytics shows that most liquidity incentive programs result in short-term TVL spikes, with retention typically falling below 50% after 90 days. LP behavior remains largely mercenary, with rewards often sold immediately.
Since incentives are already being distributed through the Apple Farm Season, we see limited additional value from more incentives. Until we see clear organic demand with a clear strategy for achieving stickiness onchain beyond the campaign, we cannot support this proposal.
Not to single out 404, but this sort of thinking isnât constructive for a high-growth startup like Uniswap. Generally speaking, weâre going to need to allocate funds to many things, most will fail, but the few that succeed will succeed so massively that it will cover all the prior investments and produce a considerable return. It seems contradictory to vote against this well-structured request for $150K when 404 (and most of the DAO) voted in favor of the +7.5M UNI funding package for Unichain and Uniswap v4.