Proposal: Uniswap Growth Program Trial (Onchain)
Vote: For
Rationale: In line with our vote on Snapshot, we support this proposal as we consider it positive that Uniswap has a specialised team dedicated to business development, marketing and exploring possibilities for grants and inventions.
We understand that 6 months is a reasonable period of time, after which the DAO will be able to analyse whether or not to continue, and under what conditions, based in the results obtained.
Proposal: [TEMP CHECK] - Tally Uniswap Proposal (Snapshot)
Vote: For
Rationale: We support this proposal as Tally has become an essential service for many decentralised governance and especially for Uniswap, and the proposed improvements and new features will enhance the experience and the way governance is exercised, thus strengthening the DAO.
However, we strongly encourage the proposer @dennisonb, if the snapshot proposal is approved, to clarify and deepen some issues raised by other delegates, such as all the suggestions and questions made by @tane, which we consider very important to be resolved before the on-chain vote, and even the question we asked that has not been answered, in the sense of clarifying whether the improvements and new features proposed in the roadmap to be financed by Uniswap will be exclusive and specifically developed tailor-made for Uniswap or whether they will be general features offered to any other user/DAO and, if so, which other users/DAOs besides Uniswap will finance them.
Proposal: Supporting Tally’s Development and Enhancements for Uniswap DAO Governance (Onchain)
Vote: Against
Rationale: In the Snapshot voting opportunity, we voted in favor on the grounds that Tally is a key infrastructure for various decentralized governance, including Uniswap, and that the proposed improvements will enhance the experience in the exercise of governance, so we generally considered that the proposal was positive and that Uniswap should support Tally. But we raised some important concerns that we understood should be addressed when submitted to the onchain vote, which unfortunately did not happen, so we voted against on this occasion.
We understand that the final proposal has serious deficiencies that prevent us from supporting it:
Therefore, we request the proponent @dennisonb to reformulate the proposal, to clarify and detail the issues raised. If that happens, we will certainly support a proposal to support Tally from Uniswap.
And in the event that the proposal is approved, we strongly urge the UAC -CC: @AbdullahUmar- to be extremely diligent in analyzing quarterly reports, reporting KPIs and approving payments.
Proposal: [TEMP CHECK] Uniswap DAO Principles (Snapshot)
Vote: For
Rationale: We support this proposal, which sets out some basic principles that should guide the activities of delegates and participants in the governance of the Protocol, to align the ecosystem in its values and behaviours, and to make the DAO more neutral and resilient.
Thanks @kfx for incorporating into the final text some of our suggestions.
Proposal: [Temp Check] - Adopt The SEAL Safe Harbor Agreement
Vote: For
Rationale: We support this proposal, which we consider to be very beneficial for Uniswap. Firstly, because we have very good references for SEAL in terms of their professionalism, and also because the agreement being put to the vote includes the possibility of recovering funds in cases of active exploits, which is a scope not covered by the protocol’s current bug bounty, and will therefore increase the protocol’s security and the protection of users’ funds. The bounty is reasonable. We have no objections, we think it is a very good agreement.
Proposal: [TEMP CHECK] Metal L2: Bridging TradFi and DeFi Through Uniswap V3 (Snapshot)
Vote: Against
Rationale: In accordance with our criteria and in line with our past votes, we have voted against this proposal. While we see promising potential in the Metal L2 network and the expansion of Uniswap into this regulated ecosystem that aims to bridge TradFi with DeFi, the reality is that the network currently shows very low activity and LTV, so we do not believe it is productive to allocate incentives at this time. If the network shows signs of maturity and traction in the future, we are open to considering the allocation of incentives.
Proposal: [TEMP CHECK] Scale Uniswap Liquidity on Celo (Snapshot)
Vote: For
Rationale: We voted in favor of this proposal as we understand that it will be beneficial for Uniswap to deploy in Celo, the proposal is in line with other proposals with similar characteristics from other networks, and it also complies with the parameters established in the Uniswap Deployment - Guideline.
Finally, we highlight that Celo is on the Optimism Foundation’s whitelist to be part of the superchain, so it is an opportunity for Uniswap to continue to increase its presence in networks that will be part of that ecosystem.
Proposal: Discretionary Budget from UAC for Co-Incentive Campaigns (Snapshot)
Vote: Allow UAC Surplus Spending
Rationale: We voted in favour of this proposal because if there are surplus in already approved for incentivization and growth budgets due to the revaluation of the UNI token, it is reasonable that some of these surpplus funds should be used for growth purposes that require rapid action, with the proposed limit of incentive programs with $250k worth of funds or less…
We caution that the discretionary use of funds is not an ideal situation, but should be done as an exception, and therefore we encourage the proponents and future executors @alphagrowth @PGov @AranaDigital to be extremely prudent in the use of this faculty, and to respect the commitment made by @alphagrowth in response to our concerns, to notify the DAO as soon as possible, even in advance if possible to allow for constructive feedback, and that once a discretionary expenditure has been made, to report to the DAO immediately to allow for control and tracking.
Proposal: Incentive Package for Sonic (Formerly Fantom) (Snapshot)
Vote: $250k Incentive Match
Rationale: We voted in favour of this proposal as we believe it is beneficial for Uniswap to incentivise the use and adoption of the protocol in Sonic, a network with potential given Fantom’s previous experience. In addition, the proposal is in line with other proposals with similar characteristics from other networks, and it is also consistent with the parameters established in the Uniswap Deployment – Guideline. Therefore, we believe that it is reasonable to allocate 250k in incentives and match the commitment that Sonic Labs will provide $500k in $S tokens to the DAO.
Proposal: Incentive Package for Sonic (Onchain)
Vote: For
Rationale: In accordance with our vote in Snapshot, we voted in favour of this proposal, as we consider it beneficial for Uniswap to incentivise the use and adoption of the protocol in Sonic. We reproduce our rationale in the Snapshot vote as our view has not changed:
Proposal: Scale Uniswap Liquidity on Celo (Onchain)
Vote: For
Rationale: In accordance with our vote in Snapshot, we voted in favour of this proposal, as we consider it beneficial for Uniswap todeploy on Celo. We reproduce our rationale in the Snapshot vote as our view has not changed:
Proposal: Uniswap DAO Principles (Onchain)
Vote: For
Rationale: Consistent with our vote in Snapshot, we voted in favour of this proposal, as we believe it is in the DAO’s interest to establish the basic principles that should guide the activity of the DAO itself, the delegates and its community members. We reproduced the rationale shared in the Snapshot vote, as we maintain that vision:
Proposal: Governance Proposal - Adopt The SEAL Safe Harbor Agreement (Onchain)
Vote: For
Rationale: In line with our vote in the snapshot, we have voted in favour of this proposal, as we believe that this agreement is very beneficial for Uniswap, as it adds a new layer of security and protection for users’ funds by establishing a system of attempted recovery of funds in the case of active exploits, something that is not provided for in the current bug bounty program. We reproduce the rationale shared in the snapshot vote, as we maintain that view:
Proposal: [Temp Check] Uniswap Delegate Reward Initiative - Cycle 3 (Snapshot)
Vote: For
Rationale: We voted in favour of this proposal, as while it is not what we consider to be the perfect delegate incentive program, it is reasonable, correct, appropriate to Uniswap’s current needs and has several substantial improvements over the previous cycle, among which we highlight:
In order to be eligible, participation in voting and presentation of the rationale is weighted more highly than other less important activities, such as attending at in-person events, which has been removed.
A more detailed system has been established in case of a tie in points between delegates qualifying for eligibility, which we hope will prevent the negative experience from the previous cycle.
Proportional compensation is established based on each delegate’s participation rate in the vote, with a minimum of 80% participation, meaning that only delegates with perfect participation will receive the full amount.
In order to ensure proper and timely communication by delegates, it is required to receive the additional rewards that the voting rationales be submitted within 7 days of the end of each vote, thus eliminating the existing practice of submitting justifications weeks after the vote.
We are committed to continue working towards further improvements and an even more ambitious program for the next cycle.
Proposal: Uniswap Delegate Reward Initiative - Cycle 3 (Onchain)
Vote: For
Rationale: In line with our snapshot vote, we voted in favour of this proposal, in the belief that the delegate rewards program has served and will continue to serve to increase participation and strengthen the DAO’s decision-making process. As this is the same proposal as the snapshot vote, we reiterate our rationale:
Proposal: [Temp Check] Uniswap Unleashed (Snapshot)
Vote: No
Rationale: We voted against not because we disagree with the need for funding but because the proponent has not provided a robust plan with detailed, phased KPIs—only a generic one at the end of the two-year period. Additionally, there is no mechanism for the partial release of funds tied to the achievement of interim KPIs, nor adequate accountability provisions within the proposal.
That said, we 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.
Proposal: [Temp Check] Unichain and Uniswap v4 Liquidity Incentives (Snapshot)
Vote: Against
Rationale: 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.
Proposal: [Temp Check] Saga Uniswap v3 Liquidity Incentives (Snapshot)
Vote: Against
Rationale: In accordance with our criteria and in line with our past votes – OKN Chain and Metal L2 -, we have voted against this proposal. While we see promising potential in SAGA network, the reality is that acording to DefiLlama the network currently shows very low activity and DeFi LTV, and the proponent has not provided TVL metrics, daily volume, number of protocols, nor how Uniswap v3 has performed in that chain since it was deployed in December 2024, so we do not believe it is productive to allocate incentives at this early stage. If the network shows signs of maturity and traction in the future, we are open to considering the allocation of incentives.
Proposal: Uniswap Unleashed (Onchain)
Vote: Against
Rationale: In line with our snapshot vote, we voted against this proposal because, while in concept we support the funding requested, we believe that the proposer has not reformulate the proposal to include the provision of a robust detailed plan to the DAO, partial KPIs - only 2-year final KPIs were provided - nor has there been provision for partial release of funds subject to meeting interim KPIs, nor adequate accountability provisions.
We reiterate the reasons for our vote in the snapshot, as we maintain the position expressed there:
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: