I am raising this discussion to alert the DAO to the ongoing situation regarding Aperture Finance.

On January 26, 2026, Aperture Finance suffered a major exploit (approx. $3.6M lost). Security reports (including BlockSec) confirmed the vulnerability was an arbitrary-call capability in their smart contracts, allowing attackers to drain assets using transferFrom calls on existing user approvals.

Current Issues for Uniswap LPs:

1. 30+ Days of Ghosting: The Aperture team has been completely silent since the exploit. No post-mortem has been shared, and no recovery plan has been proposed to the users who provided liquidity to Uniswap via their tool.

2. Tornado Cash Activity: On-chain data confirms that the exploited funds (1,200+ ETH) are currently being laundered through Tornado Cash, with no attempt from the team to negotiate with the hacker or secure the remaining funds.

3. Recent Security Banner: A banner recently appeared on aperture.finance advising users to revoke all approvals. This proves the team still has frontend access but chooses to remain silent regarding the $3.6M loss.

Aperture has been a featured partner for Uniswap V3/V4 automation and was part of several ecosystem discussions. To protect the integrity of the Uniswap ecosystem, I propose:

• Official Warning: Request Uniswap Labs to add a high-risk warning to the Uniswap Interface for any interactions involving Aperture Finance contracts.

• Audit Review: We need a community-led review to ensure no other "Intent-based" solvers using similar logic are putting Uniswap LPs at risk.

• VC Accountability: We call on ecosystem investors who backed Aperture (such as Binance Labs/YZi, Krypital, etc.) to provide a statement on the status of the project.

Uniswap’s strength relies on the safety of its LP ecosystem. We cannot let automated management tools "ghost" the community after a major security failure.

Thanks for your thoughts on this.

I don't think Oku's work is needed here. Aperture has done audit before going live on Manta, which verified the current deployment is a clean fork of Uniswap V3.

Because the nature of collaboration here: Aperture is transferring an existing fork with significant TVL & volume to Uniswap DAO, I would imagine there could be other nuances and details to be discussed by the community first before proceeding.

It may be better to create a different thread with more details from Aperture's end. For instance:

• what are the current $MANTA grants allocated to Aperture that is available for liquidity incentive
• what are the commitments that Aperture is willing to spend for liquidity incentive
• what would be needed (or great to have) from Uniswap DAO to help bootstrap liquidity even further
• what are the cost of running and maintaining Uniswap V3 peripheral infrastructure and would there be grants to help offset these
• etc.

Based on the context above, in my humble opinion, it is a different set of discussion than what the current thread is intended for.

Adding more detail to @mcd-aperture's comments above. The existing deployment of Aperture's smart contract is a clean fork of Uniswap V3's. With its current state:

• No.1 Volume on Manta chain (oftentimes twice the volume of QuickSwap, which is the No.1 DEX in TVL on Manta chain).
• Cumulative of $852M trading volume.
• TVL of $11.08M.

And Aperture as the leading protocol in Intent & Liquidity management space, it has helped to rebalance $1.3B worth of liquidity for LPs. And it is on track to rebalance more than $5B worth of liquidity annually. This is equivalent to:

• rebalance roughly all Ethereum TVL ($2.80B based on DeFiLlama) twice
• rebalance all Arbitrum TVL ($287M based on DeFiLlama) 17 times.

It does not make sense to create another deployment of Uniswap V3 if Aperture is happy with transferring the ownership to Uniswap and working with Uniswap to benefit both Uni stakers and Aperture's community. As a matter of fact, deploying another Uniswap V3 would further fragment the liquidity and hurt both Manta and Uniswap community.

In addition, Aperture already has $MANTA grants secured to help attract liquidity. With the introduction of Aperture's recent points campaign, it would help boost up the liquidity even further.

All in all, I do not think it makes sense to create another deployment. The collaboration between Uniswap and Aperture would bring way more benefits to all.

Aperture Finance could also transfer the ownership of its UniV3 deployment (called ApertureSwap) to Uniswap.

Having ownership over this UniV3 deployment is not a priority for Aperture (which is more focussed on using solvers to help LPs).

• This would port over ~$11M in TVL to Uniswap immediately
• Aperture, while 2nd in TVL, is #1 in volume on Manta due to the superior LP tooling and LP UX (source: Geckoterminal)
• This would also prevent Aperture, which is the primary interface for capital efficient LPs on Manta, from having to support both the Uniswap version and ApertureSwap version of the UniV3 contract.
• This would also prevent liquidity fragmentation

Aperture can post a formal submission but we wanted to mention this here first.

I am raising this discussion to alert the DAO to the ongoing situation regarding Aperture Finance.

On January 26, 2026, Aperture Finance suffered a major exploit (approx. $3.6M lost). Security reports (including BlockSec) confirmed the vulnerability was an arbitrary-call capability in their smart contracts, allowing attackers to drain assets using transferFrom calls on existing user approvals.

Current Issues for Uniswap LPs:

1. 30+ Days of Ghosting: The Aperture team has been completely silent since the exploit. No post-mortem has been shared, and no recovery plan has been proposed to the users who provided liquidity to Uniswap via their tool.

2. Tornado Cash Activity: On-chain data confirms that the exploited funds (1,200+ ETH) are currently being laundered through Tornado Cash, with no attempt from the team to negotiate with the hacker or secure the remaining funds.

3. Recent Security Banner: A banner recently appeared on aperture.finance advising users to revoke all approvals. This proves the team still has frontend access but chooses to remain silent regarding the $3.6M loss.

Aperture has been a featured partner for Uniswap V3/V4 automation and was part of several ecosystem discussions. To protect the integrity of the Uniswap ecosystem, I propose:

• Official Warning: Request Uniswap Labs to add a high-risk warning to the Uniswap Interface for any interactions involving Aperture Finance contracts.

• Audit Review: We need a community-led review to ensure no other "Intent-based" solvers using similar logic are putting Uniswap LPs at risk.

• VC Accountability: We call on ecosystem investors who backed Aperture (such as Binance Labs/YZi, Krypital, etc.) to provide a statement on the status of the project.

Uniswap’s strength relies on the safety of its LP ecosystem. We cannot let automated management tools "ghost" the community after a major security failure.

Thanks for your thoughts on this.

I don't think Oku's work is needed here. Aperture has done audit before going live on Manta, which verified the current deployment is a clean fork of Uniswap V3.

Because the nature of collaboration here: Aperture is transferring an existing fork with significant TVL & volume to Uniswap DAO, I would imagine there could be other nuances and details to be discussed by the community first before proceeding.

It may be better to create a different thread with more details from Aperture's end. For instance:

• what are the current $MANTA grants allocated to Aperture that is available for liquidity incentive
• what are the commitments that Aperture is willing to spend for liquidity incentive
• what would be needed (or great to have) from Uniswap DAO to help bootstrap liquidity even further
• what are the cost of running and maintaining Uniswap V3 peripheral infrastructure and would there be grants to help offset these
• etc.

Based on the context above, in my humble opinion, it is a different set of discussion than what the current thread is intended for.

Adding more detail to @mcd-aperture's comments above. The existing deployment of Aperture's smart contract is a clean fork of Uniswap V3's. With its current state:

• No.1 Volume on Manta chain (oftentimes twice the volume of QuickSwap, which is the No.1 DEX in TVL on Manta chain).
• Cumulative of $852M trading volume.
• TVL of $11.08M.

And Aperture as the leading protocol in Intent & Liquidity management space, it has helped to rebalance $1.3B worth of liquidity for LPs. And it is on track to rebalance more than $5B worth of liquidity annually. This is equivalent to:

• rebalance roughly all Ethereum TVL ($2.80B based on DeFiLlama) twice
• rebalance all Arbitrum TVL ($287M based on DeFiLlama) 17 times.

It does not make sense to create another deployment of Uniswap V3 if Aperture is happy with transferring the ownership to Uniswap and working with Uniswap to benefit both Uni stakers and Aperture's community. As a matter of fact, deploying another Uniswap V3 would further fragment the liquidity and hurt both Manta and Uniswap community.

In addition, Aperture already has $MANTA grants secured to help attract liquidity. With the introduction of Aperture's recent points campaign, it would help boost up the liquidity even further.

All in all, I do not think it makes sense to create another deployment. The collaboration between Uniswap and Aperture would bring way more benefits to all.

Aperture Finance could also transfer the ownership of its UniV3 deployment (called ApertureSwap) to Uniswap.

Having ownership over this UniV3 deployment is not a priority for Aperture (which is more focussed on using solvers to help LPs).

• This would port over ~$11M in TVL to Uniswap immediately
• Aperture, while 2nd in TVL, is #1 in volume on Manta due to the superior LP tooling and LP UX (source: Geckoterminal)
• This would also prevent Aperture, which is the primary interface for capital efficient LPs on Manta, from having to support both the Uniswap version and ApertureSwap version of the UniV3 contract.
• This would also prevent liquidity fragmentation

Aperture can post a formal submission but we wanted to mention this here first.

Over the last several days, we have been in touch with the Aperture team, Manta team, and several Uniswap delegates, discussing the opportunity to migrate the ApertureSwap deployment to become an official Uniswap deployment. We appreciate the Aperture team's contributions to the Uniswap ecosystem and the opportunity extended here. It is the first time such an opportunity has presented itself. Unfortunately, after deliberating and discussing with everyone, we do not believe it is the best path forward for Uniswap to adopt the deployment. Instead, it should stick with precedent and continue the regular deployment process.

GFX Labs would like to thank the delegates who took the time to consider the opportunity.

Update: The Temperature Check is live. Voting ends Wednesday evening.

The following are the proposed pools for the program, but they can be amended for the onchain vote.

• ETH/STONE 0.05% - 30%
• ETH/USDC 0.05% - 40%
• USDC/USDT 0.01% - 10%
• MANTA/USDC 0.30% - 20%

The Manta team has committed to providing incentives alongside the Uniswap DAO and plans to solidify their exact plans once this Temperature Check is successful and prior to the onchain vote.

Hi everyone,

Thanks for the support thus far. We're in talks with Manta about matching the incentives and other avenues for Manta to show support in addition to covering Oku's costs. We should have more information in the coming days.

Questions

This proposal, in line with the Uniswap Revitalization and Growth proposal, only addresses getting the new Manta deployment up and running. If, after three months, Manta would like additional incentives, that would need to be in a subsequent proposal. As a delegate, we would judge that proposal by reviewing the effectiveness of the initial incentives requested to indicate the further effectiveness of incentives and consider what incentives Manta would also contribute at that time.

The maintenance of this deployment is the same as any other. The only difference is that Manta has worked directly with Oku to ensure support rather than asking the DAO to do so.

$250k in allotted UNI to dedicate to kicking off the liquidity incentivization on Manta for 3 months across 3-5 key pools would hopefully garner $5m in liquidity, assuming a reward rate of 20%.

Over the last several days, we have been in touch with the Aperture team, Manta team, and several Uniswap delegates, discussing the opportunity to migrate the ApertureSwap deployment to become an official Uniswap deployment. We appreciate the Aperture team's contributions to the Uniswap ecosystem and the opportunity extended here. It is the first time such an opportunity has presented itself. Unfortunately, after deliberating and discussing with everyone, we do not believe it is the best path forward for Uniswap to adopt the deployment. Instead, it should stick with precedent and continue the regular deployment process.

GFX Labs would like to thank the delegates who took the time to consider the opportunity.

Update: The Temperature Check is live. Voting ends Wednesday evening.

The following are the proposed pools for the program, but they can be amended for the onchain vote.

• ETH/STONE 0.05% - 30%
• ETH/USDC 0.05% - 40%
• USDC/USDT 0.01% - 10%
• MANTA/USDC 0.30% - 20%

The Manta team has committed to providing incentives alongside the Uniswap DAO and plans to solidify their exact plans once this Temperature Check is successful and prior to the onchain vote.

Hi everyone,

Thanks for the support thus far. We're in talks with Manta about matching the incentives and other avenues for Manta to show support in addition to covering Oku's costs. We should have more information in the coming days.

Questions

This proposal, in line with the Uniswap Revitalization and Growth proposal, only addresses getting the new Manta deployment up and running. If, after three months, Manta would like additional incentives, that would need to be in a subsequent proposal. As a delegate, we would judge that proposal by reviewing the effectiveness of the initial incentives requested to indicate the further effectiveness of incentives and consider what incentives Manta would also contribute at that time.

The maintenance of this deployment is the same as any other. The only difference is that Manta has worked directly with Oku to ensure support rather than asking the DAO to do so.

$250k in allotted UNI to dedicate to kicking off the liquidity incentivization on Manta for 3 months across 3-5 key pools would hopefully garner $5m in liquidity, assuming a reward rate of 20%.