A critical condition must be added: OKU/GFX should only be permitted to launch Uniswap V4 for its own frontend on its target chains. Under no circumstances should they be allowed to charge deployment or maintenance fees to those chains. GFX is currently monetizing the distribution of the V3 license, and this proposal appears to formalize and entrench that position with the BUSL V4 license.
This proposal grants exclusive distribution rights to OKU/GFX, enabling them to profit significantly by monopolizing V4 deployments to miscellaneous L2s. It is imperative to emphasize that Uniswap should not bear deployment or maintenance costs—especially not to support a for-profit entity capitalizing on the V4 software code they did not contribute to developing.
The proposal stands in stark opposition to the principles of open-source software. It enshrines a single private actor with exclusive rights to distribute and profit from public infrastructure. If any such proposal is to be considered, it must include mechanisms to:
-
Introduce competition in the monetization and distribution of the V4 license,
-
Ensure a percentage of any revenue derived from such distribution is allocated back to the Uniswap DAO.
Additionally, serious questions must be raised:
-
Was the Uniswap Accountability Committee (UAC) aware that GFX was profiting from the Uniswap V3 license exception, and V3 integration expertise to other chains? @AbdullahUmar
-
Why did the Uniswap Foundation grant $1.6 million to a for-profit company that is generating revenue through exclusive license access/installation? @devinwalsh
If the DAO’s goal is to encourage competition with Uniswap Labs, then grants and license exceptions should be directed toward frontend teams actively building user acquisition and adoption—not companies focused on rent extraction with obscure L2s.
This proposal, if passed, risks diluting the Uniswap brand and raises serious concerns about the potential cartelization of protocol governance by private entities.