As of early December, the UAC had a surplus of nearly $3M.
The $3.5M in Uniswap Accountability Committee’s multi-sig is for a multitude of programs, not just UNI for the Uniswap Revitalization and Growth proposal. For example, proposal 74, the prop supporting Tally, was directed to the UAC. Further, proposals are often denominated in dollars but are funded to the UAC in UNI. Between the UAC receiving UNI and distributing it for the approved proposal, the price of UNI can fluctuate, leading to a surplus or deficit.
Proposal 59 stated, “The goal of this proposal is to take Uniswap on the offensive by actively supporting and incentivizing new deployments of Uniswap v3. If successful, we will be able to grow Uniswap’s market share and increase the amount of volume growing through protocol-owned deployments rather than leaving the opportunity for more Uni V3 forks to grab market share.”
That said, we are not opposed to directing sizable incentives to Unichain. The sums requested by the Uniswap Foundation are not beyond what we would support. Our primary concern with the proposal is the foundation’s lack of governance.
In the short term, if the DAO would like, we would be happy to propose allocating sizable incentives to Unichain.