[Disclaimer - This proposal is powered by the Uniswap Accountability Committee. kpk did not receive compensation for posting this proposal.]
For the full proposal, please see this forum post.
Similar to last season’s rebalance, fluctuations in the UNI token price means that the accounts for various programs become unbalanced–sometimes at a surplus and other times at a deficit. Since programs are budgeted in terms of dollars, we are looking to top up those balances to ensure commitments around sustaining elected DAO programs are covered. As mentioned in the forum post, this temperature check associated with rebalancing is being run separately from the UAC Season 4 renewal vote.
The rebalance will be for $280,142, priced in UNI at the time of the unchain vote. Further details on the request and breakdown of budget items can be found at the forum post above.
$280,142 @ $5.3/UNI -> 52856 UNI
[Disclaimer - This proposal is powered by the Uniswap Accountability Committee. kpk did not receive compensation for posting this proposal.]
For the full proposal, please see this forum post.
Similar to last season’s rebalance, fluctuations in the UNI token price means that the accounts for various programs become unbalanced–sometimes at a surplus and other times at a deficit. Since programs are budgeted in terms of dollars, we are looking to top up those balances to ensure commitments around sustaining elected DAO programs are covered. As mentioned in the forum post, this temperature check associated with rebalancing is being run separately from the UAC Season 4 renewal vote.
The rebalance will be for $280,142, priced in UNI at the time of the unchain vote. Further details on the request and breakdown of budget items can be found at the forum post above.
$280,142 @ $5.3/UNI -> 52856 UNI
https://gov.uniswap.org/t/she256-delegate-platform/25204/6?u=she256
https://gov.uniswap.org/t/she256-delegate-platform/25204/6?u=she256
https://gov.uniswap.org/t/uniswap-accountability-committee-uac-season-3-report/25467/9
https://gov.uniswap.org/t/uniswap-accountability-committee-uac-season-3-report/25467/9
https://gov.uniswap.org/t/uniswap-accountability-committee-uac-season-3-report/25467/9
https://gov.uniswap.org/t/uniswap-accountability-committee-uac-season-3-report/25467/9
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
I support the renewal and am continually impressed by the work done by core UAC members --
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.
I support the renewal and am continually impressed by the work done by core UAC members --
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I support the renewal and am continually impressed by the work done by core UAC members --
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.
I support the renewal and am continually impressed by the work done by core UAC members --
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
The below bullet points outline the Season 4 request:
Summary for UAC Temp Check: Allocate $370k of UNI for UAC Season 4 renewal.
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.
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.
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.
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:
“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.
Following the information from the incentive packages section, this Account is responsible for tracking three types of payments:
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:
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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
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.
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.
The below bullet points outline the Season 4 request:
Summary for UAC Temp Check: Allocate $370k of UNI for UAC Season 4 renewal.
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.
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.
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.
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:
“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.
Following the information from the incentive packages section, this Account is responsible for tracking three types of payments:
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:
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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
