SEEDGov Delegate Platform

[SEEDGov]

Proposal: Unichain and Uniswap v4 Liquidity Incentives (Onchain)

Vote: Against

Rationale: In accordance with our snapshot vote, we voted against this proposal, as we believe that the proposer has not complied with the reformulation of the proposal to include the amendments requested by several delegates to inform how the requested Unichain incentive funds will benefit the DAO and/or the UNI holders, nor has it informed us whether an analysis of the impact of these requested incentives has been carried out. And unfortunately, the proposer did not split the vote to allow for separate votes on the request for Unichain incentive funds and Uniswap v4, which we would have voted for in this las case, forcing us to vote against the entire proposal.

We reiterate the reasons for our vote in the snapshot, as we maintain the position expressed there:

@SEEDGov

We voted against the proposals because, as disclosed by UF during the Community Calls, the DAO will have no control or say over Unichain and its fee distribution. No information has been provided on how the requested funds would benefit the DAO and/or UNI holders. Furthermore, no thorough analysis has been presented regarding the impact of the requested incentives.

Unfortunately the proposer submitted to vote the Unichain incentive request together with the Uniswap v4 incentive request, not allowing to vote separately, which did not allow us to vote in favour of the Uniswap v4 incentives as we would have wished.

That said, we also support this proposal in principle and wish to second it, so if it is approved in snapshot we hope that the concerns raised by us and other delegates will be adequately addressed and appropriately reformulated before it is put to a vote onchain.