# Axia Network Delegate Platform **URL:** \ **Category:** Delegation Pitch\ **Created:** [February 20, 2026, 9:49pm UTC](https://gov.uniswap.org/t/axia-network-delegate-platform/26036 "2026-02-20T21:49:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Axia](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/gov.uniswap.org/axia/32/10416_2.png) [@Axia](https://gov.uniswap.org/u/Axia)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2026, 9:49pm UTC](https://gov.uniswap.org/t/axia-network-delegate-platform/26036/1 "2026-02-20T21:49:40Z")
### **[Temp Check] Protocol Fee Expansion: Eight More Chains and Remaining Mainnet V3 Pools** **Vote:** FOR **Rationale:** Voted FOR this proposal to expand protocol fees to the following 8 chains: Arbitrum, Base, Celo, OP Mainnet, Soneium, X Layer, Worldchain, and Zora. And to enable protocol fees on all v3 pools via a new tier-based [v3OpenFeeAdapter](https://github.com/Uniswap/protocol-fees/blob/main/src/feeAdapters/V3OpenFeeAdapter.sol) on mainnet and the above L2s. The fee burn mechanism activated under UNIfication is live and working — a searcher burned 4,000 UNI within 24 hours of activation, claiming ~$39,500 tokens from the TokenJar contracts. Expanding to these 8 chains is the logical next step. The bridging infrastructure needed to route fees back to mainnet for burning was already built and battle-tested for Unichain sequencer fees. ---
**Author:** ![Axia](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/gov.uniswap.org/axia/32/10416_2.png) [@Axia](https://gov.uniswap.org/u/Axia)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2026, 9:47pm UTC](https://gov.uniswap.org/t/axia-network-delegate-platform/26036/2 "2026-03-09T21:47:28Z")
### Protocol Fee Expansion: Vote 1 + Protocol Fee Expansion Vote 2 **Rationale:** In alignment with the Snapshot vote, Axia continues to support the expansion of protocol fees to the following 8 chains: Arbitrum, Base, Celo, OP Mainnet, Soneium, X Layer, Worldchain, and Zora. ### [RFC] Governance Process Upgrade: Establishing a Statute of Limitations for Temperature Checks **Rationale:** Establishing a 90-day expiration date for off-chain proposals that do not move on-chain is a prudent mechanism. It ensures that every published proposal still aligns with the DAO’s current sentiment. ---
**Author:** ![Axia](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/gov.uniswap.org/axia/32/10416_2.png) [@Axia](https://gov.uniswap.org/u/Axia)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2026, 3:47pm UTC](https://gov.uniswap.org/t/axia-network-delegate-platform/26036/3 "2026-05-07T15:47:51Z")
### **[Return 12.5M Delegated Tokens to the Governance Timelock](https://snapshot.org/#/s:uniswapgovernance.eth/proposal/0xd41b2db93c0348e9061bf786dfcb610d8f35e8447f2e90b37b8f30a9b1a3091e)** ### Rationale Treasury delegations served an important purpose when governance participation was low and quorum was often at risk. Now, with DUNI driving significantly higher turnout and a larger distribution of voting power, it makes sense to move toward a more organic delegation structure. That said, time will tell if votes will continue to meet quorum. _ **Note:** Axia is one of the delegates who received a treasury delegation._ ---
**Author:** ![Axia](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/gov.uniswap.org/axia/32/10416_2.png) [@Axia](https://gov.uniswap.org/u/Axia)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2026, 9:37pm UTC](https://gov.uniswap.org/t/axia-network-delegate-platform/26036/4 "2026-05-20T21:37:30Z")
### [[Temp Check] Protocol Fee Expansion: Three More Chains](https://snapshot.org/#/s:uniswapgovernance.eth/proposal/0x34954750c83fdbea3d428e387aa7948eecd66d2f76c35f5588c3f1fd1e1f5c4d) Vote: FOR Rationale: Axia voted FOR this proposal to continue the protocol fee rollout by expanding fee collection and UNI burn infrastructure to Polygon and BNB Chain, while completing Celo’s activation through the corrected cross-chain governance path. This is a logical continuation of UNIfication and the prior protocol fee expansion votes. The burn mechanism is live and working: fees accumulate in TokenJars across chains, searchers call `release()`, UNI is burned, and TokenJar assets are distributed. Since the first release on Dec. 29, 2025, the system has already produced meaningful burn activity across Ethereum, Base, Arbitrum, Unichain, and OP Mainnet. For this vote, I also created an updated graphic to make the mechanism easier to understand. The first graphic explains the original protocol fee collection flow and first UNI burn. The new graphic summarizes verified burn counts from Dec. 29, 2025 through May 20, 2026, showing how the Firepit/Releaser system has continued operating across active chains. Expanding to Polygon and BNB Chain makes sense given Uniswap’s multi-chain footprint, while Celo should be completed because governance already approved its inclusion and the prior execution issue was a configuration problem rather than a policy rejection. As more chains are added, delegates should continue monitoring cross-chain messaging complexity, burn activity, and protocol revenue by chain. But based on the continuity with the existing fee framework, unchanged fee levels, and the fact that the burn system is already operating as designed, Axia supports this proposal. ### **First Burn** ![image](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/uniswap1/original/2X/4/4cde9c8a2436a8b3bce0cd0445adaadc8506a5f3.jpeg) ### **Total Burns** ![image](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/uniswap1/original/2X/c/cd321960f6daad1e6156993869ef7a3bfa8927f0.png) _ **See more here:** _ [https://rikagoldberg.xyz/work-samples](https://rikagoldberg.xyz/work-samples) ---
**Author:** ![Axia](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/gov.uniswap.org/axia/32/10416_2.png) [@Axia](https://gov.uniswap.org/u/Axia)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2026, 6:29pm UTC](https://gov.uniswap.org/t/axia-network-delegate-platform/26036/5 "2026-06-01T18:29:25Z")
### **[Protocol Fee Expansion: Vote 3](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/uniswap/proposal/96)** **Vote:** FOR **Rationale:** Voted FOR this proposal in the temp-check phase and continue to support it on-chain. ### **[Return 12.5M Delegated Tokens to the Governance Timelock](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/uniswap/proposal/97)** **Vote:** FOR **Rationale:** Voted FOR this proposal in the temp-check phase and continue to support it on-chain. ---
**Author:** ![Axia](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/gov.uniswap.org/axia/32/10416_2.png) [@Axia](https://gov.uniswap.org/u/Axia)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2026, 5:49pm UTC](https://gov.uniswap.org/t/axia-network-delegate-platform/26036/6 "2026-07-15T17:49:01Z")
### **[[Temp Check] Protocol Fee Expansion: Robinhood Chain](https://snapshot.org/#/s:uniswapgovernance.eth/proposal/0xc5fd6e916655b293c903b060906c994ff1ff1df348336b3b3e22ceecd2d13d7c)** **Vote:** FOR **Rationale:** Voted For because this proposal extends the existing protocol fee rollout to Robinhood Chain using a familiar architecture, rather than introducing a new model. Given that Robinhood Chain is an Arbitrum Orbit Chain, the chain’s early volume, and the reuse of the Arbitrum One activation pattern for protocol fee collection, I think this is reasonable. That said, I share some of the concerns raised in the [v4 fee discussion](https://gov.uniswap.org/t/temp-check-activate-v4-protocol-fees/26162). Protocol fees reduce LP income, and if they are applied too aggressively on newer or competitive deployments, they could weaken liquidity depth or push LPs elsewhere. I also think the DAO should keep evaluating whether the fee/burn mechanism creates durable demand for UNI, not just supply reduction. My support is therefore conditional on continued monitoring of LP returns, liquidity depth, volume, competitive positioning, and UNI’s economic role over time. ---
**Author:** ![Axia](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/gov.uniswap.org/axia/32/10416_2.png) [@Axia](https://gov.uniswap.org/u/Axia)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2026, 7:25pm UTC](https://gov.uniswap.org/t/axia-network-delegate-platform/26036/7 "2026-07-22T19:25:52Z")
#### **[Activate v4 Protocol Fees (Part 1/2)](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/uniswap/proposal/100)** **Vote:** Abstain **Rationale:** Voted Abstain. Although I support the goal of creating a stronger link between protocol usage and UNI value, the concerns raised on the forum around the impact to LP economics and v4’s still-limited market share, are important to seriously address before rolling out fees on v4. ---
**Author:** ![Axia](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/gov.uniswap.org/axia/32/10416_2.png) [@Axia](https://gov.uniswap.org/u/Axia)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2026, 7:05pm UTC](https://gov.uniswap.org/t/axia-network-delegate-platform/26036/8 "2026-07-24T19:05:52Z")
### **[[Temp Check] - Four for V4](https://snapshot.org/#/s:uniswapgovernance.eth/proposal/0x5ae3426216321df66a67eb677874b725f80e51888ad2da72b382b21669c554ee)** **Vote:** Abstain **Rationale:** Voted Abstain because although I support the expansion of Uniswap, each additional deployment creates ongoing governance and operational obligations, including the documentation and coordination required for cross-chain governance, contract verification, bridge / messaging configuration where relevant, and future maintenance or upgrade decisions. ---
**Author:** ![Axia](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/gov.uniswap.org/axia/32/10416_2.png) [@Axia](https://gov.uniswap.org/u/Axia)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2026, 6:37pm UTC](https://gov.uniswap.org/t/axia-network-delegate-platform/26036/9 "2026-09-22T18:37:46Z")
## **[Protocol Fee Expansion: Arc](https://snapshot.org/#/s:uniswapgovernance.eth/proposal/0xe1ac3254ff43d5d780fc6ae1f13a0c027c2ef138fadb316198d3ed814a154b7e)** **Vote:** FOR **Rationale:** Axia supports extending the protocol-fee and UNI-burn infrastructure to Arc, using the same search and burn system already enabled on other chains that have the fee switch turned on. ---
**Author:** ![Axia](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/gov.uniswap.org/axia/32/10416_2.png) [@Axia](https://gov.uniswap.org/u/Axia)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2026, 6:39pm UTC](https://gov.uniswap.org/t/axia-network-delegate-platform/26036/10 "2026-09-22T18:39:01Z")
## **[Rotate Sentinel Addresses on the DUNI-Owned Uniswap Earn Vaults](https://snapshot.org/#/s:uniswapgovernance.eth/proposal/0xa11332c5c326f34fd4d252853378f0041c4baf6a92094a2dbe91ac5c6ad855d9)** **Vote:** FOR **Rationale:** Axia supports this operational rotation. The proposal changes only Gauntlet’s Sentinel addresses for the three DUNI-owned Uniswap Earn vaults; it does not change the Curator, governance ownership, vault allocations, risk parameters, fee settings, or user-deposit rights. ---
**Author:** ![Axia](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/gov.uniswap.org/axia/32/10416_2.png) [@Axia](https://gov.uniswap.org/u/Axia)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2026, 2:22pm UTC](https://gov.uniswap.org/t/axia-network-delegate-platform/26036/11 "2026-09-30T14:22:02Z")
### **[Rotate Sentinel Addresses on the DUNI-Owned Uniswap Earn Vaults](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/uniswap/proposal/101)** **Vote:** FOR **Rationale:** Voted FOR this proposal in the temp-check phase and continue to support it on-chain. ### **[Protocol Fee Expansion: Arc](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/uniswap/proposal/102)** **Vote:** FOR **Rationale:** Voted FOR this proposal in the temp-check phase and continue to support it on-chain. ---
**Author:** ![martineza79](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/gov.uniswap.org/martineza79/32/10691_2.png) [@martineza79](https://gov.uniswap.org/u/martineza79)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2026, 5:14pm UTC](https://gov.uniswap.org/t/axia-network-delegate-platform/26036/13 "2026-10-06T17:14:53Z")
In your Robinhood Chain rationale, you made support conditional on continued monitoring of LP returns, liquidity depth, volume, competitive positioning, and UNI’s economic role over time. Which one would you treat as the first stop signal after fee activation, and what observation window would be long enough to distinguish a fee effect from normal chain volatility?