Uniswap Delegate Reward Initiative - Cycle 4
Authors: @Doo_StableLab @PGov @AranaDigital @seedgov
Summary This proposal outlines the Uniswap Delegate Reward Initiative—Cycle 4, a compensation program designed to improve and sustain the participation quality and dedication among Uniswap delegates following the conclusion of Cycle 1, 2, and 3.
Due to character limit on snapshot, background has been removed. Please check on the forum for the background. ... The significant change for Cycle 3 is an introduction of Delegate owned UNI token to reflect on requests from several Uniswap DAO members during the Cycle 3 debate (the debate on this topic) for experimentation. For this cycle, the basis will be 1,000 UNI token (<$10k of August 2nd price). Delegates who hold 1,000 UNI or more would be able to get a small additional point on the application and will be the basis for getting 100% of the Uniswap Delegate reward once accepted. Details on how UNI ownership is determined is explained below in “Uniswap Delegate Reward Cycle 4 Metrics.” We believe experimenting with such can potentially address the question of delegates having more “skin in the game.”
...
Cycle 4 Proposal Details Application Eligibility
There will be a week-long period for candidates to submit their applications. The top 15 delegates will be determined based on a point system outlined below.
Delegates from Cycle 3 must apply again for Cycle 4–they will not be automatically included.
Only delegates who have participated in onchain voting for at least three months prior to the application post are eligible for Cycle 4.
Uniswap Delegate Reward Cycle 4 Metrics In case there are more than 15 eligible applicants, the top 15 will be chosen by the following objective metrics. The highest number of available points will be 13.
There will only be one wallet used for tracking for such metrics unless a Delegate has communicated on their delegate platform on the forum that the voting address will be changed at the time of change. In case of if the Delegate did not communicate such change on the delegate platform on the forum, the Delegate applicant can only choose one wallet to be used for evaluating for the metrics.
Applicants will also need to agree to follow Principles for Uniswap DAOto be eligible.
Since a delegate’s primary role is to utilize voting power from delegators and vote in Uniswap’s best interest, active participation is essential to ensuring quorums are met and malicious proposals are thwarted. This category carries a total of 7 points, with onchain voting weighted more heavily due to its ability to directly impact governance contracts and direct treasury funds. The voting rate is evaluated based on the past six months.
Offchain Voting (Snapshot)
90% and above: 3 80% to 90% : 2 70% till 80% : 1.5 60% till 70%: 1 50% till 60%: 0.5 50% or below: 0
Onchain Voting
90% and above : 4 80% till 90% : 2.5 70% till 80%: 1.5 60% till 70%: 1 50% till 60%: 0.5 Below 50%: 0
Contributing to proposal drafting for Uniswap DAO is valuable, but maintaining quality and preventing malicious proposals is equally important. As a result, only successfully passed votes are counted. This category is worth a total of 3 points, with onchain proposals receiving greater weight once again.
For non-binary proposals, if a “No” equivalent option was available and the final voting outcome was a choice other than “No,” the proposal qualifies for points in this category. For example, the Uniswap Treasury Working Group (UTWG) Election would not be eligible, as there was no “No” vote option. However, the [Temp] Uni Onboarding Package - BSC would qualify, since an “Against” option was present, and the final outcome was “$1M.”
Only the sole author or co-authors explicitly mentioned on the proposal will receive credit.
Authored or Co-authored a proposal that passed offchain (Snapshot) vote before.
Yes, 2 or more: 1 Yes, 1: 0.5 No: 0
Authored or Co authored a proposal that passed onchain vote before
Yes, 2 or more: 2 Yes, 1: 1 No: 0
The full point for this category is 1.
Community Calls (March - August 2025)
Attended at least 80% of calls: 1 Attended at least 50% of calls: 0.5
Attended less than 50% of calls: 0
The full point for this category is 1.
Blockchain signatures are required so Delegate can prove that Delegate has ownership of UNI Token. In addition, UNI token delegate claims to own must be delegated to the applicant delegate. One needs to have 1,000 UNI or more and have blockchain signature that verifies ownership from the wallet that holds 1,000 UNI or more by the time the applicant applies to gain extra 1 point in applications.
Ex) If StableLab wants to receive full point for this category, StableLab needs to hold at least 1,000 UNI, share in the application the wallet address where 1,000 UNI is being held, sign blockchain signature that confirms that the wallet belongs to StableLab and from that wallet address must delegate to StableLab.
To qualify for this 1 point, the delegated owned 1,000 UNI must remain at least until the verification process is completed and the application results are announced.
Delegate owns 1,000 UNI and is delegated to Delegate applying
Yes: 1
No: 0
The full point for this category is 1.
Delegates with participation over the past 6 months: Voted in 100% of the proposals (both on Snapshot and on-chain), submitted rationale for 100% of their votes in time (7 days from the end of each vote), attended 100% of the community calls.
Yes: 1
No: 0
Tie Breaker
Ties will be decided by the date of the first onchain vote that these applicants cast in order to reward delegates who have been contributing to Uniswap governance for an extended period. The tie-breaking value will be determined based on the end date of the vote in which the delegates participated, not the onchain date when the vote was cast.
In the event of a tie with the first tie-breaker criterion, priority will be given to the delegate who has cast the most votes in the last 6 months.
In the event that the tie persists further, the final decision will favor the delegate who was first to present their delegation platform—hence, priority will be given to the individual/entity who first publicly declared their intention to become a delegate.
Delegate Reward Eligibility
Once delegates have passed the application process, they must fulfill the following requirements to be eligible for up to $6,000 USD worth of $UNI reward per month.
Requirements
Maintain a minimum of 80% participation in onchain and off-chain voting during the last 3 months to be eligible to receive up to $3,000 worth of $UNI per month, with the proportional payment based on each delegate’s participation in the total votes cast during the last 3 months (number of votes cast x 100 / total votes cast during the last 3 months). For example, if there were 10 votes cast in the last 3 months and a delegate voted on 8 of them, that delegate will receive 80% of the $3,000 USD, i.e. the delegate will be eligible to receive $2,400. If another delegate voted on 7 of those votes, that delegate will not be eligible to receive any rewards as their participation was 70% of the votes, below the 80% minimum. Additional Rewards (the below are only available if the above Requirement of Voting Participation is fulfilled)
2a. Write rationale for the voting on their delegate profile. -Deadline for writing rationale would be 7 days from the end of each vote. 2b. Attend Uniswap Community Calls.
2c. Maintain ownership of 1,000 UNI or more and delegated to the Delegate
Achieving these above will provide an additional up to $3,000 USD worth of $UNI. 2c must be met, meaning ownership of 1,000 or more UNI must be maintained and delegated to the delegate to be eligible. If 2c is met, for 2a, 2b, there will also be proportional payment. For example, if 2c is met, and if there were 4 votings and 1 community call, and a delegate missed writing a rationale of 2 of the votes, the delegate would be eligible to receive $1800 [3/5 * $3000].
Regarding 2c, once again, in case of less than 1,000 UNI, This proportion will NOT be applied. For example, even if a Delegate has 500 UNI and fulfill all of 2a and 2b, the additional rewards would be $0 worth of UNI. The Uniswap Accountability Committee will periodically check qualified Delegates’ wallets for their UNI amount.
Budget
We are requesting 540,000 [6000 USD *6 Months *15 Delegates ] USD worth of UNI for cycle 4 of the Uniswap Delegate Reward Initiative.
The total amount, once approved, will be sent to the Accountability Committee, which will be responsible for the monthly distribution of rewards to eligible delegates. Since the total budget of the Delegate Reward WG has not been fully used, administration of this reward program–including the creation of this proposal and the admin work behind verifying monthly delegate participation–will be allotted from that account, with no additional costs to the DAO. Therefore, the total budget request will be solely for the delegate pay.
Uniswap Delegate Reward Initiative - Cycle 4
Authors: @Doo_StableLab @PGov @AranaDigital @seedgov
Summary This proposal outlines the Uniswap Delegate Reward Initiative—Cycle 4, a compensation program designed to improve and sustain the participation quality and dedication among Uniswap delegates following the conclusion of Cycle 1, 2, and 3.
Due to character limit on snapshot, background has been removed. Please check on the forum for the background. ... The significant change for Cycle 3 is an introduction of Delegate owned UNI token to reflect on requests from several Uniswap DAO members during the Cycle 3 debate (the debate on this topic) for experimentation. For this cycle, the basis will be 1,000 UNI token (<$10k of August 2nd price). Delegates who hold 1,000 UNI or more would be able to get a small additional point on the application and will be the basis for getting 100% of the Uniswap Delegate reward once accepted. Details on how UNI ownership is determined is explained below in “Uniswap Delegate Reward Cycle 4 Metrics.” We believe experimenting with such can potentially address the question of delegates having more “skin in the game.”
...
Cycle 4 Proposal Details Application Eligibility
There will be a week-long period for candidates to submit their applications. The top 15 delegates will be determined based on a point system outlined below.
Delegates from Cycle 3 must apply again for Cycle 4–they will not be automatically included.
Only delegates who have participated in onchain voting for at least three months prior to the application post are eligible for Cycle 4.
Uniswap Delegate Reward Cycle 4 Metrics In case there are more than 15 eligible applicants, the top 15 will be chosen by the following objective metrics. The highest number of available points will be 13.
There will only be one wallet used for tracking for such metrics unless a Delegate has communicated on their delegate platform on the forum that the voting address will be changed at the time of change. In case of if the Delegate did not communicate such change on the delegate platform on the forum, the Delegate applicant can only choose one wallet to be used for evaluating for the metrics.
Applicants will also need to agree to follow Principles for Uniswap DAOto be eligible.
Since a delegate’s primary role is to utilize voting power from delegators and vote in Uniswap’s best interest, active participation is essential to ensuring quorums are met and malicious proposals are thwarted. This category carries a total of 7 points, with onchain voting weighted more heavily due to its ability to directly impact governance contracts and direct treasury funds. The voting rate is evaluated based on the past six months.
Offchain Voting (Snapshot)
90% and above: 3 80% to 90% : 2 70% till 80% : 1.5 60% till 70%: 1 50% till 60%: 0.5 50% or below: 0
Onchain Voting
90% and above : 4 80% till 90% : 2.5 70% till 80%: 1.5 60% till 70%: 1 50% till 60%: 0.5 Below 50%: 0
Contributing to proposal drafting for Uniswap DAO is valuable, but maintaining quality and preventing malicious proposals is equally important. As a result, only successfully passed votes are counted. This category is worth a total of 3 points, with onchain proposals receiving greater weight once again.
For non-binary proposals, if a “No” equivalent option was available and the final voting outcome was a choice other than “No,” the proposal qualifies for points in this category. For example, the Uniswap Treasury Working Group (UTWG) Election would not be eligible, as there was no “No” vote option. However, the [Temp] Uni Onboarding Package - BSC would qualify, since an “Against” option was present, and the final outcome was “$1M.”
Only the sole author or co-authors explicitly mentioned on the proposal will receive credit.
Authored or Co-authored a proposal that passed offchain (Snapshot) vote before.
Yes, 2 or more: 1 Yes, 1: 0.5 No: 0
Authored or Co authored a proposal that passed onchain vote before
Yes, 2 or more: 2 Yes, 1: 1 No: 0
The full point for this category is 1.
Community Calls (March - August 2025)
Attended at least 80% of calls: 1 Attended at least 50% of calls: 0.5
Attended less than 50% of calls: 0
The full point for this category is 1.
Blockchain signatures are required so Delegate can prove that Delegate has ownership of UNI Token. In addition, UNI token delegate claims to own must be delegated to the applicant delegate. One needs to have 1,000 UNI or more and have blockchain signature that verifies ownership from the wallet that holds 1,000 UNI or more by the time the applicant applies to gain extra 1 point in applications.
Ex) If StableLab wants to receive full point for this category, StableLab needs to hold at least 1,000 UNI, share in the application the wallet address where 1,000 UNI is being held, sign blockchain signature that confirms that the wallet belongs to StableLab and from that wallet address must delegate to StableLab.
To qualify for this 1 point, the delegated owned 1,000 UNI must remain at least until the verification process is completed and the application results are announced.
Delegate owns 1,000 UNI and is delegated to Delegate applying
Yes: 1
No: 0
The full point for this category is 1.
Delegates with participation over the past 6 months: Voted in 100% of the proposals (both on Snapshot and on-chain), submitted rationale for 100% of their votes in time (7 days from the end of each vote), attended 100% of the community calls.
Yes: 1
No: 0
Tie Breaker
Ties will be decided by the date of the first onchain vote that these applicants cast in order to reward delegates who have been contributing to Uniswap governance for an extended period. The tie-breaking value will be determined based on the end date of the vote in which the delegates participated, not the onchain date when the vote was cast.
In the event of a tie with the first tie-breaker criterion, priority will be given to the delegate who has cast the most votes in the last 6 months.
In the event that the tie persists further, the final decision will favor the delegate who was first to present their delegation platform—hence, priority will be given to the individual/entity who first publicly declared their intention to become a delegate.
Delegate Reward Eligibility
Once delegates have passed the application process, they must fulfill the following requirements to be eligible for up to $6,000 USD worth of $UNI reward per month.
Requirements
Maintain a minimum of 80% participation in onchain and off-chain voting during the last 3 months to be eligible to receive up to $3,000 worth of $UNI per month, with the proportional payment based on each delegate’s participation in the total votes cast during the last 3 months (number of votes cast x 100 / total votes cast during the last 3 months). For example, if there were 10 votes cast in the last 3 months and a delegate voted on 8 of them, that delegate will receive 80% of the $3,000 USD, i.e. the delegate will be eligible to receive $2,400. If another delegate voted on 7 of those votes, that delegate will not be eligible to receive any rewards as their participation was 70% of the votes, below the 80% minimum. Additional Rewards (the below are only available if the above Requirement of Voting Participation is fulfilled)
2a. Write rationale for the voting on their delegate profile. -Deadline for writing rationale would be 7 days from the end of each vote. 2b. Attend Uniswap Community Calls.
2c. Maintain ownership of 1,000 UNI or more and delegated to the Delegate
Achieving these above will provide an additional up to $3,000 USD worth of $UNI. 2c must be met, meaning ownership of 1,000 or more UNI must be maintained and delegated to the delegate to be eligible. If 2c is met, for 2a, 2b, there will also be proportional payment. For example, if 2c is met, and if there were 4 votings and 1 community call, and a delegate missed writing a rationale of 2 of the votes, the delegate would be eligible to receive $1800 [3/5 * $3000].
Regarding 2c, once again, in case of less than 1,000 UNI, This proportion will NOT be applied. For example, even if a Delegate has 500 UNI and fulfill all of 2a and 2b, the additional rewards would be $0 worth of UNI. The Uniswap Accountability Committee will periodically check qualified Delegates’ wallets for their UNI amount.
Budget
We are requesting 540,000 [6000 USD *6 Months *15 Delegates ] USD worth of UNI for cycle 4 of the Uniswap Delegate Reward Initiative.
The total amount, once approved, will be sent to the Accountability Committee, which will be responsible for the monthly distribution of rewards to eligible delegates. Since the total budget of the Delegate Reward WG has not been fully used, administration of this reward program–including the creation of this proposal and the admin work behind verifying monthly delegate participation–will be allotted from that account, with no additional costs to the DAO. Therefore, the total budget request will be solely for the delegate pay.
We believe it's needed to ensure governance security and growth. In addition, we do believe new requirement of having to own 1,000 UNI or more to be eligible for the full amount is a worthy experiment to have.
We believe it's needed to ensure governance security and growth. In addition, we do believe new requirement of having to own 1,000 UNI or more to be eligible for the full amount is a worthy experiment to have.
We support the continuation of the Delegate Reward Program for Cycle 4. This program is crucial for maintaining governance health, and the proposed iterative improvements are positive steps forward.
GM @Doo_StableLab, Thanks for bringing this proposal forward, we have decided to abstain from this proposal due to the VP delegations but fully support this proposal.
GM @Doo_StableLab, Thanks for bringing this proposal forward, we have decided to abstain from this proposal due to the VP delegations but fully support this proposal.
IMO, it’s not just voter turnout that’s going down; overall forum engagement is also affected. This temp check, with a significant change to the existing delegate incentives program—only got 3 replies before going to a vote. I hope future versions of the program can induce more robust delegate feedback and engagement; not just how someone voted, but actual debate and interaction with proposals.
What exactly is meant by “blockchain signatures”? Can it be an off-chain signature signed by the wallet, stating “This address is controlled/owned by XYZ,” or does it need to be an on-chain transaction saying the same?
We support the continuation of the Delegate Reward Program for Cycle 4. This program is crucial for maintaining governance health, and the proposed iterative improvements are positive steps forward.
GM @Doo_StableLab, Thanks for bringing this proposal forward, we have decided to abstain from this proposal due to the VP delegations but fully support this proposal.
GM @Doo_StableLab, Thanks for bringing this proposal forward, we have decided to abstain from this proposal due to the VP delegations but fully support this proposal.
IMO, it’s not just voter turnout that’s going down; overall forum engagement is also affected. This temp check, with a significant change to the existing delegate incentives program—only got 3 replies before going to a vote. I hope future versions of the program can induce more robust delegate feedback and engagement; not just how someone voted, but actual debate and interaction with proposals.
What exactly is meant by “blockchain signatures”? Can it be an off-chain signature signed by the wallet, stating “This address is controlled/owned by XYZ,” or does it need to be an on-chain transaction saying the same?
Directionally, this proposal does move Uniswap governance in a good direction by incentivizing greater participation through clear, quantifiable metrics – and that kind of structure will help reduce the risk of falling short of quorum. The framework is straightforward and easy to measure, which brings predictability and accountability.
That said, the proposal is still too focused on activity volume rather than value-added participation. By rewarding delegates mainly for voting frequency, forum posts, and showing up to calls, it risks encouraging “check-the-box” behaviors instead of meaningful engagement. A few examples:
Directionally, this proposal does move Uniswap governance in a good direction by incentivizing greater participation through clear, quantifiable metrics – and that kind of structure will help reduce the risk of falling short of quorum. The framework is straightforward and easy to measure, which brings predictability and accountability.
That said, the proposal is still too focused on activity volume rather than value-added participation. By rewarding delegates mainly for voting frequency, forum posts, and showing up to calls, it risks encouraging “check-the-box” behaviors instead of meaningful engagement. A few examples:
Voting participation: a lot of proposals are non-contentious and already have overwhelming consensus, so an extra vote doesn’t really shift the outcome. Discussion on these procedural votes also adds little value. Just counting votes cast doesn’t show whether a delegate actually helped the community think through hard trade-offs.
Community calls and forums: attendance is easy to track but it doesn’t capture whether delegates engaged with the content or offered thoughtful feedback. Right now, passive presence is rewarded more than genuine contribution.
Proposal authorship: rewarding authorship is at least a nod toward initiative, but it doesn’t distinguish between a low-effort proposal that squeaks through and a carefully researched one that’s strategically important. Both get treated the same, which doesn’t make sense.
Overall, the framework measures whether delegates show up, not whether they deliver value. Governance is strongest when delegates provide critical analysis, independent judgment, and well-reasoned perspectives.
A stronger version of this program would mix in some kind of qualitative assessment – whether that’s peer evaluation, a scoring of rationale quality, or another way of measuring value-add contributions – alongside the quantitative metrics. Without that balance, Cycle 4 continues rewarding performative activity while missing the delegates who actually bring insight and leadership to Uniswap DAO.
We are voting in favor of this proposal and support its renewal for Cycle 4 for two main reasons:
Addressing the quorum situation – With Uniswap DAO’s quorum margins already under pressure, continuing the Delegate Reward Initiative is an important mechanism to maintain delegate participation and sustain the level of active voting power needed for governance stability. Removing or pausing this program at this stage could exacerbate the quorum fragility we have been observing.
Strengthening alignment through UNI holdings – We support the new criterion of awarding an additional point to delegates who hold at least 1,000 UNI. While this does not disqualify those without holdings, it helps align incentives by encouraging delegates to have “skin in the game” and a direct stake in the long-term success of Uniswap. This addition responds to earlier community calls for stronger alignment between delegates’ incentives and the DAO’s interests.
We are voting in favor of this proposal and support its renewal for Cycle 4 for two main reasons:
Addressing the quorum situation – With Uniswap DAO’s quorum margins already under pressure, continuing the Delegate Reward Initiative is an important mechanism to maintain delegate participation and sustain the level of active voting power needed for governance stability. Removing or pausing this program at this stage could exacerbate the quorum fragility we have been observing.
Strengthening alignment through UNI holdings – We support the new criterion of awarding an additional point to delegates who hold at least 1,000 UNI. While this does not disqualify those without holdings, it helps align incentives by encouraging delegates to have “skin in the game” and a direct stake in the long-term success of Uniswap. This addition responds to earlier community calls for stronger alignment between delegates’ incentives and the DAO’s interests.
Overall, this proposal strikes a healthy balance between rewarding meaningful governance contributions and deepening alignment with Uniswap’s values. We see it as both a short-term stabilizer for quorum health and a longer-term signal of commitment from active delegates.
blockchain signatures”? Can it be an off-chain signature signed by the wallet, stating “This address is controlled/owned by XYZ,” or does it need to be an on-chain transaction saying the same?
blockchain signatures”? Can it be an off-chain signature signed by the wallet, stating “This address is controlled/owned by XYZ,” or does it need to be an on-chain transaction saying the same?
here’s an example https://etherscan.io/verifySig/278580
I do think having more forum engagement would be good. Though to be transparent, this Reward program was discussed and had several feedback outside the forum before proceeding so on the forum, It might seem as gotten less feedback.
Thanks to the Delegate Reward Initiative team for their diligent efforts in fostering meaningful engagement within the Uniswap DAO. The program has clearly succeeded in bolstering delegate participation and sustaining governance momentum—and we support its renewal for Cycle 4.
We also back the introduction of an additional point for delegates who hold at least 1,000 UNI. Given that professional delegates often contribute across multiple DAOs, this criterion is a smart way to underscore and reward demonstrated commitment to the Uniswap ecosystem. It aligns delegates’ incentives more directly with Uniswap’s long‑term interests and helps ensure that they have genuine “skin in the game.”
Thanks to the Delegate Reward Initiative team for their diligent efforts in fostering meaningful engagement within the Uniswap DAO. The program has clearly succeeded in bolstering delegate participation and sustaining governance momentum—and we support its renewal for Cycle 4.
We also back the introduction of an additional point for delegates who hold at least 1,000 UNI. Given that professional delegates often contribute across multiple DAOs, this criterion is a smart way to underscore and reward demonstrated commitment to the Uniswap ecosystem. It aligns delegates’ incentives more directly with Uniswap’s long‑term interests and helps ensure that they have genuine “skin in the game.”
Overall, we believe these enhancements strike the right balance between encouraging active contributions and deepening alignment with the DAO’s values.
The snapshot vote is now live https://snapshot.box/#/s:uniswapgovernance.eth/proposal/0xea4a1505c96ce4ef5c1f88e6cc3ec89d63f3d88219aa97af97b8384d006a5f92
Edits:
Community Calls (February - July 2025) changed to Community Calls (March - August 2025) to be more consistent.
Adding clarification that one needs to have a blockchain signature that verifies such from the wallet that holds 1,000 UNI or more by the time the applicant applies to gain an extra 1 point in applications.
Edits:
Community Calls (February - July 2025) changed to Community Calls (March - August 2025) to be more consistent.
Adding clarification that one needs to have a blockchain signature that verifies such from the wallet that holds 1,000 UNI or more by the time the applicant applies to gain an extra 1 point in applications.
Adding new requirement that applicants will need to agree to follow Principles for Uniswap DAO to be eligible.
We voted in favor since, beyond general considerations regarding a rewards program for delegates, given the critical situation regarding the quorum in the DAO, we consider it vital to approve this proposal to avoid further escalation of this issue.
Our full rationale:
Thanks to Doo and the rest of authors for managing cycle 3 and preparing revisions for cycle 4. Overall we support the updates presented for the rubric and believe they are healthy additions for the delegate reward initiative. Our only feedback would be to clarify the eligibility for delegates holding $UNI. Since Uniswap has a broad delegate base including individuals, professional delegates, student clubs, and service providers, we recommend ensuring that eligibility criteria does not unintentionally exclude any stakeholders.
Directionally, this proposal does move Uniswap governance in a good direction by incentivizing greater participation through clear, quantifiable metrics – and that kind of structure will help reduce the risk of falling short of quorum. The framework is straightforward and easy to measure, which brings predictability and accountability.
That said, the proposal is still too focused on activity volume rather than value-added participation. By rewarding delegates mainly for voting frequency, forum posts, and showing up to calls, it risks encouraging “check-the-box” behaviors instead of meaningful engagement. A few examples:
Directionally, this proposal does move Uniswap governance in a good direction by incentivizing greater participation through clear, quantifiable metrics – and that kind of structure will help reduce the risk of falling short of quorum. The framework is straightforward and easy to measure, which brings predictability and accountability.
That said, the proposal is still too focused on activity volume rather than value-added participation. By rewarding delegates mainly for voting frequency, forum posts, and showing up to calls, it risks encouraging “check-the-box” behaviors instead of meaningful engagement. A few examples:
Voting participation: a lot of proposals are non-contentious and already have overwhelming consensus, so an extra vote doesn’t really shift the outcome. Discussion on these procedural votes also adds little value. Just counting votes cast doesn’t show whether a delegate actually helped the community think through hard trade-offs.
Community calls and forums: attendance is easy to track but it doesn’t capture whether delegates engaged with the content or offered thoughtful feedback. Right now, passive presence is rewarded more than genuine contribution.
Proposal authorship: rewarding authorship is at least a nod toward initiative, but it doesn’t distinguish between a low-effort proposal that squeaks through and a carefully researched one that’s strategically important. Both get treated the same, which doesn’t make sense.
Overall, the framework measures whether delegates show up, not whether they deliver value. Governance is strongest when delegates provide critical analysis, independent judgment, and well-reasoned perspectives.
A stronger version of this program would mix in some kind of qualitative assessment – whether that’s peer evaluation, a scoring of rationale quality, or another way of measuring value-add contributions – alongside the quantitative metrics. Without that balance, Cycle 4 continues rewarding performative activity while missing the delegates who actually bring insight and leadership to Uniswap DAO.
We are voting in favor of this proposal and support its renewal for Cycle 4 for two main reasons:
Addressing the quorum situation – With Uniswap DAO’s quorum margins already under pressure, continuing the Delegate Reward Initiative is an important mechanism to maintain delegate participation and sustain the level of active voting power needed for governance stability. Removing or pausing this program at this stage could exacerbate the quorum fragility we have been observing.
Strengthening alignment through UNI holdings – We support the new criterion of awarding an additional point to delegates who hold at least 1,000 UNI. While this does not disqualify those without holdings, it helps align incentives by encouraging delegates to have “skin in the game” and a direct stake in the long-term success of Uniswap. This addition responds to earlier community calls for stronger alignment between delegates’ incentives and the DAO’s interests.
We are voting in favor of this proposal and support its renewal for Cycle 4 for two main reasons:
Addressing the quorum situation – With Uniswap DAO’s quorum margins already under pressure, continuing the Delegate Reward Initiative is an important mechanism to maintain delegate participation and sustain the level of active voting power needed for governance stability. Removing or pausing this program at this stage could exacerbate the quorum fragility we have been observing.
Strengthening alignment through UNI holdings – We support the new criterion of awarding an additional point to delegates who hold at least 1,000 UNI. While this does not disqualify those without holdings, it helps align incentives by encouraging delegates to have “skin in the game” and a direct stake in the long-term success of Uniswap. This addition responds to earlier community calls for stronger alignment between delegates’ incentives and the DAO’s interests.
Overall, this proposal strikes a healthy balance between rewarding meaningful governance contributions and deepening alignment with Uniswap’s values. We see it as both a short-term stabilizer for quorum health and a longer-term signal of commitment from active delegates.
blockchain signatures”? Can it be an off-chain signature signed by the wallet, stating “This address is controlled/owned by XYZ,” or does it need to be an on-chain transaction saying the same?
blockchain signatures”? Can it be an off-chain signature signed by the wallet, stating “This address is controlled/owned by XYZ,” or does it need to be an on-chain transaction saying the same?
here’s an example https://etherscan.io/verifySig/278580
I do think having more forum engagement would be good. Though to be transparent, this Reward program was discussed and had several feedback outside the forum before proceeding so on the forum, It might seem as gotten less feedback.
Thanks to the Delegate Reward Initiative team for their diligent efforts in fostering meaningful engagement within the Uniswap DAO. The program has clearly succeeded in bolstering delegate participation and sustaining governance momentum—and we support its renewal for Cycle 4.
We also back the introduction of an additional point for delegates who hold at least 1,000 UNI. Given that professional delegates often contribute across multiple DAOs, this criterion is a smart way to underscore and reward demonstrated commitment to the Uniswap ecosystem. It aligns delegates’ incentives more directly with Uniswap’s long‑term interests and helps ensure that they have genuine “skin in the game.”
Thanks to the Delegate Reward Initiative team for their diligent efforts in fostering meaningful engagement within the Uniswap DAO. The program has clearly succeeded in bolstering delegate participation and sustaining governance momentum—and we support its renewal for Cycle 4.
We also back the introduction of an additional point for delegates who hold at least 1,000 UNI. Given that professional delegates often contribute across multiple DAOs, this criterion is a smart way to underscore and reward demonstrated commitment to the Uniswap ecosystem. It aligns delegates’ incentives more directly with Uniswap’s long‑term interests and helps ensure that they have genuine “skin in the game.”
Overall, we believe these enhancements strike the right balance between encouraging active contributions and deepening alignment with the DAO’s values.
The snapshot vote is now live https://snapshot.box/#/s:uniswapgovernance.eth/proposal/0xea4a1505c96ce4ef5c1f88e6cc3ec89d63f3d88219aa97af97b8384d006a5f92
Edits:
Community Calls (February - July 2025) changed to Community Calls (March - August 2025) to be more consistent.
Adding clarification that one needs to have a blockchain signature that verifies such from the wallet that holds 1,000 UNI or more by the time the applicant applies to gain an extra 1 point in applications.
Edits:
Community Calls (February - July 2025) changed to Community Calls (March - August 2025) to be more consistent.
Adding clarification that one needs to have a blockchain signature that verifies such from the wallet that holds 1,000 UNI or more by the time the applicant applies to gain an extra 1 point in applications.
Adding new requirement that applicants will need to agree to follow Principles for Uniswap DAO to be eligible.
We voted in favor since, beyond general considerations regarding a rewards program for delegates, given the critical situation regarding the quorum in the DAO, we consider it vital to approve this proposal to avoid further escalation of this issue.
Our full rationale:
Thanks to Doo and the rest of authors for managing cycle 3 and preparing revisions for cycle 4. Overall we support the updates presented for the rubric and believe they are healthy additions for the delegate reward initiative. Our only feedback would be to clarify the eligibility for delegates holding $UNI. Since Uniswap has a broad delegate base including individuals, professional delegates, student clubs, and service providers, we recommend ensuring that eligibility criteria does not unintentionally exclude any stakeholders.
We voted in favor since, beyond general considerations regarding a rewards program for delegates, given the critical situation regarding the quorum in the DAO, we consider it vital to approve this proposal to avoid further escalation of this issue.
Our full rationale:
First, because it is fair and reasonable to compensate delegates for their work and the time they dedicate, which results in a more active, robust, and professional decision-making process.
Second, the critical quorum situation—widely discussed in the forum—could deteriorate even further without an adequate program that compensates delegate activity and incentivizes continued participation in Uniswap’s governance. For this reason, we see the approval of this proposal as crucial for the health of the DAO and to prevent quorum-related challenges from deepening.
Lastly, we fully agree with the new additions to the program, which make it more solid and consistent, encourage constant and active participation, and create a skin in the game for delegates—something that had been called for in previous cycles.
Hi, thanks for the feedback. We are aware that there are different groups and not having UNI won’t disqualify one from getting Uniswap delegate reward. It’s just it counts as extra 1 point in applications and it is requirement to get additional UNI reward
We voted in favor since, beyond general considerations regarding a rewards program for delegates, given the critical situation regarding the quorum in the DAO, we consider it vital to approve this proposal to avoid further escalation of this issue.
Our full rationale:
First, because it is fair and reasonable to compensate delegates for their work and the time they dedicate, which results in a more active, robust, and professional decision-making process.
Second, the critical quorum situation—widely discussed in the forum—could deteriorate even further without an adequate program that compensates delegate activity and incentivizes continued participation in Uniswap’s governance. For this reason, we see the approval of this proposal as crucial for the health of the DAO and to prevent quorum-related challenges from deepening.
Lastly, we fully agree with the new additions to the program, which make it more solid and consistent, encourage constant and active participation, and create a skin in the game for delegates—something that had been called for in previous cycles.
Hi, thanks for the feedback. We are aware that there are different groups and not having UNI won’t disqualify one from getting Uniswap delegate reward. It’s just it counts as extra 1 point in applications and it is requirement to get additional UNI reward