Let me get this straight.
We have the Uniswap Foundation (UF), which is funded by a group of delegates—many of whom know each other through private Telegram groups and in-person events. One group, the UAC, essentially greenlights UF’s funding by herding familiar delegates behind the scenes. Meanwhile, the UF dangles the idea of a protocol fee switch as a carrot to the community.
Then, when delegates push back with, “We want to be paid too!”—because, let’s be honest, most don’t actually own UNI personally— @Doo_StableLab rallies the top VC-backed delegates to secure compensation in UNI. The justification? The fee switch is supposedly imminent.
But surprise: the fee switch isn’t happening.
And yet, somehow, we’re still moving forward with paying delegates in UNI—for what, exactly? Button pressing?
This is governance theatre.
The UAC rarely challenges its own delegates. Being critical risks bad vibes—and worse, it might jeopardize the flow of funds.
Here’s some feedback:
We need more voices from actual UNI holders—people who bought the token and have real skin in the game. We need rotation in positions of power. We need value-driven contributors who are here to make meaningful changes, not coast for the next decade on six-figure salaries as UF board members.
Yes, we get it—you’re all friends with Hayden and the team. But can we please start taking DAOs seriously?
Let’s implement mechanism designs that prioritize users. Let’s challenge the entrenched structures. Because right now, it feels like user voices don’t stand a chance against the insiders already in place.
Also, I love how this post has 8 likes, but no one else has provided feedback. Everyone giving you a pat on the back for the nice post, good job. What are the value metrics to UAC doing its job, and UF? Can anyone actually lose a job here or be fired? Who keeps the accountable, accountable? The community/users/actual holders that have been silenced.