Uniswap Accountability Committee (UAC): Season 3 Report

[AbdullahUmar]

Authors: @AbdullahUmar (Arana Digital), @Juanbug (PGov), @alicecorsini (kpk)

The purpose of this report is of two-fold:

Part 1: Descriptive Report

This section outlines the operations and programs with UAC oversight and provides a financial recap of account balances and expenditures.

Contents

• Background
• Uniswap v3 Deployments Growth
• Incentive Packages and Target Chain Commitments
• Developing Plans for Uniswap v4 Adoption
• Multisig Operations and Transparency
• Uniswap Foundation Feedback Group
• Governance Community Calls
• Accounting and Financials

Part 2: Request for Comment (RFC)

Based on the information from Part 1, this section proposes a renewal of the UAC for Season 4 and requests rebalancing of program accounts under deficits. The renewal and the rebalancing aspects will be conducted as two separate temperature checks. Season 4 renewal is requested to last until the end of 2025.

Part 1: Descriptive Report

Background

The UAC has now been operating for the past three seasons, each of which span a duration of roughly 7 months. An evolution of the committee has led it to become the DAO’s go-to operational body for handling a multitude of different responsibilities, although it merely began as a committee to oversee cross-chain deployments upon expiration of the Uniswap v3 Business Source License (BSL). Today, the UAC oversees:

• Cross-chain deployment coordination
• ENS record management
• Disbursement and accounting of service provider, grantee, and working groups’ compensation
• Custody of DAO-approved funds on Ethereum mainnet
• Incentive distribution across a multitude of EVM-compatible chains
• Governance community calls
• Assisting with miscellaneous DAO operations like helping teams sponsor proposals
• Managing the newly established Foundation Feedback Group (FFG)

This report outlines the specific operations behind the UAC from the previous season, along with an update regarding the financial situation of DAO programs and working groups. The last section will act as the request for comment (RFC) to renew the UAC and balance accounts.

Uniswap v3 Deployments Growth

Whenever a target chain is interested in attaining an official Uniswap v3, or v2, deployment, the UAC is responsible for interfacing with the chain, helping them structure the RFC for attaining optimistic approval for the deployment. We work closely with front-end teams—which also take care of the backend contract deployment—like Oku and Reservoir, sending them any deal flow that we may attain. Once the front-end providers deploy and verify all of the required contracts, the UAC double checks that all of the necessary deployment details have been completed, like the transfer of contract ownership to the timelock.

During Season 3, the UAC oversaw the deployment of 17 total v3 deployments, a significant increase from the previous season, which saw 7 deployments. As per the below graphic, the past seven months have seen a dramatic rise in official deployments.

Due to the release of L2/L3 standards like the OP Stack (Superchain) and ZK Chains (Elastic Network), the possible markets that Uniswap has been able to expand to has dramatically increased. We continue to see this trend transpire and anticipate no shortage in demand from target chains to deploy an official instance of Uniswap v3.

Of all deployments, GFX Labs has been directly responsible for 21 of them, with Protofire and Uniswap Labs taking care of 7 and 5 deployments, respectively. However, Oku users are nonetheless able to access 31 out of the active 41 deployments, making Oku.trade the most accessible DAO-approved front-end for interacting with official deployments in terms of sheer chain breadth. Uniswap.org is the most used and prominent front-end, giving access to 13 total chains. Reservoir allows users to interact with Uni v3 on 7 chains, with chains like Abstract having pushed Uniswap v3 as their chain’s canonical DEX.

Incentive Packages and Target Chain Commitments

The incentive package is composed of three types of capital allocations:

• Incentives for distribution
• Distribution partner integration cost
• Front-end integration cost

The three pieces above do not need to be requested in tandem, rather, a target chain has the ability to select one or more of the above aspects of the incentive package. In December, the UAC published a guideline to assist target chains with the v3 deployment process, helping them assess which parts of the package are most important to request. The forum post can be found here.

X Layer requested an Oku subsidy from the DAO without asking for any incentives at the time; therefore, the DAO voted to allocate $105k UNI to help X Layer cover this cost, contingent on them providing $1M of POL on Uni v3 pools.

The UAC and Oku mediated this relationship, calling for X Layer to set up a combined multisig with representatives from the various organizations in order to ensure the POL on their end was delivered, but their team backed out part way through the process. X Layer therefore does not have a front-end to interact with the v3 contracts, and Oku was not paid for this deployment due to X Layer falling short. The $105k that was sent to the UAC from this proposal remains in the Primary UAC Wallet and is now accounted for as an Account surplus and not a liability to be paid out (see “Accounting and Financials” section for more details).

Gnosis Chain asked for a full package, including all three of the above components, with the incentives for distribution amounting to $250k. No matching was provided by Gnosis. All of the Gnosis incentives have been successfully disbursed, and their team continues to allocate capital to growing the deployment. For example, in March, they put forth $250k GNO to incentivize their tokenized TSLA pool.

Sonic asked the DAO to cover the Merkl integration and $250k worth of incentives. Only 40% of this capital was disbursed due to a shift in the Sonic team’s strategy partway through the campaigns. They still allocated $150k, while we spent $100k. The remainder of the funds are now a part of the UAC surplus (see “Accounting and Financials” section for more details).

Celo asked for the Oku subsidy along with $250k of incentives for distribution. The Celo migration to an OP L2 concluded in March. Their team wanted to wait until this process was complete before allocating the assigned incentives. The UAC will allocate these incentives soon, and updates will show on this forum thread.

During Season 2, the UAC ran 13 campaigns for 12 chains (zkSync was tranched into 2 parts), while only the Gnosis Chain and Sonic incentives were newly administered during Season 3. The Uniswap Revitalization and Growth Program was meant to be a way to increase v3’s market share across the given chains, of which, some were successful, while others were not. Forse helped analyze the results for four of these chains: Arbitrum, Base, Blast, and Scroll.

Matching Incentives and Expense Ratios

Ever since this incentives sprint from Season 2, the DAO has become more fastidious with its incentives spending. A handful of chains have requested incentives over the last few months but have either failed to go past the Snapshot phase or have shown reluctance in posting an RFC due to the fear of having the proposal fall short. During Season 3, the UAC began advising target chains to match a portion of their incentives request in order to have a chance for delegates to grant them liquidity incentives. This is in part why the Uniswap Ecosystem Incentives Initiative (UEII) was voted in during Q4 ‘24, which granted the participating members an incentive to source and negotiate the highest amount of matching from target chains as possible, along with pursue separate grant programs on behalf of the DAO.

Notably, this shift in strategy has increased the amount of capital committed by partner chains relative to Season 2. The following table shows all of the incentive allocations and matches from Season 2. The sum equates to $350k.

It’s clear that barely any matching was considered during this initial sprint on incentives, as it largely wasn’t a requirement for target chains. The DAO unilaterally decided to allocate funds to the above chains without first taking them through a negotiating process. There also wasn’t any negotiation that occurred with Gnosis Chain. The only instance of an active strategy to secure a grant from a target chain was with Arbitrum.

The expense ratio for the Arbitrum allocation was 1.2 because the current UEII team applied for the Arbitrum LTIPP program in collaboration with Gauntlet. This instance exemplifies the benefits of actively scoping incentives from alternative ecosystems.

The UAC began negotiating with chains after roughly September ‘24. That’s why the ratio for Sonic is more satisfactory. We had weeks of back and forth with the target chain team in order to land on a match amount that would be sufficient for the DAO. Now, the negotiations are handled by the UEII and have thus far been successful, as seen by the recent Celo match.

Lisk’s incentives deal never proceeded from Snapshot to the onchain vote due to the large number of “No” votes. Note Lisk was promising $1M of POL as a result of these incentives, but that’s a very different commitment from incentives that represent an explicit expenditure.

However, to our surprise, the Saga proposal also failed, even though the chain was proposing to allocate the largest amount of matching the DAO has yet seen. A handful of chains have been advised to hold off on asking for incentives unless they can offer a compelling enough match, otherwise their proposal is likely to fail, especially if the requesting team is not well-known. There are 5+ chains in this scenario at the moment. BOB’s incentive package proposal recently passed the Snapshot phase, however, indicating that the DAO indexes heavily on existing chain traction.

Other chains, including LightLink and Telos, have started running their internal incentive programs as a precursor to asking for the onboarding package. This way, chains are able to approach Uniswap with existing example commitments.

Developing Plans for Uniswap v4 Adoption

There are a handful of prerequisites that must be dealt with prior to actually executing a Uni v4 cross-chain deployment initiative. The first step towards increasing v4 adoption was taken by the DAO once it approved the Uniswap Unleashed and Unichain/v4 Liquidity Incentives proposals in March. These UF-led programs should aid in bootstrapping and accelerating liquidity and activity on v4, notably on larger chains like Base and Arbitrum. Strategy around alternative chains is presently taking place and will be substantiated in the coming few months.

The first actionable step that the DAO is able to take regarding v4 adoption is instituting the legal and operational infrastructure for deploying v4 across alternative EVM environments. Last week, the UAC created a forum post elucidating the steps behind granting license exemptions to particular entities for deploying official instances of v4.

To learn more, please visit this forum post.

Multisig Operations and Transparency

Unchanged from Season 2, the UAC continues to use two multisig addresses to conduct its operations:

• Primary UAC Wallet Address: 0x3B59C6d0034490093460787566dc5D6cE17F2f9C
• UAC Incentives Wallet Address: 0xEBCCf1ce13F63c6B98811F03964F51fC43cef851
  • This wallet is deployed across various EVMs

Since the UAC has grown from four to five total members between Season 2 and 3, we’ve correspondingly increased the multisigs’ threshold from ¾ to ⅗.

In March, we signed an agreement with SafeNotes to increase transparency around capital flows between the UAC Primary and UAC Incentives wallets. The DAO will now be able to easily track inflows and outflows, as they will be categorized and detailed by the UAC team, a functionality not available with block explorers. Any future additions to the suite of UAC-operated multisigs will be automatically added to the SafeNotes interface.

We’ve also acquired the “uac.eth” ENS domain to make it easier for delegates and external teams to easily identify the Primary UAC Wallet, and the UAC Incentives wallet has also been granted a subname, called “incentives.uac.eth.”

Users are able to toggle between each multisig address and view the inflows and outflows associated with each address. For example, the below discloses the flow for the UAC Incentives Wallet.

Uniswap Foundation Feedback Group (FFG)

The FFG is a newly proposed initiative aimed at strengthening accountability, transparency, and alignment between the UF and the Uniswap DAO. It is being developed in collaboration with the UAC and incorporates feedback from delegates, stakeholders, and community members. The FFG will hold meetings with the UF every other month to track progress on their roadmap, communicating salient points of discussion to the DAO.

Reporting regarding financial, grants, etc is not substituted by this group. The UF will continue their customary reporting process. The FFG simply provides a more intimate layer of oversight, allowing external parties to verify and communicate that the UF is prudently meeting its mandates. This type of oversight is important because not every aspect of the UF’s operations needs to be debated on a public forum—and some aspects, like partnerships, need to remain private. However, a small group external to the Foundation, with alignment to token holders and the DAO, can provide reassurance that the UF is acting responsibly.

Six entities/individuals, including the UAC, will be a part of the FFG for the duration of 2025. Once we obtain confirmation from them, they will be disclosed on the forum.

Prospective Team
We are awaiting final confirmation from a few of the final members. The below should give context as to the types of characteristics we looked for when selecting FFG members. Collectively, the group will hold the following attributes:

• Legal background
• Large UNI token stake
• High strategic acuity
• Constructive and neutral delegate(s)
• Diversity of useful expertise, like in market making
• Previous grantee or protocol that relies on Uniswap for its success
• High context around Uniswap DAO operations

Governance Community Calls

Since September 2024, the UAC has been hosting monthly virtual community calls to keep DAO participants informed of ongoing operations. We have invited multiple guest presenters to the calls, from the front-end providers, target chains requesting incentive grants, other working groups, delegates with active RFCs, and the Uniswap Foundation.

Beyond keeping the community updated, these calls also serve as an important criterion behind Delegate Rewards Cycle 2—and continue to play a role in Cycle 3 of the program. The second cycle showed a 81.25% average attendance rate in paid delegates, and the overall average attendance between September and March amounted to ~40 people. Hence, 32.5% of community call attendees constitute paid delegates.

Note that November is not included in this diagram since that month’s call was canceled due to Uniday Bangkok.

————————————————————————————————————

Continue reading for Accounting and Financials Section

[AbdullahUmar]

Part 1: Descriptive Report (Continued)

Accounting and Financials

The accounting details in this section are up-to-date as of April 14, 2025 and assume a UNI price of $5.35. Also note that all of the account balances, along with their respective inflows and outflows, are cumulative from the establishment of the UAC. The rebalance amounts are based in dollars, so the requested UNI amount from the RFC to the Snapshot to the onchain vote will vary from $UNI fluctuation.

Escrow and Oversight for DAO Programs and Working Groups

From September 2024 until April 2025, there have been a total of 28,459,760 UNI sent out of the Uniswap timelock. Of this total, 550,823 have been for DAO-led programs, all of which have been directly sent to the UAC Primary Wallet. Of the 12 transactions executed through an onchain vote, 10 of these have directed capital to the UAC to escrow, highlighting that the UAC has become the DAO’s go-to entity for payment distribution.

There are multiple benefits of utilizing an intermediary escrow setup. Firstly, it grants the DAO a customary venue for issuing treasury-based UNI upon the execution of an onchain vote. There are often questions around what entity a proposer should direct their capital towards, and the UAC wallet helps create a structure for such organization. The DAO can now distinguish between the treasury as a whole, which by the UTWG has been recommended to be viewed as an issuance vehicle, and operating capital that has been approved for consumption by governance vote.

Better accountability is also implemented when the UAC is able to verify the completion of work prior to conducting disbursements. Of course, an alternative to this is using a streaming service like Sablier to continuously pay a grantee like Tally or Forse, for example. However, since the UAC does not have the ability to liquidate UNI for USDC, it must pay all recipients in UNI tokens. Due to price fluctuations, it’s difficult to pay a vendor the dollar amount that they requested initially over time. Plus, if a third-party streaming service is used, and a grantee does not follow through with their mandate, an onchain vote may be required to suspend the stream, which takes an inordinate amount of time. Plus, some vendors may require a degree of flexibility when meeting deadlines, like was the case with Forse. Manual distributions therefore make it easier for the DAO to manage distribution edge cases and complexities.

Relative to last season, the UAC saw less dollar-denominated inflows, totaling $3.82M, while last season we saw $5.89M worth of inflows. In terms of UNI, 220k less tokens were part of the inflows. However, the total number of inflow transactions increased from 4 to 10. The large disparity in magnitude of inflows was due to the approval of more incentive programs during Q1 - Q3 2024 as part of the Uniswap Revitalization and Growth Program.

The above table only contains months that saw inflows.

Program Account Balances

This section of the report consolidates each Account’s current balance and expenses. Accounts are considered “currently allocated” if their dollar-based budget has been fully disbursed. These accounts will remain present in case the programs associated with them are renewed in the future. There are a total of nine Accounts:

• Incentive Package
• Delegate Compensation
• UAC Payroll/Operations
• Delegate Reward WG
• Uniswap Ecosystem Incentives Initiative
• Tally Grant
• Uniswap Treasury Working Group (UTWG) — Currently Allocated
• Uniswap Growth Program — Currently Allocated
• Forse Grant — Currently Allocated

“Accounts” are effectively the prescribed balances associated with a particular program that the DAO has voted in. Programs are voted in, in terms of dollars—not UNI. Therefore, Accounts fluctuate in their dollar-based balance over time. In certain circumstances, an Account will have more dollar-denominated capital in it than was initially voted, and vice versa if the price of UNI falls. Deviations from the voted dollar price of a program are denoted as either surpluses or deficits. At the end of every UAC Season, we request a topping up of Accounts in a deficit. This allows us to more effectively meet DAO commitments while factoring the volatile nature of UNI.

Active Accounts

Chain Incentive Packages

Following the information from the incentive packages section, this Account is responsible for tracking three types of payments:

• Incentives for distribution
• Distribution partner integration cost
• Front-end integration cost

Oku and Merkl Payments

There are no payables pending for Oku or Merkl integrations. Oku was paid $105k x 2 during Season 3 for Gnosis and Celo integrations. Merkl integration costs for Gnosis and Sonic were waived due to the reasons outlined below.

Note that the dollar amount for the Blast through BSC incentives are 3% more than the base number of incentives in that program. This is because all incentive programs prior to Gnosis allocated additional capital to accommodate for the 3% Merkl distribution cost, which applies to all campaigns. Since Gnosis and Sonic, we have been bundling the incentive cost + the distribution cost into a lump sum so that a $250k request, for example, includes all associated variable fees. In this $250k scenario, the true amount of incentives allocated would be $242.5k.

We negotiated a discount on distribution costs for Merkl last year, where the 3% fees only applied to a certain lot of the incentives. This deal resets annually.

A total of ~$6 million was distributed via the UAC as of January 20, 2025, and a flat 3% fee was charged on the full amount ($180k). The discount meant that the fee model is tiered based on the following distribution numbers:

• 3% on the first $2M ($60k)
• 2.25% on the next $3M ($67.5k)
• 1.5% on the final $1M ($15k)

Hence, the correct total fee charge is $142.5k, so Merkl overcharged by $37.5k. Since we owed Merkl $21.6k for the Gnosis and Sonic integrations (total ~$43.2k), they decided to grant leniency with this fee, leaving our wallet with an excess $5,700.

Accordingly, we reduced the Current Balance by $43,200, but left the wallet UNI amount unchanged since no token flows occurred, giving us a slight surplus.

Chain Incentive Notes

• Sonic cut their incentives short after distributing 40% of the $500k that they promised. In turn, we also cut off our incentives at the 40% mark, allocating only $100k of the allotted $250k. As such, the Current Balance decreased by $150k, leaving a surplus.
• BSC, Blast, and Celo incentives were the only ones that remain unallocated. We are holding on to the BSC balance since we’re in the middle of negotiating a potential incentive match with their team. Celo will be allocated soon since their L2 migration is now done. However, we ended up nulling the remaining 50% of the Blast rewards—the Current Balance was thereby reduced by $257,500, leaving excess capital in the account due to the unallocated UNI.
• Since X Layer didn’t follow through with their POL commitment, we removed $105k (Oku cost) from the Current Balance, leaving a surplus.

No rebalance is required as the Account is in a surplus. The Current Balance of $765k is composed of $515k for BSC and $250k for Celo.

Delegate Compensation

During UAC Season 3, the whole of Cycle 2 of delegate compensation transpired, between September 2024 - end of February 2025. As of April, we are now one month into Cycle 3 of delegate compensation, with disbursements for March having been made at the start of April to 15 qualified candidates.

Note that the total outflows for Cycle 2 are higher than that of Cycle 3 due to the reduction of the cohort from 16 to 15 candidates. Plus, since this is a continual program, excess capital from previous cycles simply gets recycled for the subsequent cycle(s).

A rebalance of $29,247 is required for this Account.

UAC Payroll/Operations

The total outflows for this Account for Season 3 have so far amounted to $137,736. Once the month of April concludes, this number will be finalized.

Between the months of October and March, the total UAC payroll amounted to $132k, an average of $22k per month for the team of five members. Some members completed overtime work, and so we expect the aggregated amount of payroll expense for these months to be $155k, or $25.8k per month. Based on the allotted monthly payroll budget of $30k, this account remains at a dollar-based surplus. Note that overtime pay does not get distributed until the completion of a given season and will be disbursed at the end of April as Season 4 gets underway.

Other operational expenses amounted to $5,736, of which $5k was used to pay for a 12-month SafeNotes subscription, and the rest was used for purchasing the new “uac.eth” ENS domain.

We expect once we factor in the overtime for the last season, a surplus would still remain. Again, note that this balance will have some variance due to April payables not being accounted for, but regardless, we expect a slight surplus.

No rebalance is required due to the existing surplus.

Delegate Reward WG

This Account was opened during the planning phase for Cycle 1 of the delegate compensation program. Over the past two seasons this Account has been utilized to cover costs associated with overhead around planning and operating the delegate rewards program. Between October 2024 and April 2025, $15.6k has been used from this Account.

No rebalancing will be needed for this Account due to the present surplus.

Uniswap Ecosystem Incentives Initiative (UEII)

In concert with the Uniswap Growth Program, the UEII was voted in during October 2025 as well. The above section regarding expense ratios and negotiations with target chains has made this program more pertinent as it actively incentivizes the team members to seek lucrative liquidity deals with other protocols and DAOs. So far, the program has utilized 41% of its budget based on active Optimism and zkSync campaigns. These disbursements were paid out in February & April 2025.

A rebalance of $87,942 is required for this Account.

Tally Grant

A vote elected to fund Tally operations and development between Q1 2025 - Q4 2026, spreading a total $500k across 8 even disbursements. The UAC pays Tally at the start of each quarter based on their plan for the upcoming quarter, along with progress and upkeep status on the previous quarter. Two $62.5k payments have so far been made out to Tally.

The Tally communication thread is available here.

The original proposal from Tally indicated that the UAC would act as the mediator for making sure their Account is balanced correctly so that liabilities may properly be covered:

A rebalance of $155,875 is required for this Account.

Currently Allocated Accounts

Uniswap Treasury Working Group (UTWG)

A total of $60k was allotted to the UTWG, and all of its liabilities have been paid due to the delivery of the working group’s report in December. During Season 2, the UAC paid the four teams composing the UTWG an equal $7200 each. The UTWG report is hosted on a UAC-operated Notion page that we’re open to utilizing for future research as well.

This Account has covered its budget and is therefore fully allocated, with a surplus 1,092 UNI.

Uniswap Growth Program

One of the shortcomings of Season 2 was that there was not enough outbound communication with target chains and related partners, nor was there a concrete marketing initiative to make users aware of the incentive campaigns—that’s why the growth program was instituted in Q3, with a 6-month trial period.

The upfront budget request from this proposal was as follows:

The entire dollar amount was disbursed to the AlphaGrowth team upon passing of the proposal.

This Account has covered its budget and is therefore fully allocated, with a surplus 1,530 UNI.

Forse Grant

The Forse team was tasked with conducting a retroactive analysis of some of the incentive campaigns that the UAC put into effect—in particular for Base, Arbitrum, Blast, and Scroll.

Their team has provided interim analyses over the past couple of community calls, with their final deliverable and dashboards available to access here. As per the initial proposal, $60k was paid to their team in March ‘25.

This Account at time of payment was at a deficit and is now ended. A rebalance of $7,078 is required for this Account.

Accounting Summary

• The total current balance of all Accounts equates to $1,984,414.
• The sum of the UNI in the Primary and Incentives wallets is 431,478 UNI.

Three of the Accounts have been fully utilized for now, but we will continue to keep track of them in case programs associated with those budgets get renewed in the future.

We are looking to request a rebalance for active and fully allocated Accounts. This is to ensure that commitments for those Accounts are properly met or zeroed out once they have ended. Accordingly, the below table sums up how much we are requesting for a rebalance overall.

Discretionary Budget

A Snapshot proposal passed with the onchain quorum threshold of 40M UNI votes to issue the UAC with capabilities to spend surplus funds for high impact incentive campaigns.

Proposal summary:

• Funds would be issued via internal unanimous UAC votes on a case-by-case basis.
• Ensures alignment with Uniswap DAO goals and enables quicker execution of opportunities.
• Reduces approval time from ~4 weeks to just a few days, pending UAC internal vote.
• Only funds previously allocated to the UAC multisig would be used.
• Spending is limited to when the surplus exceeds 150% of the Current Balance.
  • Example: With a balance of $706,667, surplus must exceed $1,060,000 to be eligible.
• This maintains a 1.5x buffer to account for price fluctuations and protect existing payables.
• Discretionary use is capped at $250,000 per incentive program.

The impetus for this proposal was a last-minute campaign that the EtherFi team was running near the tail end of the Holidays. Unfortunately, this never fully transpired since the DAO was slightly late to the commitment regardless of the prompt discretionary proposal. As of April 2025, the surplus is not large enough to activate discretionary funding, however, there may be a future scenario where this will come in handy.

————————————————————————————————————

Continue reading for Part 2: RFC

[AbdullahUmar]

Part 2: RFC

This section is divided into two RFCs–one for renewing the UAC and the other to rebalance accounts. Each of these sections will run as their own temperature check to give the DAO more optionality over what to approve–the results of the temperature checks will then be wrapped together as a single onchain vote.

Our goal will be to align the conclusion of the UAC election Snapshot vote with the onchain vote to prevent bias among delegates who are also prospective candidates.

Renew UAC for Season 4

The below bullet points outline the Season 4 request:

• We will maintain the 5-member team as it’s an optimal number for dividing workload and distributing multisig security responsibilities.
• Increase the budgeted weekly hours from 7.5 to 10, bringing the monthly total 40 hours.
• Sustain the staggered election system to retain three current UAC members to prevent junctions between ongoing projects and training entirely new teams. Two out of the five members must either volunteer to drop their position, or there must be an internal vote to select which three members continue onto the next season
  • Alex and Frisson have stepped down for this upcoming season. Abdullah, Jun, and Alice will be joined by two new members based on a Snapshot vote right after this vote.
• Budget Ask:
  • $320,000 for UAC runway through December 2025, which is the budgeted ~40 hours/month, at the same $200/hr rate, for 8 months. This timeline aligns well with the end of the year and existing UAC programs, like the FFG, which is meant to conclude EOY 2025.
  • $50,000 for discretionary operations budget, which will allow us to continue paying for tools like DEN and SafeNotes—and other discretionary items down the road. This budget will allow the UAC to allocate capital to build supplemental materials like data dashboards without requesting additional capital through an onchain vote.

Summary for UAC Temp Check: Allocate $370k of UNI for UAC Season 4 renewal.

Rebalance Active Accounts in Deficit

Please review the “Accounting and Financials” section for an in-depth breakdown regarding the methodology behind calculating Account balances and their corresponding deficits/surpluses.

Summary for Rebalance Temp Check: $280,142 worth of UNI to rebalance required Accounts.

[portergeer]

Thanks Abdullah for this comprehensive report on the UAC’s activities and accomplishments across Season 3!

For those who may not know me, my name is Porter Geer and I am a part of the Uniswap Foundation. While you may have seen me through Govswap events in the past, I recently stepped into a formal GovOps role, working directly with Erin going forward.

While I understand that the committee transitioned from four to five members between Season 2 and 3, I’d appreciate some additional clarity on the committee composition and rotation policy going forward:

1. Regarding the rotation process, the report mentions there’s both a volunteer option and an internal vote mechanism. Is there a maximum number of consecutive terms that a member can serve?
2. While maintaining institutional knowledge is important to avoid fully new teams each season, is there a formal safeguard to ensure regular rotation of at least some positions?

This information would be helpful context for the Season 4 renewal proposal, and would strengthen governance transparency around the committee structure. Thanks again for your effort in coordinating these key functions.

[AbdullahUmar]

Hi Porter—thanks for your questions, and congrats on the new role.

The goal is always to optimize the degree of efficiency with which the UAC can function, while balancing the need for transparency and inclusion. Although there are no explicit term limits in place, we believe that the regular rotation of committee members sufficiently addresses concerns around including new members with fresh perspectives. Since much of the UAC role hinges on subject matter awareness, in other words, being privy to how uniswap governance has functioned over time, the staggered system is likely a best practice.

Once a member is elected into the UAC, it’s very much a matter of how much you’d like to be involved. Some members spend disproportionately more time on committee activities, while others assist more passively due to various reasons, like having multiple other commitments, jobs, etc. The benefit of having 5 members though is the presence of more perspectives—and additional security for the UAC multisigs. At the present time, there are also no formal name-based roles, like “head of xyz.” It’s more so a matter of completing certain functions and being available where needed. As a season progresses, responsibilities tend to find their place.

If members of the UAC would like to serve a single term, and are able to get elected by the DAO, they are free to do so. If a member wants to commit longer term to the UAC after being elected in, it’s up to the UAC internally to decide which members have most significantly contributed to the committee’s operations. Clarity around contributions is most evident among the UAC members themselves, hence why an internal election takes place as a precursor to the DAO-wide vote.

[PGov]

The snapshots for the UAC Renewal and prior Approved Budget Rebalancing are live. Please take some time and review the vote.

Thank you!

Vote here: UAC Renewal S4 & Approved Budgets Rebalancing (S4)

[GFXlabs]

Thank you, Abdullah and the whole UAC team, for putting this report together. It is extremely well-organized and concise. The Uniswap DAO is lucky to have you all.

[DonOfDAOs]

I support the renewal and am continually impressed by the work done by core UAC members –

@AbdullahUmar

Once a member is elected into the UAC, it’s very much a matter of how much you’d like to be involved. Some members spend disproportionately more time on committee activities, while others assist more passively due to various reasons, like having multiple other commitments, jobs, etc.

As an early flag, I would also like to enter the nomination process for one of the available roles. I (by nature of my work at Event Horizon) am highly active across many DAOs while maintaining credible neutrality. Personally, I love governance and DAO ecosystems (more here: https://medium.com/@jordankarstadt ).

So, for an initiative like this, I would skew well into the ‘highly active’ category Abdullah referenced.

[Sinkas]

The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @kaereste, @Sinkas, and @Manugotsuka, and it’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.

We’re voting in FAVOR of renewing the UAC for the S4.

We backed the Season 3 renewal and have been satisfied with the committee’s output. The new request—$320k in UNI for 8 months plus a $50k operations buffer—represents a larger commitment than last season. However, the added hours, the committee’s broadened scope, and its decision to run the S4 through year-end 2025 more than justify the increase.

In our view, the UAC has become an essential operational bridge between governance decisions and day-to-day execution, handling everything from cross-chain deployments to incentive distribution and ENS management. The extra month, higher hour-cap, and modest discretionary fund should help it keep pace with an expanding ecosystem and the transition to the V4.

As an extension of our support for the renewal of the UAC for another season, we also voted in favor of the rebalancing of the accounts.

[tid_research]

I’m voting yes on this proposal. It tackles some real funding gaps to keep key DAO programs—like Tally’s governance tools and UEII’s liquidity deals—up and running without hiccups. The $280,142 budget request also seems justified.

I get that there’s no surplus right now, but the discretionary budget we already approved gives the UAC room to handle this kind of thing, so I’m not too worried about rebalancing concerns. The UAC’s disclosure with SafeNotes is also pretty transparent, and their 10/12 onchain votes plus regular community calls make me trust they’ll manage this well. This feels like a solid, transparent move to keep the DAO strong and on track.