One of the “sensitive” topics is diversifying UF funding sources. At the moment everything is financed via capital depletion (one-way UNI-fiat conversion). Given that there is
a) free-riding via vampire mining of the AMM software post-business license lockup
b) some of the activities (eg lobbying) are more pool-goods rather than specific to UniDAO
c) UF is 501(c)4 non-profit which by law is not allowed to be used as a vehicle to directly benefit the business interests of the company that establishes it
then logically UF can accept donations from a broader spectrum of DeFi participants. The question is who? And more importantly, are they collaborators, co-opetitors, or competitors (business frienemy) to the DAO.
Above is a typology of AMMs segmented bv dissimilarity matrix. Thinking about the space:
- what is the criteria for joint activity - ie spiillover effects are so large (eg hooks) that it makes sense accepting monies that benefit both parties
- is there identified burden-sharing or cost-splitting which allows co-opetitors to take advantage of scale (rather than replicating UF across every AMM)
- are hybrids which also use an order-book basically a CEX and thus a direct substitute for the uniswap protocol?
A nuanced answer to the above means diversification and thus increased resilience for UF activities whilst being more capital efficient for the DAO treasury (== sustainability) plus reduce legal risk as Brian @Nistler noted. General (not advice) observation 
Possibilities include, but are not limited to, ensuring the company is not the sole source of the 501(c)(4)’s funding and/or having outside representation on the 501(c)(4)’s governing board. One could also vet the nonprofit’s activities to ensure that there is a strong position that they serve a social welfare interest.