I’ve taken time to go through this proposal, and I appreciate how it tries to pull the whole ecosystem into one clear direction. Turning on protocol fees has been a long conversation in this community, and seeing a concrete path that ties those fees directly to UNI burn makes the model easier to understand. It gives people a simple link between protocol usage and token value, which is something many of us have been asking for over the years.
What stands out to me is the gradual rollout. I’ve watched fee discussions split the community before, so starting with the pools that carry most of the volume feels like a calm way to introduce the change without putting LPs under sudden pressure. I like that Labs plans to monitor the impact and suggest adjustments. I’ve seen proposals pass in other DAOs where parameters were set once and then ignored, and it always creates problems later. Having active oversight here matters.
The PFDA idea caught my attention because MEV has always felt like this invisible leak in the system. If there’s a way to bring part of that value back to LPs and still support the burn, then it’s worth testing. I’d like to see real data once this goes live because MEV mechanics often behave differently in practice, but I’m open to the experiment.
I also think sending Unichain sequencer fees to the burn aligns the chain’s growth with UNI in a way that hasn’t existed before. Since Unichain is still young, setting this direction early helps avoid the usual confusion that comes when a new chain grows without a clear economic link to its parent ecosystem.
The part about moving Foundation teams to Labs is a big shift. I understand the logic behind having one unified direction, though I hope the transition doesn’t weaken the neutral governance support the Foundation has been offering. If this passes, I’d like to see regular updates on how responsibilities are being handled so the community doesn’t feel left in the dark.
Finally, the retroactive burn is a strong symbolic gesture. People have argued for years that UNI missed out on early fee capture, and while we can’t rewrite history, this at least acknowledges that conversation.
Overall, this is a major step, and I’m leaning positive. The proposal ties protocol growth, token value, and ecosystem incentives together in a way that feels more coherent than what we’ve had. I’d still like to see clarity on how Labs plans to communicate changes over time because coordination will matter more than ever once everything is under one roof. But directionally, this feels like the kind of push the protocol needs at this stage.