Scaling V4 and Supporting Unichain

Requests for Comment
45

Concerns Around Proposal Structure, Transparency, and Governance

I completely agree with the concerns that have been raised by @404DAO a seperate entity is needed.

To add to this, the way the proposal is structured—and the model GFX/UAC is using—is a key reason why GFX and UAC are involved in nearly all current deployments. They are basically acting as an unofficial entity. However, while GFX benefits financially, UAC does not appear to bring any monetary value back to the DAO.

I agree; a new, independent entity that can also focus on transparency, value alignment and due diligence for any chain applying for a license. Right now, GFX is bringing license proposals to UAC with little discussion around user metrics from OKU or the true user demand on the licensed L2 chain. This process lacks clarity and accountability.

I also want to highlight a few governance issues that I find troubling:

  1. Conflict of Interest: GFX continued to vote on its own proposal, even after concerns were raised about the clear conflict of intrest. @kfx

  2. Lack of Public Data: GFX hasn’t made user metric data publicly available. Instead, delegates are expected to schedule one-on-one meetings just to get basic information.

  3. Blaming Governance Apathy: When the on-chain vote failed due to low turnout, GFX publicly blamed “governance apathy” rather than acknowledging real issues with the proposal—like its lack of transparency and missing public user metrics.

  4. Private Influence: There are concerns that some delegates who are personally close to GFX are not voting against or at all. This reluctance to vote against or challenge proposals may stem more from fear of harming relationships than from genuine support.

Lastly, I reached out to Redbelly Network, which is looking for canonical approval, but they’ve not yet answered basic questions about user data metrics and their financial arrangement with GFX. Blockchain = transparency lets not forget.

@AbdullahUmar, can you clarify what your due diligence process looks like for these canonical approvals? Also, how do these decisions align with your mission to protect the DAO’s value and the Uniswap brand—especially when so much value is going to one private company, and there are growing reputational risks tied to lesser-known chain deployments?