If Uniswap goes this route, we need to put serious thought into what happens if the token price goes up or down. Token prices can see large movements for reasons beyond the control of the DAO. Service providers are paying their bills in fiat, so if the token price drops 2/3rds they can run into issues. Meanwhile, if the token 3xes then token holders may feel they are overpaying. I have seen both scenarios play out at other DAOs.
It would be beneficial to establish up front how these large swings will be handled, either throughout the year or during yearly reevaluations..
Firstly wanted to say Iâm glad this proposal is happening and itâs definitely a step in the right direction.
I was a bit confused by one of the implementation details though. Why are we burning 100M of UNI tokens from the DAO treasury, which the DAO controls anyways? If the goal is complete alignment, shouldnât we first at least burn the amount that Uniswap Labs collected in frontend fees over the last few years? Paid by labs. That seems cleaner to reverse SECâs shenanigans.
Retail always loses to âpros.â That would still be happening even outside of this proposal. Whatâs the solution? Open question to anyone here. What can be done so that the playing field is level?
Calldata executes the expected outcome, with some informational findings.
The simulation and tests of the live proposal can be found here.
To verify locally, clone the repository, check out commit 5c4ccc9, and run:
forge test --match-path "src/uniswap/proposals/93 - UNIfication/*" -vv
Findings
Vesting Contract - Immediate 5M UNI Claimable
The proposal approves 40M UNI to the UNIVesting contract at 20M UNI/year, distributed quarterly. On January 1st, 2026, Uniswap Labs can immediately claim 5M UNI. If no more approvals are passed, the last tranche is in Oct 2027.
While the DAO (which in the contract is Party A) will sign the Agreements once the proposal gets executed, as verified in our tests, other parties have not signed yet.
The following reflects the views of L2BEATâs governance team, composed of @kaereste and @Manugotsuka, based on our combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
We voted FOR.
Before the vote, our research team reviewed the on-chain payload and validated the function calls against the published spec. We did not find issues that would prevent us from supporting this initiative.
We supported the proposal in the temperature check and we support it onchain, we believe itâs a step in the right direction for the Uniswap entities.
I strongly support the direction of this proposal. Turning on protocol fees and creating a model where UNI accrues value directly from protocol usage is a long-overdue step for Uniswap.
I particularly appreciate the decision by Uniswap Labs to eliminate interface, wallet, and API fees and instead align its success purely with the success of the protocol itself. This creates a much clearer incentive structure where all stakeholders.. LPs, builders, users, and UNI holders benefit from increased usage and growth.
That said, there are trade-offs and potential risks in any major structural change of this magnitude, and those downsides should not be ignored. However, when weighed against the long-term benefits of sustainable value capture, stronger alignment, and a clearer economic role for UNI, the advantages of this proposal clearly outweigh its disadvantages.
At this stage in Uniswapâs evolution, a decisive shift like this is necessary. I believe this proposal represents the right step forward for the protocol and the ecosystem as a whole.
Uniswap Labs has not signed
Signed (using hal2001.eth, great for transparency)