# Delegate \<-\> UF Feedback Mechanism Ideas Thread

**URL:** <https://gov.uniswap.org/t/delegate-uf-feedback-mechanism-ideas-thread/25298>\
**Category:** Governance-Meta\
**Created:** [February 25, 2025, 8:47pm UTC](https://gov.uniswap.org/t/delegate-uf-feedback-mechanism-ideas-thread/25298 "2025-02-25T20:47:10Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![drllau\_LexDAO](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/gov.uniswap.org/drllau_lexdao/32/8871_2.png) [@drllau\_LexDAO](https://gov.uniswap.org/u/drllau_LexDAO)\
**Post date:** [March 5, 2025, 2:49am UTC](https://gov.uniswap.org/t/delegate-uf-feedback-mechanism-ideas-thread/25298/3 "2025-03-05T02:49:44Z")

</div>

> [@Doo\_StableLab](#):
>
> But I do see metric in having those topics on forum and discuss further together. One of

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](https://www.skadden.com/insights/publications/2023/03/complying-with-the-rules-governing-501c4-organizations-key-issues) 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.

 ![Screenshot 2025-03-05 10.26.54](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/uniswap1/original/2X/8/8439bb4f18c49f4e7d8572906e08f018d1d74420.png)

Above is a typology of AMMs segmented bv dissimilarity matrix. Thinking about the space:

1. 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
2. is there identified **burden-sharing** or cost-splitting which allows co-opetitors to take advantage of scale (rather than replicating UF across every AMM)
3. 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](https://gov.uniswap.org/t/rfc-uniswap-unleashed/25251/33) 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.

---

_[View the full topic](https://gov.uniswap.org/t/delegate-uf-feedback-mechanism-ideas-thread/25298)._