Summary: Tally is requesting a grant of $250,000 annually for two years from the Uniswap DAO to continue supporting and enhancing the DAO’s on-chain governance infrastructure, aiming to improve governance capabilities and provide a better experience for the community.
Vote: FOR
Rationale: While there are a few concerns from us and the other delegates, we maintain the support made at the Snapshot phase and expect the Tally team to address them along the way.
Summary: The proposal introduces a set of guiding principles for Uniswap DAO delegates to formalize shared guidelines and enhance governance. These principles cover processual aspects (scope, adherence to governance processes, on-chain focus), conduct-related guidelines (disclosure of conflicts, security considerations, clarity, good faith actions, due diligence, and public feedback), and structural principles (maintaining decentralization, representing UNI token holders while considering all stakeholders, and accountability). The aim is to promote transparency, trust, and effective decision-making within the Uniswap DAO.
Vote: FOR
Rationale: We believe that rules enhancing the transparency and public nature of the Uniswap DAO, and making DAO governance by delegates fairer, are important for the DAO. We agree with these principles, which can improve the health of the Uniswap DAO by garnering support from more delegates.
Summary: This proposal seeks to adopt the SEAL Whitehat Safe Harbor Agreement, allowing Uniswap to benefit from rapid whitehat intervention during active exploits and ensuring recovered funds are returned promptly while whitehats receive predefined bounties under clear legal protection.
Vote: FOR
Rationale: We support this proposal because it is critical for strengthening Uniswap’s security and provides the necessary budget and guidelines to achieve that goal. By protecting whitehat hackers and offering them proper incentives, we believe this approach will safeguard Uniswap’s customer assets.
Summary: This proposal aimed to bring Uniswap V3 onto Metal L2—an Optimism-based Layer 2 focused on integrating traditional finance with DeFi—by requesting $250k in UNI incentives and offering MTL tokens to bootstrap liquidity, but was ultimately rejected due to concerns over the requested UNI allocation and the relatively early stage of the Metal L2 ecosystem.
Vote: AGAINST
Rationale: We oppose this proposal. Compared to other chains that have received incentives in the past, Metal’s TVL is still small, and we feel that granting 250k in incentives is not appropriate. While it is indeed important for Uniswap to build market share across various chains, we believe incentives should align with each chain’s growth stage. From that perspective, Metal has not yet reached a point where allocating 250k in incentives to gain market share is justified, and thus we have voted against this proposal.
Summary: Stabila Foundation proposes allocating $250k in UNI incentives over six months to bolster liquidity for seven key stablecoin pools on Celo, alongside $105k for Oku deployment and maintenance, while matching these incentives with $500k in Celo. This collaboration aims to expand Uniswap’s presence in emerging markets, strengthen stablecoin liquidity, and support Celo’s transition to an Ethereum L2 in Q1 2025.
Vote: FOR
Rationale: We support this proposal. Considering Celo’s TVL and its track record of collaboration with Uniswap, a $250k incentive alongside a $105k deployment cost appears to be a reasonable budget. Additionally, matching incentives from Celo itself is a welcome move. We look forward to seeing this proposal drive greater Uniswap share and activity on the Celo network.
Summary: The proposal authorizes the Uniswap Allocation Committee to quickly use surplus funds for co-incentive campaigns—like a $250k matching program with EtherFi—without undergoing lengthy governance processes, thereby ensuring the protocol can seize high-impact, time-sensitive opportunities.
Vote: FOR
Rationale: We have voted in favor of this proposal, as we believe it enhances Uniswap DAO’s capital efficiency and ensures we do not miss opportunities to grow the DAO’s market share. We also look forward to the continued activities of the Uniswap Growth Program.
Summary: Uniswap is deploying on Sonic (formerly Fantom), an EVM-compatible L1 with 10,000 TPS and sub-second finality. Sonic Labs will provide $500k in $S tokens as incentives, and this proposal asks the Uniswap DAO to match $250k in $UNI to boost liquidity mining rewards and promote adoption on the Sonic chain.
Vote: FOR
Rationale: We support this proposal because Sonic demonstrates significant growth potential and offers a dynamic environment suitable for a $250k incentive. Furthermore, its robust infrastructure, high throughput, and continued developer-focused efforts position Sonic as an emerging ecosystem where Uniswap can expand its market share. With these points in mind, we cast our vote in favor of this proposal.
This proposal from the Stabila Foundation requests $250k in UNI incentives over six months on Celo, plus $105k to deploy and maintain Oku’s advanced Uniswap v3 trading and analytics platform. Stabila will match these incentives with $500k in CELO, amplifying the impact and deepening stablecoin liquidity.
Vote: For
Rationale:
Same as its Snapshot vote, we believe the amount requested seems reasonable considering the TVL and the expected growth of the Celo ecosystem.
This proposal requests allocating $250k in UNI tokens to match Sonic’s $500k incentive program, creating a combined $750k in liquidity mining rewards for Uniswap on Sonic.
Vote: For
Rationale:
We keep supporting this proposal for the same reasons as its Snapshot vote, and we are looking to see the growth driven by this combined incentive program.
This proposal suggests adopting the SEAL Whitehat Safe Harbor Agreement, enabling whitehats to intervene during exploits to protect Uniswap’s assets. It establishes clear guidelines, legal protection, and incentives, enhancing security and emergency response while maintaining transparency.
Vote: For
Rationale:
As stated for the previous snapshot vote, we believe this proposal is essential for enhancing Uniswap’s security and ensuring effective responses during critical situations.
The proposal outlines principles for the Uniswap DAO governance, focusing on transparency, security, and accountability. This on-chain vote aims to confirm these principles, ensuring broad support and adherence to governance processes.
Vote: For
Rationale:
We have already supported this proposal in the snapshot vote and did the same in this onchain vote. We believe that clarifying various rules like these will make the Uniswap DAO more transparent and open.
This proposes a new round of delegate rewards under Uniswap governance, focusing on more objective, onchain-based metrics for delegate selection. It builds on previous cycles’ success and shortcomings to improve overall governance engagement and keep voting quorums consistently met.
Vote: Yes
Rationale:
We support the updated criteria, as the updates such as the new tie-breaker mechanism demonstrates clear improvements. Over the long term, we also believe that the timely submission of rationales and forum participation should be integrated into the delegate selection scoring, even though objectively measuring the quality of discussion contributions remains challenging.
In this proposal, the Uniswap Foundation aims to allocate $95.4M to grants and $25.1M to operations for Uniswap’s next two years of development, emphasizing hook adoption and governance enhancements. A separate proposal is seeking $45M to fund liquidity incentives, distinct from these budgets.
Vote: Yes
Rationale:
We support the proposal as Uniswap v4 is a key innovation in DeFi, and significant investment in hook development and user onboarding is critical at this stage.
Regarding Unichain, we believe using UNI token staking to recover investment is feasible. Treasury sustainability is critical for both the DAO and UNI holders. Despite the large expenditure, the investment is manageable given Uniswap’s market position.
We acknowledge concerns about UF’s transparency and future grant allocations but believe they can be addressed moving forward. This proposal is essential for strengthening Uniswap’s position and increasing UNI token value, so we support it.
This proposes a new round of delegate rewards under Uniswap governance, focusing on more objective, onchain-based metrics for delegate selection. This is the onchain vote following the snapshot vote.
Vote: FOR
Rationale:
We continue to uphold our snapshot vote perspective. Our view remains unchanged, as the updated criteria, including the new tie-breaker mechanism and the integration of timely rationale submissions as part of the delegate requirements, clearly demonstrate improvements.
The proposal aims to fund liquidity incentive programs to foster initial liquidity and growth for Uniswap v4 and Unichain. It seeks to provide liquidity rewards and encourage developers and LPs to engage with both platforms, ultimately enhancing the Uniswap ecosystem.
Vote: For
Rationale:
We have no major issues with the selection process, given Gauntlet’s track record and Aera’s qualifications. While concerns about the sustainability of the incentive’s impact exist, focusing on failures isn’t productive. That said, we call for more transparency in the future selection process.
We support the overall approach of the incentive program, but emphasize the need for ongoing monitoring. Gauntlet’s focus on high-volume core pairs seems valid. We agree to proceed but suggest adapting if necessary and reviewing progress regularly.
This proposal requests $250k worth of UNI incentives for six months to bootstrap liquidity on Uniswap v3 pools deployed on Saga, a Layer 1 designed for horizontal scalability via chainlets.
Vote: Against
Rationale:
We recognize Saga’s unique approach and acknowledge its potential to become a meaningful market for Uniswap in the future. However, at this point, we haven’t yet seen sufficient traction or growth metrics that justify a $250k investment. We’d prefer a more conditional incentive program, possibly tied directly to measurable TVL growth, or alternatively, revisiting this discussion once initial growth and performance become clearer and easier to evaluate.
This proposes allocating $95.4M to grants and $25.1M for operational costs over two years to expand Uniswap Protocol’s ecosystem, governance capabilities, and to support the launches of Uniswap v4 and Unichain.
Vote: For
Rationale:
Our position remains largely unchanged from the Temp Check. We support this proposal because Uniswap v4 represents critical innovation in DeFi, and substantial investment in hook development and user onboarding remains essential.
Although we recognize ongoing concerns about UF’s transparency and future grant management, we continue to see these as addressable challenges.
The Uniswap Foundation, in collaboration with Gauntlet, proposes liquidity incentives for Uniswap v4 and Unichain to swiftly migrate liquidity, driving user adoption and positioning both as critical digital infrastructure.
Vote: For
Rationale:
We continue to support this proposal, consistent with our Snapshot vote, recognizing these liquidity incentive programs as necessary expenditures to secure the competitive growth of Uniswap v4 and Unichain in the current highly competitive environment. This ultimately leads to maximizing long-term value for UNI token holders.