About Us
Curia Lab is a team of seasoned DAO governance researchers, data analysts, blockchain engineers, and developers. We are committed to strengthening the DAO ecosystem through specialized tools, insights, and delegate services.
Our Goal for Uniswap
Curia Lab aligns with Uniswap’s vision of an open, efficient, and decentralized financial system. Our goal is to leverage our experience in data-driven governance to support Uniswap’s core values. We aim to enhance Uniswap’s decision-making, transparency, and progressive decentralization. Our commitment to fostering innovation, ensuring user protection, and promoting financial inclusion will help Uniswap achieve sustained growth and maintain its leadership as a top DEX.
Disclosure
As a team deeply involved in governance research and DAO operations, we engage with various projects and DAOs such as Optimism, Safe, Arbitrum, Gnosis, etc. to improve their governance. We pledge to maintain transparency and manage any potential conflicts of interest responsibly, especially in our dealings with Uniswap and its community.
Waiver of Liability
By delegating to Curia for Uniswap governance, delegators acknowledge that Curia will participate on a best-effort basis and will not be liable for any damages related to this participation.
We are supporting the “$250k” funding option for the Gnosis Chain Onboarding Package. This aligns well with the Uniswap Revitalization and Growth Proposal, which aims to expand Uniswap’s presence on emerging networks.The Proposal outlines three funding tiers: $250k, $500k, and $1M. It appears that the majority of projects with a Total Value Locked (TVL) under $800 million typically receive $250k. Since Gnosis Chain’s reported TVL exceeded $300+ million, it falls within this tier. We believe this funding level is a balanced approach, allowing Uniswap to explore opportunities on Gnosis Chain while maintaining prudent resource allocation.
We vote “Against” in giving incentives at this time while supporting the deployment of Uniswap v3 on X Layer, as expanding to new chains can potentially benefit the Uniswap ecosystem. However, we oppose allocating any incentives for now because the current TVL on X Layer is significantly lower than other chains where Uniswap has been deployed without incentives, This approach allows us to expand Uniswap’s presence while letting the deployment prove its value organically within the X Layer ecosystem. We can revisit the possibility of incentives in the future if X Layer demonstrates substantial growth in TVL, increased decentralization, and active user adoption.
We support the Forse proposal, as we believe in data-driven analysis that helps the DAO optimize future incentive programs to drive long-term growth and maximize the value of the Uniswap protocol. Our allocation strategy focuses on blockchains exceeding $100M in TVL, with voting percentages precisely reflecting each network’s Total Value Locked: Arbitrum: 41%, Base: 21%, Blast: 13%, Scroll: 9%, Linea: 8%, Mantle: 7%. By allocating votes proportionally to TVL, we ensure that the analysis reflects the influence of the most impactful networks in the ecosystem.
[TEMP CHECK]- Revised - Uniswap Onboarding Package - OKX Chain
We vote “For” the revised proposal because it removes the request for UNI incentives that we previously were concerned about. This revised proposal offers a balanced solution: Uniswap covers the frontend costs for Oku Trade, demonstrating commitment to the expansion, while X Layer provides $1 million in liquidity for at least 6 months to prove its value organically.
We vote “yes” to support activating the additional bps fee tiers as a time-bound experiment. By implementing these for a defined period, we can gather valuable data on their impact on trading volume, revenue, and market share. If successful, this experiment could inform future strategies not just on Base, but potentially on other chains as well.
However, our support for this snapshot does not automatically extend to an on-chain vote. We expect to see more comprehensive research conducted and clear answers about the plan and details of community remaining questions.
We vote “For” this revised proposal which Uniswap covers Oku Trade’s frontend costs, X Layer provides $1M liquidity for 6 months. This aligns with our off-chain position.
We vote “Yes” on continuing the compensation program for delegates. The data from Cycle 1 demonstrates the program’s success in improving delegate participation and dedication, achieving 100% voting participation among selected delegates and attracting 5 new delegates, including us. This aligns with the general consensus that the compensation program could enhance delegate engagement.
Cycle 2 introduces several adjustments to accommodate more new delegates. These changes include increasing the number of positions from 12 to 15, allowing applications from delegates who have joined less than 3 months ago, and removing the requirement for a minimum Voting Power. These modifications contrast with Cycle 1’s stricter criteria due to the goal of attracting existing delegates, which required delegates to have been Uniswap delegates for at least 3 months and have a Voting Power of 10,000 $UNI or authorship of a passed off-chain proposal.
The point metrics for Cycle 2 have been adjusted to be more accessible to new delegates. Voting participation rate will now be based on the past 6 months, counterbalanced by the first date of on-chain voting. Additionally, the maximum points for authoring a proposal that passed an on-chain vote have been reduced.
Full compensation eligibility in Cycle 2 maintains the 80% voting participation requirement and offers additional rewards for writing rationales. It also introduces a new criterion: attending Uniswap Community Calls, which we support. The tie-breaker method has changed from the number of “likes” in Cycle 1 to the date of the first on-chain vote in Cycle 2.
We acknowledge community concerns about potential sybil attacks and spam delegates who might focus on perfect track records without quality contributions because Cycle 2 removes economic stake requirements, and there are worries that reputation stake will not affect them. Regarding the balance between quantity and quality, we believe it’s crucial to develop measurable metrics for quality over time. We agree with the approach of starting simple and gradually refining the process based on learnings from previous cycles, as evidenced by the improvements in Cycle 2. We suggest including a session for applicants to disclose potential conflicts of interest, especially for new applicants who may not yet have established Delegate Platforms.
We vote “Do not sponsor” We truly appreciate the effort behind this proposal and recognize the value of improving security across the Ethereum and DeFi ecosystems. The Attackathon initiative is commendable, but after careful consideration, we feel that the requested funding amount is quite substantial without a direct, tangible benefit to Uniswap. While security is vital, we believe Uniswap’s resources could be better used for projects more aligned with our core goals.
We vote ‘Renew UAC’. The Uniswap Accountability Committee (UAC) demonstrated strong performance in Season 2, as evidenced by its report, effectively managing its responsibilities and supporting key DAO initiatives. Initially, the UAC operated at 10 hours per week, but as the scope of its duties expanded, the workload now requires an increase to 30 hours per week. We understand that this expanded scope justifies the additional hours requested, ensuring that the committee can meet growing demands. The addition of a new seat further strengthens the UAC, making its renewal for Season 3 essential for maintaining operational efficiency.
We vote ‘Approved Rebalance’ due to the volatility of the UNI token, which led to an imbalance in the previously USD-denominated budgets. The rebalancing is essential to ensure the continued smooth operation of the UAC and to meet its financial obligations. The UAC has demonstrated responsible management and good accounting practices in Season 2, making the request for additional UNI justified. In the long term, stablecoins might provide a solution to avoid frequent rebalancing, but this is the best path forward for now.
We vote ‘Both (create an extra 16th spot)’ The tie-breaker for Cycle 2, which was voted on-chain, clearly states that “the tie will be decided by the date of the first on-chain vote.” We should honor this on-chain decision and adhere to the framework established by the DAO.
While we understand and appreciate the good intentions of the Working Group in resolving this situation, it is essential to respect the decision-making process that has already been carried out on-chain. The tie-breaker system from the initiative, though well-intentioned, was unexpectedly insufficient in this case. It’s encouraging to see Argonaut raising awareness about this, which will undoubtedly lead to improvements in future cycles.
As both delegates are equal under the established rule, I believe the fair decision is to vote “Both” and create a 16th spot. Though it expands the budget slightly, respecting the community-approved rule seems the most equitable choice, and both should be included.
We vote “For” to approve this proposal, which includes the snapshot budget approval for the Uniswap Accountability Renewal (UAC) Season 3, an approved budget rebalance, and an additional delegate cycle 2 spot for Argonaut and Tane. This decision aligns with our off-chain positions on UAC Renewal S3, Approved Budgets Rebalancing, Uniswap Delegate Race Tiebreaker off-chain position.
The concept of a data analysis platform for data-driven insights that help the DAO optimize future incentive programs to drive long-term growth remains consistent with our rationale from the previous Snapshot vote. We appreciate that the team has reduced the price in response to community feedback and avoided overlap with Gauntlet’s work.
However, I will vote Against because, in the prior Snapshot vote, the top four blockchain choices were Base (36.54%), Arbitrum (32.7%), Scroll (3.67%), and Blast (3.67%). Yet, in this on-chain proposal, Arbitrum, Base, and Blast were selected, with the team using TVL as a tie-breaker to choose Base over Scroll. While we understand and appreciate the intent to prioritize higher TVL for the DAO’s benefit, this decision contradicts the community-approved result from the Snapshot vote.
This issue has occurred before in another tie-breaker situation. If there had been a discussion with the DAO and a proper vote to decide the tie-breaker, we would have voted For. Since we stand by the principle of respecting the DAO’s decision, we will vote Against this time.
