Establish Uniswap Governance as “DUNI,” a Wyoming DUNA (Snapshot)
We voted For: We are very excited to see the DUNI go into effect soon. As members of the UAC, we have kept up with the foundation’s work and are very satisfied with the current output. Props to everyone involved!
Unichain Co-Incentives Growth Management Plan (On Chain)
We voted For: Voting in line with our prior snapshot vote. We believe the commentary and adjustments made are adequate.
Establish Uniswap Governance as “DUNI,” a Wyoming DUNA (On Chain)
We voted For: Voting in line with the recent snapshot vote. Excited to see the DUNI officially being implemented!
Launching Uniswap v3 on Ronin with co-incentives (Snapshot)
We voted Deploy $500k in UNI Incentives: The proposal is well written and while on the higher side, our support falls in line with our general sentiment towards incentive proposals. With DUNA being set up soon, and hopefully fee switch on the horizon, the co-incentives are rather attractive in our opinion to the DAO.
GLI — Treasury delegation Round 2 (Snapshot)
GLI — Incentivized Delegation Vaults (Snapshot)
We voted For & For: With the recent issues with voter turnout and hitting quorum, we are in favor of adding at least 10m more UNI to the active voting pool. We believe the first round of treasury delegations worked well and the incentivized delegation vaults we believe are a worthwhile attempt to attract more delegations, and relatively, the budgets are very reasonable.
Treasury Delegation Round 2 Elections (Snapshot)
We voted Proxy 10%, Curia 10%, KPK 10%, Event Horizon 20%, SEEDGov 10%, Tane 10%. Arana Digital 20%, Avantgarde 10%: These are the teams we have known to be active in the Uniswap community and who we are confident would be good treasury delegation stewards. We did double weight on Arana and Event Horizon as we’ve worked closely with both and are believe they are very deserving.
Grow Uniswap on Plasma (Snapshot)
We voted Allocate $250k: In favor of allocating additional $250k towards Plasma. Plasma has come out as one of the strongest chains in recent past and a $250k + $250k match to their $3m to $5m incentives makes a lot of sense.
Uniswap Community Proposal Factory (Snapshot)
We voted Abstain: We think overall, we love the idea, but just aren’t convinced the current parameters are the best way forward. Would be in favor of discussing the setup, committee, and scope in coming weeks and revisiting the vote.
UNIfication (Snapshot)
We voted For: Super excited to see the culmination of years of work. We are aligned with this vision and enjoyed the workshops and conversations we had in Devcon this week. Great work to everyone involved!
Strategic Renewal of Gnosis, Linea, and Mantle Deployments (Snapshot)
We voted For: We think continuing these specific chains’ Oku deployments makes sense as they have had sufficient attraction.
Strategic Renewal of Gnosis, Linea, and Mantle Deployments (On Chain)
We voted For: Similar reasoning to the prior snapshot vote. We believe continuing these deployments is worthwhile for the DAO.
UNIfication (On Chain)
We voted For: Similar reasoning to the prior snapshot vote. Excited to see the fee switch finally implemented!
[Temp Check] Protocol Fee Expansion: Eight More Chains and Remaining Mainnet V3 Pools (Temp Check)
We voted For: In line with expectations we had when Fee switch parameters were first turned on. Glad to see traction so far.
Protocol Fee Expansion: Vote 1 (On Chain)
Protocol Fee Expansion: Vote 2 (On Chain)
We voted For & For: In line with our Snapshot reasoning above, these votes are expected and no surprises are presented for the vote here.
[RFC] Governance Process Upgrade: Establishing a Statute of Limitations for Temperature Checks (Temp Check)
We voted For: We think it makes sense to have a time limit on proposals that pass the temp check but don’t move forward to an on chain vote. If votes are going to be pushed later on, a simple revote on snapshot makes sense.
[Temp Check] Protocol Fee Expansion: Three More Chains (Snapshot)
Protocol Fee Expansion: Vote 3 (On Chain)
We voted For & For: In line with our reasoning reasoning prior, these votes are expected and no surprises are presented for the vote here.
Return 12.5M Delegated Tokens to the Governance Timelock (On Chain & Snapshot)
We voted Abstain & Abstain: Voted Abstain on both snapshot and on chain as we receive a good amount of UNI from the treasury delegation program currently.
[Temp Check] - Update Crosschain Governance Parameters for Avalanche, MegaETH, Soneium, and X Layer (Temp Check)
We voted For: Sensible maintenance of the crosschain governance messaging, moving the Avalanche and MegaETH deployments off the deprecating LayerZero v1 onto Wormhole and bringing Soneium and X Layer v2 and v4 in line with the CrossChainAccount standard. Keeping the message-passing layer on current, supported infrastructure is low risk and worth doing before the LayerZero deprecation forces it.
Update Crosschain Governance Parameters for Avalanche, MegaETH, Soneium, and X Layer (On Chain)
We voted For: Similar reasoning to the prior temp check vote. This executes the migration of Avalanche and MegaETH governance messaging from the deprecating LayerZero v1 to Wormhole and moves Soneium and X Layer v2 and v4 ownership to CrossChainAccount contracts, keeping the crosschain execution path on supported, best-practice infrastructure.
[Temp Check] Activate v4 Protocol Fees (Temp Check)
We voted For: Consistent with our support for the UNIfication fee rollout across v2 and v3, this extends protocol fees to v4 with an architecture that fits how v4 actually works, since hooks make per-pool fee setting unworkable and the FeePolicy and FeeAdapter split lets governance manage a small set of family rules and overrides instead of an unbounded pool list. Scoping activation to the static, CCA, and aggregator hook families is a sensible first tranche, and keeping the policy contract replaceable with governance overrides always winning leaves control where it belongs. With fees flowing to the TokenJar on each chain and L2 UNI bridged back to mainnet for burning, we expect to confirm on the two parallel on-chain votes.
[Temp Check] Protocol Fee Expansion: Robinhood Chain (Temp Check)
We voted For: Consistent with our support across the protocol fee rollout, this extends fee collection and the UNI burn path to Robinhood Chain and enables v2, v3, and v4 fees there. Robinhood Chain is an Arbitrum Orbit chain, so the activation reuses the audited Arbitrum One pattern, with the aliased Timelock already controlling the factories and the v4 PoolManager, meaning no ownership migration is required. With the deployments already past $1B in cumulative volume since the July 1 launch, turning fees on there is a straightforward extension of a burn system that is working as designed.
Protocol Fee Expansion: Robinhood Chain (On Chain)
We voted For: The on-chain execution of the Robinhood Chain fee expansion, in line with our Snapshot vote. It extends fee collection and the UNI burn path to Robinhood Chain, reusing the Arbitrum One pattern since Robinhood Chain is an Orbit chain, so no ownership migration is required.
Activate v4 Protocol Fees (Part 1/2) (On Chain)
We voted For: In line with our support for the v4 protocol fees temperature check. This is the first of the two parallel on-chain votes activating v4 fees, setting the V4FeeAdapter as the ProtocolFeeController across the enabled chains, with the FeePolicy and FeeAdapter architecture and governance overrides unchanged from the reviewed design.
[Temp Check] - Four for V4 (Temp Check)
We voted For: This grants GFX Labs and Oku a V4 Business Source License to deploy Uniswap V4 on Sei, Etherlink, Pharos, and 0G at no cost to the DAO, with GFX covering all deployment and ongoing maintenance. With the fee switch now live after UNIfication, each additional deployment is a direct source of incremental protocol fee revenue, and GFX has a strong track record here having already brought V3 to more than 30 chains through Oku. The four targets are reasonable given V3 already anchors liquidity on each and Morpho is deployed alongside, so the real question is execution rather than downside, and a zero-cost, high-conviction footprint expansion is exactly the kind of low-risk fee-base growth we want to support.
Rotate Sentinel Addresses on the DUNI-Owned Uniswap Earn Vaults (Temp Check)
We voted For: This is a key rotation on the Uniswap Earn vaults rather than a change to how they are run. Gauntlet has moved to new signing infrastructure, and because the mainnet Timelock is the Owner of the three Morpho Vaults V2 behind Earn, only governance can call setIsSentinel to grant the three new Sentinel addresses and revoke the three legacy ones, while the Curator, the Owner, and every cap, adapter and fee stay as they are and existing depositors need to do nothing. The Sentinel is the fast defensive role that can lower caps, revoke pending Curator actions and pull assets back into the vault instantly, so keeping it on keys the curator actually controls is exactly what governance ownership of these vaults should make routine, and Gauntlet publishing EIP-712 signed messages for all six addresses means the new keys can be checked independently before execution.
Protocol Fee Expansion: Arc (Temp Check)
We voted For: This extends the protocol fee and UNI burn system to Arc, Circle’s layer 1 that went live on September 16 with v2, v3, v4 and UniswapX deployed from launch, taking the fee switch beyond mainnet and the eleven chains already live. The burn runs over the same Wormhole NTT route already in production on Polygon and BNB Chain, where synthetic UNI paid to claim fees on Arc is burned and the matching canonical UNI is sent to the burn address on mainnet, so this reuses a path that is working rather than introducing a new one. The one genuinely new step is registering Arc as a peer on the mainnet NTT contracts, which are now governance-owned and so need a vote where the earlier chains did not, and since the protocol fee infrastructure contracts are still to be deployed, we would expect them added to the proposal’s contract table before the onchain vote opens, as the proposal commits to.