The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @kaereste and @Sinkas. It’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
We voted FOR the proposal.
First and foremost, we want to note that we’ve gone through and understand all the different points and concerns that other delegates have raised regarding the proposal. We, too, find the request to be substantial and we see the need for thorough deliberation before action.
After carefully reviewing the proposal and all associated resources, as well as the discussion beneath the post, we ultimately decided that voting in favor of funding the Uniswap Foundation would be the best net-positive direction the DAO could take.
While we understand that Unichain, its fee distribution, and any other related aspect aren’t under the DAO’s control, we should think of it as an extension of Uniswap and, therefore, support it to the same extent. We believe that the Foundation has done a great job on transparency so far, and we do not have any strong concerns about their continuing to do so.
Ultimately, the DAO is meant to support Uniswap protocol, and the Uniswap Foundation is one of our most substantial assets in doing so, as proven by its track record. We appreciate the communication so far and the additions/clarifications made by @devinwalsh in direct response to delegate feedback and questions.
Lastly, we do want to echo the sentiment from other delegates that there could, and there should, be more initiatives to increase the DAO’s control over the Foundation. However, we do not feel that there are any initiatives at this point that are in a good enough place that postponing UF’s proposal would make sense.