Gauntlet Delegate Platform

Delegation Pitch
21

Adopt The SEAL Safe Harbor Agreement (Onchain)
Vote: For
Gauntlet favors adopting the SEAL Whitehat Safe Harbor Agreement and supporting whitehats to enhance user fund security.

Uniswap DAO Principles (Onchain)
Vote: For
Gauntlet is in favor of the principles outlined in this proposal.

22

Uniswap Delegate Reward Initiative - Cycle 3 (Snapshot)
Vote: For
Gauntlet voted in favor of the Uniswap Delegate Reward Initiative, although we believe significant issues here tailor more toward “participation” rather than actual impact. It’s still a worthwhile experiment worth pursuing.

[Temp Check] Uniswap Unleashed
Vote: For
The Uniswap Foundation has proven to be a critical partner to the DAOs success. Having seen the roadmap presented by the Foundation, Gauntlet has faith in the Foundation to execute it’s duties on behalf of the DAO.

[Temp Check] Unichain and Uniswap v4 Liquidity Incentives
Vote: Abstain
Gauntlet will abstain from this vote as a contributor to the Uniswap V4 Liquidity Incentives proposal. However, we fully support the proposal and believe incentives will be critical to bootstrap liquidity on both V4 and Unichain.

23

Uniswap Delegate Reward Initiative - Cycle 3 (Onchain)
Vote: For
Again, we support a broader and more critical understanding of the DAO’s definition of a valuable delegate. That said, it is a fair initiative for the time being. Our full comments in the proposal thread capture these points specifically.

24

[Temp Check] Saga Uniswap v3 Liquidity Incentives
Vote: Against
Gauntlet has voted against the Saga Uniswap V3 incentives due to the lack of traction on the Saga platform. This proposal remains unclear on the potential value provided to the Uniswap ecosystem given this investment.

Unichain and Uniswap v4 Liquidity Incentives (Onchain)
Vote: Abstain
Gauntlet has abstained from this proposal given it’s role as the chosen service provider to support the Unichain and Uniswap V4 incentives.

Uniswap Unleashed (Onchain)
Vote: For
Gauntlet believes the Uniswap Foundation has proven to be a competent stakeholder in the Uniswap DAO ecosystem and believes the grants program and strategic guidance are critical to Uniswap’s success. We support the funding of the UF, including the increased personnel objectives.

25

Treasury Delegation Round 2
Vote: Abstain
We have voted to abstain from this temperature check, citing below our issues with the proposal’s current iterations alongside our previously communicated concerns. To confidently support this proposal, we would request the following change:

  • A 6-month or 12-month delegation program at maximum, rather than an 18-month delegation. 18 months is too long to go without reevaluation and, more importantly, too long to allow new delegates to be included.

We also do not fully agree with the rationale or criteria for the top 6 delegates receiving greater VP delegation. The scoring criteria do not reflect delegate quality, only participation, and the benefits of supporting certain delegates above others based on slim participation margins are unclear.

26

[TEMP CHECK] BoB Uniswap v3 Incentives Package
Vote: For
Gauntlet believes the data suggests BOB is a worthwhile chain to support given the small investment size. That said, we do believe this program needs to be streamlined and adjusted.

[TEMP CHECK] Establish Uniswap v4 Licensing Process
Vote: For
Gauntlet has voted for this proposal but we feel the need to express that there should be a clear guideline that no payment or compensation from external parties should be awarded to UAC members for the granting of external licenses, and any payments in negotiations should be made public.

27

BoB Uniswap v3 Incentives Package (Onchain)
Vote: For
Gauntlet believes the data suggests BOB is a worthwhile chain to support, given the small investment size. That said, we do believe this program needs to be streamlined and adjusted.

Establish Uniswap v4 Licensing Process (Onchain)
Vote: For
Gauntlet has voted for this proposal following confirmation from @AbdullahUmar concerning the UAC’s inability to grant external licenses.

[Temp Check/Revised] Treasury Delegation Round 2 (Snapshot)
Vote: Abstain
This proposal would raise Treasury Delegation above 37% of the quorum if passed as written. After discussions with internal delegates and DAO stakeholders, we remain concerned that this would mark a significant and inappropriate shift toward delegate capture, thus degrading the DAO’s original intent to empower UNI token holders to govern the Uniswap DAO treasury and Uniswap protocol parameters (namely the fee switch). Expanding a 10M UNI delegation program, which already comprises 25% of the quorum, sets too risky a precedent at a time when delegate incentives have proven effective in activating Uniswap DAO voting power to achieve quorum on an ongoing basis. @kaereste and @Sinkas also provided a prescient analysis of the deep problems associated with Treasury delegation.
We are open to further discussion and evaluation. Still, the extensibility and feasibility of Treasury Delegation become less attractive as the DAO proceeds toward a DUNA and more formal legal architecture.
Lastly, we appreciate the hard work @Tane has put into facilitating the debate around the proposal. These are difficult conversations, and we’ve found @Takeshi_Tane adept at guiding them forward.

Approved Budgets Rebalancing (S4) (Snapshot)
Vote: Approve Rebalance
Gauntlet has voted to rebalance the UAC with $280,142 of UNI.

UAC Renewal S4 (Snapshot)
Vote: Renew UAC
The UAC has demonstrated competence in supporting DAO-endorsed initiatives, and we are voting in favor of its renewal.

28

[TEMP CHECK] Scaling V4 and Supporting Unichain (Snapshot)
Vote: Against
Gauntlet has voted against this proposal for the time being due to several outstanding concerns:

  • Blanket License Designation: It’s unclear what “blanket” licensing entails in this context. The DAO has already granted license rights to the Uniswap Foundation, and it’s ambiguous whether this proposal allows Oku Trade to sub-license or enable forks of V4, including new brands, tokens, or frontends on other chains. Why can’t a one-off license for Oku’s use case be managed through the Foundation or proposed via a subcommittee process?
  • Oku Trade Development Grant: We’d prefer clarification on why Oku was not supported in the latest grant cycle. This proposal seems to be downstream from the Foundation’s remit. If an application is rejected, we will still view Oku as a long-standing partner and would not necessarily rule out DAO-based funding as an alternative.
  • Concerns with Expansion Strategy: As noted in previous discussions (including recent proposals from StableLab and AlphaGrowth), we remain skeptical of the efficacy of past Uniswap expansion efforts. Many expansion proposals have targeted low-quality chains, leading to administrative burden and poor capital efficiency. Without a clear shift in strategy, we currently do not support expanding blanket rights to Oku or continuing V3’s licensing precedent.

Oku Trade has proven to be a committed partner to Uniswap, but we believe some of this proposal’s high-level strategic implications for expansion require reassessment.

29

[Temp Check] Analytics Hub for Uniswap’s Revitalization and Growth Program & Four Chains for Analytics Hub for Uniswap’s Revitalization and Growth Program
Votes: Abstain
While we support the StableLab team and believe their previous dashboards provided valuable insight, we remain unconvinced of the effectiveness of Uniswap’s V3 growth strategy as reflected in both AlphaGrowth and GFX in similar proposals to extend this program in various forms. We believe the strategic extension of V4 and the launch of Unichain require new tactics to ensure Uniswap’s long-term growth. We’re open to discussing what this may look like moving forward.

30

Scaling V4 and Supporting Unichain (Onchain)
Vote: For
Gauntlet voted for this proposal following the license changes, although we feel it is worth re-evaluating the costs associated with it. We feel $250K is a bit high, and we could not attend the metrics meeting for Oku; we would prefer to view a recording if it is available.

31

Uniswap Accountability Committee S4 Elections
Vote: 40% Doo, 15% Cole Schendl, 15% Takeshi, 10% Sov, 10% Jordan Karstadt
Gauntlet has voted in accordance with a candidate’s historic involvement in Uniswap DAO, perceived impact, and our confidence in the individual to fulfill the UAC role as articulated in the proposal.