Curia Delegate Platform

[Curia]

Incentive Package for Sonic (Formerly Fantom)

I am voting ‘$250k Incentive Match’ this proposal due to Sonic’s strong growth potential and its alignment with Uniswap’s expansion goals. The $500k matching incentive from Sonic Labs, along with Uniswap’s $250k contribution, creates a favorable incentive structure.

Sonic’s TVL has reached $100 million within six weeks, reflecting strong adoption and infrastructure. Given that projects with a TVL under $800 million typically receive a $250k incentive, this allocation aligns with our previous stance. Additionally, Sonic’s team has a proven track record, including success with their prior work on Fantom. Their ability to drive adoption and innovation makes Sonic a promising environment for Uniswap’s growth.

:: Incentive Package for Sonic
We vote ‘For’ to deploy Uniswap V3 on Sonic, in line with our offchain position. With Sonic’s TVL reaching $100 million and a $500k matching incentive, we believe this proposal offers significant growth potential for Uniswap.

:: Scale Uniswap Liquidity on Celo
We vote ‘For’ to scale Uniswap liquidity on Celo, in line with our Temp Check rationale. Despite the lack of clear answers to remaining questions, such as the project timeline, we believe funding Celo offers more potential benefits.

:: Uniswap DAO Principles

I am voting For this on-chain proposal, in alignment with my earlier stance. By ratifying a clear ethical framework, it strengthens trust, and consistency in governance. Looking ahead, future exploration of enforcement mechanisms can further enhance its impact, ensuring Uniswap remains resilient and guided by shared values. This proposal thus marks a critical step toward a more structured, transparent, and principled approach to decision-making within the DAO.

:: Governance Proposal - Adopt The SEAL Safe Harbor Agreement

I am voting For this adopting the SEAL Safe Harbor Agreement. As noted before, its 72-hour return window and a 10% bounty (capped at $2.25M), matching Uniswap Labs’ V3 bug bounty, ensure fair incentives and avoid conflict of priorities with standard vulnerability disclosures. Its legal protections and on-chain transparency boost accountability, and align with industry best practices—safeguarding Uniswap’s treasury and building user confidence in the protocol.

[Curia]

[Temp Check] Uniswap Delegate Reward Initiative - Cycle 3

We are voting in favor of this Delegate Reward Initiative Cycle 3, while maintaining our stance from previous cycles, particularly on quality vs. quantity, conflict of interest, and vesting mechanisms (see previous discussions: Curia Delegate Platform and Cycle 3 Discussion).

Although we support several proposed improvements—increased emphasis on voting participation points, clearer tie-breakers, and rationale deadlines—we believe the initiative could be more ambitious given the six-month cycle. Our primary concern is maintaining a balance between the quantity and quality of contributions.

Relying solely on quantitative metrics may not fully capture thoughtful proposal analysis or meaningful contributions. We therefore advocate for more robust mechanisms that reward quality governance participation, where the rationale behind decisions is given greater weight.
Attracting newcomers with meaningful contributions is essential for diversifying opinions and enriching governance. However, if the focus remains predominantly on numbers, it could hinder efforts to challenge delegates who receive monthly payments despite not meeting the higher standards of quality. Others should have the opportunity to challenge delegate decisions based on the quality of their rationale, and we should closely evaluate this cycle’s outcomes to understand its full impact.

In the next cycle, we would advocate for having a monthly rewards system that incentivizes full participation. Delegates who achieve 100% participation would receive rewards, while those falling short would incur proportional deductions. Additionally, a quality-based bonus pool would recognize meaningful contributions—we could even experiment further allowing those not eligible for monthly payments to get this bonus as well.

This approach would encourage delegates to consistently provide high-quality rationale and strive for continuous improvement, while still rewarding top performers. For evaluating the quality of contributions, we are keen to adopt a framework similar to Arbitrum’s—as Seedgov mentioned—where a Program Manager scores contributions based on predefined parameters. Although this method involves a degree of subjectivity, its structured approach helps ensure that valuable insights are properly recognized.

In summary, we believe striking a balance between quality and quantity is key to enhancing governance and maintaining an engaged, diverse pool of delegates. We also support the proposed vesting approach, but view it as a long-term strategy to align incentives with sustainable, quality contributions.

[Curia]

[Temp Check] Saga Uniswap v3 Liquidity Incentives

We vote Against the Saga and Uniswap v3 Liquidity Incentives at this stage. Saga’s current TVL of 4.3 million (DefiLlama) and its growth rate are not yet sufficient to justify incentivizing liquidity. Until Saga demonstrates more substantial and sustained growth, it is more prudent to focus liquidity incentives on more established platforms.

:: Uniswap Delegate Reward Initiative - Cycle 3

We are voting For in alignment with my earlier stance but explicitly setting an expectation that the next cycle should incorporate a stronger mechanism for rewarding thoughtful engagement and diligent rationale.

[Curia]

:: Unichain and Uniswap v4 Liquidity Incentives

We are voting ‘For’ this proposal because Uniswap is entering a new phase with the deployment of Uniswap v4 and Unichain. We believe that liquidity incentives will spur growth and that the Uniswap Foundation’s strategy is designed to create more value and alignment for UNI holders. Unichain, in particular, may play a crucial role in this evolution. While these incentives could attract users in the short term, we recognize that long-term success will depend on adaptability. Accordingly, we plan to monitor the initiative closely and will advocate for the recall of any unused funds if the results do not meet expectations.
Regarding the service provider selection process, we agree that a transparent and competitive approach is essential for choosing the most qualified parties. Currently, the Uniswap Foundation has proposed Gauntlet. Given their experience managing other DeFi protocols, such as Compound, we are confident in their ability to handle this initiative effectively. However, we understand that the selection process may evolve, and until it is finalized, we remain supportive of the proposal—emphasizing the need for ongoing evaluation and accountability to ensure its success.

[Curia]

:: Uniswap Unleashed

We are voting For the “Uniswap Unleashed” proposal. While we acknowledge concerns raised by other delegates regarding the lack of precise milestones and KPIs, particularly given the significant funding amounts requested and the two-year timeline, we believe the overall direction is sound. The proposal’s focus on scaling Uniswap v4 and Unichain, along with its strategy to incentivize liquidity growth and developer engagement, aligns with Uniswap’s long-term success. Despite the concerns, we support the Uniswap Foundation’s plan to drive ecosystem growth and governance improvements, as it will help strengthen Uniswap’s position in the DeFi space.

[Curia]

[Temp Check] Treasury Delegation Round 2

We are voting For the RFC: Treasury Delegation Round 2 proposal. We support the continuation of treasury delegation as a key mechanism to sustain DAO voting power participation. This program plays a critical role in the security and resilience of the DAO.

We also support the idea of expiration dates for delegations. Enforcing term limits through on-chain contracts is a meaningful step toward stronger accountability. While the proposed 18-month delegation period is slightly longer than what we’d prefer, the inclusion of an annual re-selection process provides a reasonable check-in point.

We would appreciate a clarification regarding the selected delegates’ responsibilities - 80% justification rate requirement - specifically, whether there is a defined timeframe for rationale submissions following each vote? For reference, the Uniswap Delegate Reward Initiative - Cycle 3 provided a 7-day window

We also agree with AbdullahUmar’s point that this program has distinct goals compared to the Delegate Reward Initiative. Given that, we believe it would make sense for this program to have its own scoring system aligned with its own objectives. Reusing the previous scoring framework could unintentionally favor delegates with a long history of activity and reduce diversity in participation.

We’d love to see a scoring approach that creates space for newer or smaller delegates - those bringing fresh perspectives and showing strong engagement. A thoughtful balance between recognizing historical contributions and supporting emerging voices would lead to a healthier, more inclusive governance landscape.

[Curia]

[TEMP CHECK] BoB Uniswap v3 Incentives Package

We voted FOR the BOB Network onboarding package. With $247M in total TVL and $42.78M in Uniswap V3 liquidity, BOB has proven strong product-market fit and is already the 5th largest Uniswap deployment—outpacing OP Mainnet and BSC. Their $500K incentive commitment, matched with a reasonable 75% ask from the DAO, signals serious alignment. BOB’s choice to prioritize Uniswap over native DEXs and its consistent delivery of organic liquidity growth make this proposal a clear win for Uniswap’s expansion into BTC DeFi.

[Curia]

[TEMP CHECK] Establish Uniswap v4 Licensing Process

I am voting For this proposal as it establishes a clear, secure, and scalable framework for Uniswap v4 deployments under the BSL. Granting the Uniswap Foundation a blanket license exemption will accelerate strategic expansion across chains, while UAC’s permission to manage the deployment registry ensures accountability and continuity. This structure builds on the successful v3 deployment model and strengthens Uniswap’s competitive edge during the BSL window. I see no significant downsides to adopting this approach.