# Trial run a Technical Advisory Board (TAB)

**URL:** <https://gov.uniswap.org/t/trial-run-a-technical-advisory-board-tab/25518>\
**Category:** Temperature Check\
**Created:** [April 28, 2025, 9:27am UTC](https://gov.uniswap.org/t/trial-run-a-technical-advisory-board-tab/25518 "2025-04-28T09:27:59Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 6

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![kpk](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/gov.uniswap.org/kpk/32/10526_2.png) [@kpk](https://gov.uniswap.org/u/kpk)\
**Post date:** [April 29, 2025, 9:05am UTC](https://gov.uniswap.org/t/trial-run-a-technical-advisory-board-tab/25518/6 "2025-04-29T09:05:02Z")

</div>

We see this proposal as a way to tackle two distinct challenges: developers’ engagement in governance and technical reviews.

> [@jengajojo](#):
>
> this group is also tasked with increasing the technical awareness of the larger delegate cohort

As @jengajojo highlighted, **increasing the technical awareness of the larger delegate cohort is a particularly important and valuable goal** — we agree this should be tackled.

That said, **we have some reservations about the proposed TAB’s current scope and structure**. As @AbdullahUmar noted, only 2 out of 29 proposals since the start of 2024 would have benefited from a technical review. With such a limited current workload, there’s a risk that a formal, multi-member board might introduce more overhead than value at this stage.

Instead, we’d like to propose a more intermediate approach that leverages/coordinates with existing efforts funded by the Uniswap Foundation. Specifically, @blockful was recently awarded a grant focused on [Governance Security Review](https://uniswapfoundation.mirror.xyz/SAPBIdMcJpo_gUUyHdMNuH8r7qpCqRtxFbDrui7Na-I). While their current scope doesn’t include technical reviews of governance proposals, this could be extended to do so without requiring the creation of a new structure.

**We believe the DAO should extend @blockful’s current mandate from the UF, with a matching mandate focusing on the technical review of governance proposals.**

We believe @blockful is a strong fit for two main reasons:

1. They are already actively engaged with Uniswap’s governance security, with a scope that closely aligns with what’s envisioned for the TAB;
2. They successfully provide this kind of technical review support for ENS governance.

**This would allow us to address the technical assurance gap in a lean, efficient, and immediate way** — while leaving room to reassess the need for a more formal advisory body down the line if the proposal volume or complexity increases.

As for developers’ engagement in governance, we believe that it is a separate challenge that should be addressed independently.

---

_[View the full topic](https://gov.uniswap.org/t/trial-run-a-technical-advisory-board-tab/25518)._