Scaling V4 and Supporting Unichain

[kfx]

Voted For, with rationale explained my delegate thread.

@kfx

I support this proposal primarily because I would support any proposal for an alternative frontend that has reasonable cost requirements and a competent, experienced team behind it. Having alternative frontends is important for Uniswap, as it reduces both regulatory and censorship risks. Uniswap is too important a protocol to rely on a single point of failure at the UI level. Additionally, it provides the DAO with some leverage over Labs—something sorely needed, as the DAO’s history demonstrates.

Side note on the conflict of interest involving @GFXlabs that someone mentioned (quote below). As one of the authors of the DAO Principles, I’d like to clarify how I interpret their application in this case.

@Herees

A further concern is an apparent violation of the Uniswap DAO’s stated governance principles. Specifically, the Uniswap Foundation’s published guidelines require that all conflicts of interest be disclosed and that delegates with such conflicts abstain from voting on related proposals. GFX Labs, despite having a direct financial interest in this proposal, has already voted in favor of its own Snapshot proposal. This action appears to be a clear breach of the DAO’s governance principles.

Let me be clear that this is a conflict of interest situation, and potentially falls under the guideline that “severe conflicts of interest […] must be avoided.” Ideally, GFX Labs should change their vote to “Abstain.” However, I don’t believe this alone is a reason to veto the proposal. The principles are non-binding and voluntary—a delegate may choose to disagree with them. (Though the vision is that violating the principles will make a delegate ineligible for DAO programs such as the Treasury Delegation Program.) Furthermore, to my knowledge, GFX Labs did not vote in favor of adopting the principles—perhaps anticipating situations like this—so at the very least, their position is internally consistent.