The first wallet is the PRIMARY wallet to be used for security purposes. We will (rarely) use the second wallet to reach quorum, etc.
Introduction
Blockchain at Berkeley is a student-run organization at UC Berkeley founded in 2014 and focused on blockchain innovation.
The major departments in Blockchain at Berkeley are as follows:
Consulting: Building software and performing research to support companies, protocols, and other organizations. Previous clients include Arbitrum, Algorand, LayerZero, Avalanche, PayPal, UNICEF, etc.
Education: Providing blockchain education through student-run courses at UC Berkeley, to over 300,000 students worldwide through our EdX course, DeCal’s (student-taught courses at UC Berkeley), and within the org through white paper reviews and developer bootcamps.
Xcelerator: Launched what’s now the #1 university blockchain accelerator in the US, since 2019. 100+ alumni companies, 450M+ total of follow-on funding secured.
Research/Governance: Voting and building proposals for delegated protocols including Compound, Uniswap, Celo, and Obol. Also run whitepaper circles and initiatives to answer research questions in the space.
Governance Voting Methodology:
The governance department meets in person weekly to discuss updates. Members sign up to the protocols they want to be active on, with a lead being assigned to each. Throughout the week, members voice their opinions about proposals and governance changes in our internal Slack channel. After internal consensus is achieved, we vote on proposals and aim to explain our positioning on the forum.
Voting Priorities:
Active and Accountable Governance Participation
Informed Decision-Making: Base all voting decisions on thorough research and data analysis as well as forum sentiment to ensure well-founded outcomes.
Maintain Integrity and Responsibility: Ensure the integrity of the Protocol Council by responsibly using delegated tokens
Technical Contribution and Ecosystem Growth:
Support New Products: Contribute to technical discussions around new products
Data-Driven Initiatives: Utilize data and forum sentiment to justify and guide technical initiatives, targeting specific metrics to propel the ecosystem forward.
Provide Feedback and Updates: Offer constructive feedback to promote transparency and keep delegators informed about voting activities and decisions.
Community Engagement and Thought Diversity:
Active Participation: Engage in Governance forums and Discord channels to stay updated and contribute to community discussions.
Foster Collaboration and Diverse Perspectives: Encourage collaboration and a variety of viewpoints to foster innovation and creativity within the community. Facilitate respectful discussions and debates to explore different ideas and solutions to ecosystem challenges.
Waiver of Liability
By delegating to Blockchain at Berkeley, you acknowledge that we are not liable for any potential losses or adverse outcomes resulting from our involvement in the governance process.
As this is a snapshot vote, we hope that the final proposal includes many of the disagreements DAO members have brought up. The following risks are valid:
A relatively low TVL: Saga protocol activity is too low for incentive consideration
Relatively new DEX,
Pool selection: 3/5 of the pools are SAGA pools with an asymmetric reward distribution
However we believe that:
Since “Saga Foundation will contribute 2mm SAGA tokens per month (~$1.0mm USD per month as of Feb 27, 2024) to the Uniswap V3 pools to bootstrap Uniswap liquidity on Saga” is significantly more than the Uni incentives,
Saga is focused on setting Uniswap as the core canonical DEX
are good reasons to fund this project. While we understand the merit of not funding a low TVL project, as a new project that is prioritizing Uniswap, it would be a good idea to incentivize this early so that Uniswap is the main DEX. We believe to some degree, it is not up to the DAO to determine the legitimacy and future potential of a project like this, but to greedily aim to maximize market share and TVL.
Unichain and Uniswap v4 Liquidity Incentives https://vote.uniswapfoundation.org/proposals/82
YES
Voting yes on the Unichain and Uniswap v4 Liquidity Incentives proposal means supporting a targeted strategy to rapidly bootstrap liquidity during a critical growth phase. Here are the key reasons:
• It kickstarts a migration of significant TVL and trading volume to Uniswap v4 across key chains by offering higher yields to LPs, which helps build a robust liquidity base at launch.
• It’s built on a dynamic, data-driven approach—deploying incentives in short 2‑week tranches that can be adjusted in real time based on market conditions. This minimizes risk and maximizes efficient fund use.
• The proposal leverages a trusted partner (Gauntlet) and uses transparent tools (like Aera vaults and public dashboards) so that Uniswap Governance retains control and oversight over the incentive funds at every step.
• By driving immediate liquidity, the proposal not only supports short‑term volume but also creates the network effects necessary for sustained growth, attracting developers, integrators, and end users to both Uniswap v4 and Unichain.
In short, a yes vote endorses a well-calibrated, transparent plan designed to secure Uniswap’s leadership by creating a strong, sustainable liquidity foundation.
[Governance Proposal] Uniswap Unleashed https://vote.uniswapfoundation.org/proposals/83
ABSTAIN
We voted to abstain on the Uniswap Unleashed proposal because while we appreciate the ambition behind the initiative, we believe several areas still require further clarification before we can fully commit our support. Specifically, we have concerns regarding the proposal’s expansive scope and the clarity of its performance metrics. The long‑term KPIs and intermediate milestones need to be more clearly defined to ensure that we can objectively measure progress and adjust strategy as needed. Additionally, the substantial funding request spread over multiple years raises questions about resource allocation and accountability.
We agree with concerns many delegates have brought up, including:
Vague direction on fee sharing and fee switch
Unichain ownership and vague direction of DAO legal structure
Lump sum has no incremental or milestone-driven unlocks
Vague onboarding direction of Core Contributors
We believe in the core direction of this proposal and the incentivization of univ4 and hook builders is necessary but its implementation contains some conflicts of interest and vague direction on DAO ownership/responsibility.
[RFC] Uniswap Onboarding Package for BOB Voting Decision: YES Discussion Forum Link:https://gov.uniswap.org/t/rfc-uniswap-onboarding-package-for-bob/25436 Off/Onchain Vote Link:Link Provided in Governance Vote Thread Explanation:
We voted YES on the BOB onboarding package because it supports a strategic initiative that leverages a promising Hybrid Layer 2 focused on Bitcoin DeFi. BOB has demonstrated significant organic traction—with over $247M TVL across its Dapps and $42–43M in Uniswap V3 liquidity—and positions itself as the primary venue for BTC-native volume. The proposal’s design to boost liquidity incentives (including a commitment of $500K matched at 75% by the DAO) helps reinforce Uniswap’s position as the canonical DEX on BOB. This early-stage boost is seen as critical for long-term network growth and for unlocking new BTC use cases on DeFi, thereby expanding Uniswap’s ecosystem influence.
Establish Uniswap v4 Licensing Process Voting Decision: YES Discussion Forum Link:https://gov.uniswap.org/t/establish-uniswap-v4-licensing-process/25443 Off/Onchain Vote Link:Link Provided in Governance Vote Thread Explanation:
Our YES vote on the v4 licensing process proposal reflects our confidence in establishing a strong operational framework for the next phase of Uniswap’s expansion. By creating dedicated ENS subdomains (v4-core-license-grants.uniswap.eth and v4deployments.uniswap.eth) and setting up a process for granting blanket license exemptions, the proposal not only preserves Uniswap’s temporary competitive moat under the Business Source License but also ensures secure and transparent tracking of official v4 deployments. This structured approach enables the DAO—and its partners like the Uniswap Foundation—to manage and accelerate v4 adoption across multiple chains, thereby setting the stage for advanced hook integrations and overall protocol growth before the license eventually transitions to MIT.
Explanation:
We voted YES on the BOB onboarding package as it reinforces Uniswap’s strategic position as the canonical DEX for Bitcoin-native assets on Layer 2. BOB has demonstrated traction, with over $247M TVL and $43M in Uniswap V3 liquidity, ranking it 5th among all Uniswap deployments.
The proposal requests $375K in UNI to support Uniswap pool incentives and infrastructure costs, with BOB committing an additional $500K in matched incentives over six months. This liquidity boost targets high-impact BTC-centric pairs and supports deeper adoption of BTC Liquid Staking Tokens (LSTs) on Uniswap. Campaigns like BOB Fusion and BOB Rise have already driven Uniswap user engagement and TVL growth, with Uniswap receiving the highest reward multipliers in Fusion and a 6–7x return on OP emissions during BOB Rise.
We believe this proposal strengthens Uniswap’s leadership in BTC DeFi and ensures it remains the preferred venue for wrapped BTC and Bitcoin-native assets.
Explanation :
We are voting yes as this rebalance ensures that the DAO can meet prior commitments to key programs like Tally, UEII, delegate compensation, and the Forse Grant, despite fluctuations in UNI’s price.
Since program budgets are set in USD, topping up the accounts is a necessary step to honor existing obligations, prevent operational shortfalls, and maintain credibility—consistent with the precedent set by the DAO during the Season 3 rebalance.
We are voting yes for renewing the UAC. Over the course of three seasons, the UAC has taken a central role in the DAO’s operational body. From facilitating cross-chain deployments, managing governance calls, and supporting incentive distribution, renewing the UAC ensures the infrastructure and stability needed for Uniswap’s governance to grow and adapt at scale.
Additionally, the proposed $370K budget is reasonable given the additional operational responsibilities including the new implementation of the Foundation Feedback Group (FFG) and it’s value demonstrated across prior seasons.
adds a community vote to choose 6 delegates to get a bit more voting power
Overall this proposal is bringing more structure, accountability, and transparency to the DAO.
Proposal Title: Establish Uniswap v4 Licensing Process
Voting Decision: YES Link to Discussion Forum of the Proposal Link to off/onchain vote
Explanation: This proposal sets up infrastructure for rolling v4 out quickly while BSL is still active by introducing license exemptions for deployment. Without these exemptions, deployment would be extremely slow, which will severely hurt v4’s early adoption. This proposal also allows UF to deploy v4 across multiple chains without needing to get the DAO’s approval every time. Furthermore, this proposal introduces an official registry of v4 deployments, necessary for keeping track of authorized v4 forks and reducing confusion for developers and users.
Approved Budgets Rebalancing (S4) (On-Chain)
YES Link to Discussion Forum of the Proposal Link to off/onchain vote
Voting YES because a rebalance is necessary to ensure DAO program accounts have the correct budget after fluctuations in the UNI token price have created deficits in several accounts. The additional budget going into deficient accounts ensures Uniswap’s operational functions and community participation continue.
UAC Renewal S4 (on-chain)
YES Link to Discussion Forum of the Proposal Link to off/onchain vote
Renewing UAC ensures momentum isn’t lost, which is crucial for Uniswap v4 adoption. Furthermore, during UAC’s season 3 alone, there were 17 new v3 deployments, all while maintaining transparent accounting and managing incentive programs across several chains. Without renewal, there’s a risk of operational gaps in managing cross-chain deployments and incentive disbursements, which would directly negatively impact protocol usage and overall network growth.
[Temp Check] Analytics Hub for Uniswap’s Revitalization and Growth Program
YES Link to Discussion Forum of the Proposal Link to off/onchain vote
Voting YES on this proposal because the UAC has become the DAO’s backbone and has been handling everything from cross-chain deployments to financial oversight. Having an analytics hub makes it straightforward to view UAC’s performance and metrics. Furthermore, granting the UAC the authority to manage subdomain updates for new deployments allows the DAO to reduce unnecessary on chain votes. This additional visibility boosts transparency and ensures Uniswap can scale efficiently without slowing down from on chain votes.
[TEMP CHECK] Scaling V4 and Supporting Unichain
Abstain Link to Discussion Forum of the Proposal Link to off/onchain vote
Abstaining due to unclear proposal details in regards to the blanket license for GFX Labs; it’s not clear what this license would allow in this context.
Scaling V4 and Supporting Unichain
Abstain Link to Discussion Forum Link to onchain vote
Abstaining with many of the same reasons Gauntlet listed. We believe blanket licenses may prove both unwieldy and unproductive in growing Uniswap’s frontend presence. However, we do not have deep knowledge of Uniswap’s history of licensing, so we Abstained rather than voted No.
Hi guys, we addressed Gauntlets’ primary concerns with the revised Additional Use Grant text.
We understand your vote has already been submitted, but for other voters, could you share what your concern is so we can best address it if others are in the same position?
We decided to provide equal votes to all members we have seen as being productive members of the Uniswap DAO. We have not worked directly with any of these individuals, thus could not make any judgement calls on perceived effectiveness in this role.