1. Summary
This proposal seeks to establish a formal “Statute of Limitations” for Uniswap Governance proposals. Specifically, it mandates that any proposal which passes a “Temperature Check” (Snapshot vote) must proceed to an on-chain vote within 90 days.
If a proposal fails to move to an on-chain vote within this 90-day window, the Temperature Check is declared “Expired” (or “Dead”). To proceed, the proposer must restart the governance process with a new Temperature Check to ensure community sentiment remains current.
2. Motivation
Currently, Uniswap Governance operates on a continuous cycle. Unlike Optimism or Arbitrum, which utilize specific “Governance Seasons” or “Cycles” that naturally flush out stale proposals, Uniswap proposals can technically remain “pending” indefinitely after passing a Snapshot vote.
This creates critical risks and inefficiencies:
- Market Conditions Change: A proposal approved 6 months ago may be financially dangerous today due to changes in market volatility, token prices, or protocol upgrades (e.g., v3 to v4).
- “Zombie” Proposal Risk: There is currently no rule preventing a delegate from taking a Snapshot vote from 2022 and putting it on-chain today, bypassing current community sentiment.
- Governance Clutter: It is difficult for delegates to track which initiatives are active versus abandoned.
By implementing a 90-day expiration, we align Uniswap with industry best practices and ensure that every on-chain vote reflects the current will of the DAO*.
3.Specification
We propose adding the following clause to the official Uniswap Community Governance Process:
“Validity of Temperature Checks: A successful Temperature Check (Snapshot vote) is valid for a period of 90 days from the date the vote closes. If an on-chain governance proposal is not submitted within this 90-day window, the Temperature Check is considered Expired. The proposer must post a new Temperature Check and receive fresh community approval before proceeding to an on-chain vote.”
Definition of Proposal States
| Status | Definition | Action Required |
|---|---|---|
| Live / Active | A proposal that has passed Snapshot within the last 90 days. | Can proceed to On-chain Vote immediately. |
| Dead / Expired | A proposal that passed Snapshot >90 days ago but has not yet been submitted on-chain. | Must re-run the Temperature Check phase to verify current sentiment. |
Handling Long-Term Initiatives
We recognize that major protocol upgrades often require development timelines longer than 90 days. However, governance mandates should not be indefinite. If the technical implementation takes longer than 90 days, the proposer must follow the **“Re-affirmation Process”**:
1. The “Refresh” Vote: The proposer does not need to start from zero with a new RFC.
2. Action: They simply post a “Re-affirmation Snapshot” (Temperature Check) with the final code/parameters.
3. Rationale: In DeFi, 6 months is a long time. A mandate given in January might be dangerous to execute in July if market conditions have shifted (e.g., bridge hacks, new regulation).
4. Rationale & Precedent
This change brings Uniswap into alignment with the hygiene standards of other mature DeFi protocols:
- MakerDAO (Sky): Enforces a strict 30-day expiration on Executive Proposals. As seen in a recent proposal explicitly mandates that “ If a proposal does not pass/execute within 30 days, it expires to prevent stale code or parameters from affecting the protocol”.
- Optimism: Utilizes “Governance Seasons.” Proposals must be submitted and voted on within a specific seasonal window; if they miss it, they must be resubmitted the following season.
- Uniswap (Current): Lacks both seasons and expiry rules, leaving the DAO exposed to “Zombie Proposals” indefinitely.
5. Comparison: Old vs. New Structure
| Feature | Current Uniswap Governance | Proposed Uniswap Structure |
|---|---|---|
| Snapshot Validity | Indefinite (Technically valid forever) | 90 Days (Statute of Limitations) |
| Stale Proposal Risk | High. A proposal from 1 year ago could theoretically be executed today despite market changes. | Low. Proposals must have a fresh community signal (within 3 months) to execute. |
| Governance Cycle | Continuous / Unbounded | Continuous, but with a rolling expiration window to ensure freshness. |
| Re-submission | Not defined / Confusing | Clear Process: If >90 days, you must re-post Snapshot. |
6. Precedent of Risk
We have already seen “Zombie Proposals” confuse the governance process:
- * The Gnosis Deployment (2022-2023):A deployment passed a vote but sat pending for 11 months. During that time, the bridge provider (Nomad) was hacked. Without an expiry rule, a stale mandate could theoretically be used to execute unsafe code.
- * The Fee Switch (2024-2025): The fee switch mandate sat dormant for over 12 months, requiring a community member to manually post a “Re-Temperature Check” to verify if the will of the DAO had changed.
Our proposal removes this ambiguity. Instead of relying on the goodwill of authors to “re-check” sentiment, we enforce a hard 90-day expiry.
7. Success Metrics
- Zero “Zombie” Executions: No proposals older than 90 days are executed on-chain without a fresh check.
- Delegate Clarity: Delegates can easily view the “active” pipeline without filtering through years of stale posts.
- Safety: Reduced risk of executing outdated parameters (e.g., fee switches or grant distributions based on old token prices).
8. Next Steps
1. RFC Period: Gather feedback on this post for 7 days.
2. Snapshot Vote: Post a Temperature Check to ratify this rule change.
3. Documentation Update: Upon passing, the Uniswap Governance Docs and Forum Guidelines will be updated to reflect the 90-day expiry rule.