Delegate Name: Proxy
Delegate Address: 0x6De8448e7d5f58af394CC9540ABe703d0c955dFd
Alternative Means of Contact:
Twitter/X: @kevinknielsen, @CupertinoSS
Telegram: @kevinknielsen, @alexsampson
Statement of Intent
Proxy is a team that consists of DAO governance professionals. We have experience building and servicing governance systems for some of the largest DAOs in the space including Moonwell. Our team has been in the space since its early days and we’ve developed a comprehensive understanding of governance needs across diverse sectors, including DeFi, staking, and L2 scaling, among others. We aim to provide Uniswap with strategic guidance and data-driven insights that enable sound decision-making.
Core Values
- Commitment to Transparency: We emphasize open communication and will provide the community with clear updates on our rationale for each governance action.
- Data-Driven Decision Making: We bring a robust data-centric approach to our role, drawing insights from our experience with governance metrics to evaluate proposals thoroughly and responsibly.
- Experimentation: We shouldn’t be afraid of trying new things in governance. Sticking to the same old processes because “that’s how it’s always been” can hold a project back. We value approaching governance decisions with a fresh perspective and offering new ideas when we can.
Disclosures/Conflicts of Interest
We are actively involved as a delegate and governance provider for several other DAOs, including ZKsync, Morpho, ParaSwap, Scroll, and Moonwell. We are committed to disclosing potential conflicts of interest arising during our engagement with Uniswap governance.
1 Like
Proposal: Uniswap Unleashed
Vote: For
Rationale: The four strategic priorities defined in the proposal (scaling network supply and demand, activating revenue, and onboarding core contributors) all contribute to the long-term sustainability of the Uniswap ecosystem. We appreciate the adjustments that were made over the past month based on feedback in the forums. There was some dissent in the forums surrounding the requested budget for grants far surpassing the budget for operations. However, we view this as a sign of operational efficiency rather than a negative. The forum discussion on this topic highlighted that (1) the Uniswap Foundation needs to be funded and (2) there needs to exist strong checks to make sure the allocated funding is being used productively. As seen with the 2024 Community Impact Report, we believe the Foundation will uphold the latter aspect.
Proposal: [Temp Check] Saga Uniswap v3 Liquidity Incentives
Vote: Abstain
Rationale: While we appreciate the efforts of Saga to bootstrap liquidity incentives, we believe it would be smarter for the DAO to be more conservative with its runway for the time being. The Liquidity Integration Layer and the DEX are now only a few weeks old. We’d ideally like to see a longer protocol age and greater than ~38K txs (at the time of writing) on the SagaEVM explorer.
Proposal: Unichain and Uniswap v4 Liquidity Incentives
Vote: For
Rationale: We did not see any significant issues with the proposal. Gauntlet has a strong track record and they have shown an ability to adjust incentives based on performance metrics. It will be important to not only attract an initial cohort of liquidity providers and users, but also to retain them.
Welcome ProxyAI team. And good to see previously Boardroom team get more involved in governance.
1 Like
Proposal: [Temp Check] Treasury Delegation Round 2
Vote: For
Rationale: Throughout the month, this proposal was debated and adjusted based on conversations held in the forums. It was an effective display of productive governance. In terms of the proposal’s contents, we support the onboarding and empowerment of new Uniswap delegates. Healthy DAOs have a diverse set of voters, and the objective criteria laid out in the proposal allow for underrepresented participants to receive a boost to their influence in the ecosystem.
Proposal: [TEMP CHECK] BoB Uniswap v3 Incentives Package
Vote: For
Rationale: We voted FOR the BOB Network onboarding package. BOB demonstrates strong commitment with $500k in incentives and making Uniswap its primary DEX, and $247M in TVL is enough to indicate a clear product-market fit. We understand the concerns around the L2 being relatively new, but we think the growth it’s demonstrated thus far justifies us needing any further datapoints before we vote to support it. Uniswap has the opportunity to be relevant on a leading Bitcoin L2 and we think the ask is reasonable.
Proposal: [TEMP CHECK] Establish Uniswap v4 Licensing Process
Vote: For
Rationale: We voted FOR establishing this Uni v4 licensing framework. It provides clear processes for managing deployments while protecting competitive advantages through BSL until 2027, granting the Foundation blanket exemption enables rapid but controlled expansion, and the UAC’s oversight role maintains accountability.
Proposal: BoB Uniswap v3 Incentives Package
Vote: For
Rationale: We voted FOR the BOB incentives package. See our reasoning above for the Snapshot proposal.
Proposal: UAC Renewal S4
Vote: Renew UAC
Rationale: We voted in favor of UAC’s season 4 renewal. The Season 3 report posted in the forum showed a strong committment to transparency, along with a history of the committee effectively overseeing multiple important DAO operations. The weekly working hours were increased while the compensation rate remains in place, so the increased budget makes sense given the UAC’s past deliverables.
Proposal: Approved Budgets Rebalancing (S4)
Vote: Approve reblanace
Rationale: We voted to approve the rebalance. The UAC has been transparent in the separation of the season 4 renewal and this budget rebalancing. We understand that UNI price fluctuations can lead to programs becoming unbalanced and this move makes sense.
Proposal: Establish Uniswap v4 Licensing Process
Vote: For
Rationale: We voted FOR the v4 licensing process. See our rationale above for the Snapshot proposal.
Proposal: [Temp Check/Revised] Treasury Delegation Round 2
Vote: For
Rationale: We voted FOR the 2nd round of Treasury Delegation. We supported the previous proposal and we’re comfortable with the changes that were made to the updated version.
Proposal: [TEMP CHECK] Scaling V4 and Supporting Unichain
Vote: Abstain
Rationale: We abstained from GFX Labs’ proposal. As we mentioned in the forum thread, the $250K request would ideally fall within the existing UF grants mandate. It’s more sustainable for the protocol’s funding pipeline to avoid duplicating costs, and if the UF decided that this initiative doesn’t align with their priorities, we’d rather not dip back into DAO treasury funds for an out-of-band request.
Proposal: [Temp Check] Analytics Hub for Uniswap’s Revitalization and Growth Program
Vote: For
Rationale: We voted FOR the Forse Analytics Hub proposal. While the budget is a bit high, we think it’s valuable to assess other chains that went through the incentive program before revisiting Unichain assessment.
Proposal: Four Chains for Analytics Hub for Uniswap’s Revitalization and Growth Program
Vote: We voted for ZKsync, Polygon zkEVM, Linea, and Unichain
Rationale: We’re basing our vote on growth potential, Ethereum alignment, technical maturity, and ecosystem alignment. Our top choices with that in mind are 1) ZKsync, 2) Polygon zkEVM, 3) Linea, 4) Unichain.
Proposal: Approved Budgets Rebalancing (S4)
Vote: For
Rationale: We voted FOR the approval of rebalancing the season 4 budget. See our rationale for its corresponding Snapshot here.
Proposal: UAC Renewal S4
Vote: For
Rationale: We voted FOR the UAC’s S4 renewal. See our rationale for its corresponding Snapshot here.
Proposal: Scaling V4 and Supporting Unichain
Vote: For
Rationale: We previously abstained from the Snapshot version of this proposal. Overall, we’re happy with the edits that the GFX Labs team made (i.e. language around the Additional Use Grant). We hold our previous position that in an ideal world, the scope of this grant would fall under the UF’s existing mandate. That said, we would rather support important initiatives like this rather than kicking the can down the road.
1 Like
Proposal: Uniswap Accountability Committee S4 Elections
Vote: Equal distribution for all applicants
Rationale: We applied for the UAC S4 and we effectively abstained from swaying the results in a particular direction (while still helping it to reach quorum).