Governance Proposal - Supporting the DeFi Education Fund

[drllau_LexDAO]

What was Agreed?

My understanding is this was the execution of the affirmative vote of the revised proposal

@millerDEF

Token Smart Contract Streaming: DEF would receive 500k tokens upon passage of this proposal and 500k would be locked up in a streaming contract that would “vest” linearly over 12 months. Governance could vote to stop the streaming of the remaining tokens at any time. We are looking into the best way to implement this idea and will update the forum thread with confirmed details once we have them.

UF advocacy Spend

The recent UF 2025-27 fiscal expenditure wanted funds to cover

@devinwalsh

In 2024, the UF engaged informally with staffers of Congress members, the administration, and regulatory agencies, and crypto lobbying groups to advocate for DeFi to push for regulatory clarity, governance certainty, and builder protections. Recognizing the pivot from enforcement to dialogue, UF has engaged with the SEC Crypto Task Force, CFTC, and key Congressional committees to help shape DeFi policy. The UF is well-positioned to expand these efforts and excited to explore opportunities here in the next year.

I can’t find a specific budget line item so cannot estimate the hours involved. However, this seems to switch to in-sourcing rather than collective burden-sharing

@devinwalsh

As to broader funding, I don’t know there is a better anchor donor that Uniswap. The Uniswap Protocol is one of the largest targets in the space. It is at the same time one of the most used Protocols, and to the extent its growth or innovation is negatively impacted by misguided policies or antagonistic regulatory action, it negatively impacts not only Uniswap but the entire space. At the same time, Uniswap has one of the largest treasuries in the space. The DEF’s ask is ~0.2% of the Treasury. (While Uniswap would be an anchor, 8 other teams and 70+ other individuals have donated, so Uniswap is not the only donor)

Substitute or Supplement?

3 questions come to mind

1. Has DEF delivered (speaking on contractual basis) what it originally promised?
2. Is UF now stepping forward to substitute for DEF?
3. What are fiscal implications … eg claw back double dipping into a contingent reserve (contestible). This is a supplement but held within the (future) treasury as cookie jar for legal activities.

=============

Addenda

Some concerns which were previously raised and could be re-examined (benefits, anchor, risk migration)

@Doo_StableLab

As much as the proposal is understandable and unpopular for us to do vote against it, we will be voting against this proposal in the current state once live. It’s been almost 2 years since DeFi Education Fund posted any updates on this forum despite taking such a significant amount (which was also one million $UNI as they shared).

@Userisky

The proposed amount is quite high. The UNI DAO has struggled to meet its basic funding needs, with no sustainable income. Selling UNI tokens negatively affects smaller airdrop recipients who have held or purchased more over the years.

…

Seek funding from large VC firms that have profited the most from buying seed rounds across the crypto ecosystem and have substantial cash reserves. Seek funding from large VC firms that have profited the most from buying seed rounds across the crypto ecosystem and have substantial cash reserves.

@lex-node

You guys know I support and respect you as lawyers, and you’ve done some great work, but AFAIK you have flagrantly broken almost every transparency and accountability promise made during the initial solicitation–which I and others predicted would happen.

…

$30M is a lot of money and we don’t know how it was spent–I have to suppose it mainly benefited whiteshoe biglaw partners who mostly do not care about crypto