The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @kaereste, @Sinkas, and @Manugotsuka, and it’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
We voted FOR.
In our view, this proposal serves as a shield, equipping Uniswap Governance with the tools to meet off-chain requirements while protecting individual participants from personal liability. It also lowers the barrier for traditional entities to engage with Uniswap Governance, as they can enter into contracts with a recognized legal entity, which previously could only be done through the Uniswap Foundation.
That said, there are several open questions the community should continue to debate. First, the size of the legal and compliance funding requested, $16.5M in UNI, is significant, and part of it relates to retroactive expenditures. We believe that a clear and itemized breakdown of expenses is necessary to provide the community with complete transparency.
We understand that it’s impossible to anticipate such a breakdown ahead of time, but we request full transparency after the fact, especially regarding expenses related to past tax obligations or fines. Second, while Cowrie brings expertise, it remains a relatively young firm, founded in 2024. The community should closely monitor its performance and remain open to revisiting this arrangement if necessary.
Finally, given that we lack legal expertise, we would like to gain a better understanding of any potential future implications of choosing a U.S.-based entity over other jurisdictions. Was it because DUNA is the only available framework for a DAO to use, or were there other factors guiding the decision?
Overall, we support this proposal because it strengthens Uniswap Governance’s long-term resilience. However, we also call on the community to maintain strong oversight by requesting more details on expenditures, clarifying jurisdictional choices, and closely tracking service quality.