GFX Labs initially posted this proposal on the forum this summer and has been hoping that the quorum/delegation situation would improve. It seems to have improved thanks to the Unification initiative.
Based on recent feedback from delegates, we propose renewing the Linea deployments (lapsed in May), Mantle (lapsed in August), and Gnosis (lapsed in September).
The high-level reasoning to continue with these three deployments is the following:
Mantle - High level of TVL ($325M), upcoming Aave deployment, and relatively high amount of activity onchain. Gnosis - Uniswap v3 is the primary DEX on Gnosis with $25M TVL. Linea - Although Consensys’ Linea has had a volatile TVL, the opportunity for Uniswap on Linea is still strong, and the potential for Aerodrome or another fork to win over the domain if Uniswap steps out is likely. Additionally, none of these deployments are available on app.uniswap.org.
We already deprecated Blast and Polygon zkEVM from Oku. Both offboardings went smoothly, and we have built a tool for users to close their lingering positions on deprecated chains so they do not need to do so manually.
The DAO also sponsored Taiko, but based on the activity and some delegate feedback, we will move to deprecate it. Separate from the DAO, Oku has been supporting Scroll unpaid for nearly two years. Given the limited activity, we will also deprecate the deployment in our interface.
In line with historical pricing, Uniswap v3 deployments carry a $5K/month maintenance cost to cover the cloud hosting, indexing, RPC costs, support, and general maintenance. If this proposal is approved $180K from UNI will be transferred to the UAC, and the UAC will process the payment.
GFX Labs initially posted this proposal on the forum this summer and has been hoping that the quorum/delegation situation would improve. It seems to have improved thanks to the Unification initiative.
Based on recent feedback from delegates, we propose renewing the Linea deployments (lapsed in May), Mantle (lapsed in August), and Gnosis (lapsed in September).
The high-level reasoning to continue with these three deployments is the following:
Mantle - High level of TVL ($325M), upcoming Aave deployment, and relatively high amount of activity onchain. Gnosis - Uniswap v3 is the primary DEX on Gnosis with $25M TVL. Linea - Although Consensys’ Linea has had a volatile TVL, the opportunity for Uniswap on Linea is still strong, and the potential for Aerodrome or another fork to win over the domain if Uniswap steps out is likely. Additionally, none of these deployments are available on app.uniswap.org.
We already deprecated Blast and Polygon zkEVM from Oku. Both offboardings went smoothly, and we have built a tool for users to close their lingering positions on deprecated chains so they do not need to do so manually.
The DAO also sponsored Taiko, but based on the activity and some delegate feedback, we will move to deprecate it. Separate from the DAO, Oku has been supporting Scroll unpaid for nearly two years. Given the limited activity, we will also deprecate the deployment in our interface.
In line with historical pricing, Uniswap v3 deployments carry a $5K/month maintenance cost to cover the cloud hosting, indexing, RPC costs, support, and general maintenance. If this proposal is approved $180K from UNI will be transferred to the UAC, and the UAC will process the payment.
Our backing of this initiative is driven in large part by the fact that these chains are not currently accessible through the Uniswap frontend—while Oku provides the interface to access these chains. The renewals are strategically important for Uniswap, and we want to avoid further lapses in accessibility.
Our backing of this initiative is driven in large part by the fact that these chains are not currently accessible through the Uniswap frontend—while Oku provides the interface to access these chains. The renewals are strategically important for Uniswap, and we want to avoid further lapses in accessibility.
https://gov.uniswap.org/t/rfc-deploy-friendly-fork-of-uniswap-v3-zero-protocol-on-polygon-zkevm/21848/26?u=abdullahumar
We echo Monet's thoughts, but beyond that, we haven't seen many (there are exceptions) competitive forks be successful either. Additionally, we think these types of initiatives are better directed towards more established, strategic parties.
https://gov.uniswap.org/t/rfc-deploy-friendly-fork-of-uniswap-v3-zero-protocol-on-polygon-zkevm/21848/22
Interesting concept. I don't think we've seen friendly forks succeed much in the past, but I won't stand in the way if community thinks this is a good idea. Wish there was a more clear exit strategy for uniswap if this ends up not going well.
well articulated proposal and high likelihood of making positive impact on Uniswap ecosystem on arbitrum
https://gov.uniswap.org/t/rfc-alastor-w3s-create-a-uni-arb-working-group/21376/14?u=abdullahumar
https://gov.uniswap.org/t/rfc-deploy-friendly-fork-of-uniswap-v3-zero-protocol-on-polygon-zkevm/21848/26?u=abdullahumar
We echo Monet's thoughts, but beyond that, we haven't seen many (there are exceptions) competitive forks be successful either. Additionally, we think these types of initiatives are better directed towards more established, strategic parties.
https://gov.uniswap.org/t/rfc-deploy-friendly-fork-of-uniswap-v3-zero-protocol-on-polygon-zkevm/21848/22
Interesting concept. I don't think we've seen friendly forks succeed much in the past, but I won't stand in the way if community thinks this is a good idea. Wish there was a more clear exit strategy for uniswap if this ends up not going well.
well articulated proposal and high likelihood of making positive impact on Uniswap ecosystem on arbitrum
https://gov.uniswap.org/t/rfc-alastor-w3s-create-a-uni-arb-working-group/21376/14?u=abdullahumar
We are voting FOR this proposal. We appreciate GFX Labs’ selective, data-driven approach that prioritizes deployments with demonstrated impact while maintaining flexibility for future growth. While we remain somewhat cautious on Linea and Taiko given their current levels of value capture and traction, we recognize that maintaining presence can preserve optionality in the event of renewed ecosystem momentum. Overall, we believe this proposal strikes a reasonable balance between resource efficiency, user accessibility, and long-term strategic positioning for the DAO.
We are voting FOR this proposal. We appreciate GFX Labs’ selective, data-driven approach that prioritizes deployments with demonstrated impact while maintaining flexibility for future growth. While we remain somewhat cautious on Linea and Taiko given their current levels of value capture and traction, we recognize that maintaining presence can preserve optionality in the event of renewed ecosystem momentum. Overall, we believe this proposal strikes a reasonable balance between resource efficiency, user accessibility, and long-term strategic positioning for the DAO.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @kaereste and @Manugotsuka, and it’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
Unfortunately, we missed the temp-check vote due to technical issues, but at the on-chain stage we are voting FOR.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @kaereste and @Manugotsuka, and it’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
Unfortunately, we missed the temp-check vote due to technical issues, but at the on-chain stage we are voting FOR.
We see renewal of these three v3 deployments as a practical, focused choice. Mantle has clear momentum with solid TVL and potential upside from the upcoming Aave deployment. On Gnosis, Uniswap v3 is already the leading DEX, so maintaining support preserves liquidity users rely on. And on Linea, staying active avoids ceding the lane to a fork and keeps Uniswap’s position intact as the ecosystem matures.
We are voting in support of this, though we acknowledge Linea’s limitations in capturing value for Uniswap. That being said, we appreciate GFX’s proposal and are in support of these renewals to maximize resources and usability.
We have posted the Temperature Check for Gnosis, Linea, and Mantle.
We appreciate delegates taking the time to review the proposal and to ask our team questions. Feel free to post questions here or to send us a Telegram message.
Can you explain why you support Linea with their income of 75k, but not Taiko with their 113k?
We believe Oku has been working in good faith with Uniswap ecosystem for the long term and helping to serve chains that are not yet accessible via Uniswap front end. We do believe either continuing to fund Oku or if Uniswap Labs to take over such chains, reimburse Oku for contributions so far.
Hello Uniswap delegates,
GFX Labs has been sitting on this proposal, hoping that the quorum/delegation situation would improve, and it seems to have improved thanks to the Unification initiative.
Based on some recent feedback from delegates, we're going to put up a proposal to renew the Linea deployments (lapsed in May), Mantle (lapsed in August), and Gnosis (lapsed in September).
Linea as an ecosystem has major backing and is simply much larger, although there has been some modest improvement in Taiko volume recently.
Were we to include a fourth chain, we might include Taiko, but believe support for three chains is more acceptable to the DAO. We believe the three chains listed have the most value to the DAO.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @kaereste and @Manugotsuka, and it’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
Unfortunately, we missed the temp-check vote due to technical issues, but at the on-chain stage we are voting FOR.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @kaereste and @Manugotsuka, and it’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
Unfortunately, we missed the temp-check vote due to technical issues, but at the on-chain stage we are voting FOR.
We see renewal of these three v3 deployments as a practical, focused choice. Mantle has clear momentum with solid TVL and potential upside from the upcoming Aave deployment. On Gnosis, Uniswap v3 is already the leading DEX, so maintaining support preserves liquidity users rely on. And on Linea, staying active avoids ceding the lane to a fork and keeps Uniswap’s position intact as the ecosystem matures.
We are voting in support of this, though we acknowledge Linea’s limitations in capturing value for Uniswap. That being said, we appreciate GFX’s proposal and are in support of these renewals to maximize resources and usability.
We have posted the Temperature Check for Gnosis, Linea, and Mantle.
We appreciate delegates taking the time to review the proposal and to ask our team questions. Feel free to post questions here or to send us a Telegram message.
Can you explain why you support Linea with their income of 75k, but not Taiko with their 113k?
We believe Oku has been working in good faith with Uniswap ecosystem for the long term and helping to serve chains that are not yet accessible via Uniswap front end. We do believe either continuing to fund Oku or if Uniswap Labs to take over such chains, reimburse Oku for contributions so far.
Hello Uniswap delegates,
GFX Labs has been sitting on this proposal, hoping that the quorum/delegation situation would improve, and it seems to have improved thanks to the Unification initiative.
Based on some recent feedback from delegates, we're going to put up a proposal to renew the Linea deployments (lapsed in May), Mantle (lapsed in August), and Gnosis (lapsed in September).
Linea as an ecosystem has major backing and is simply much larger, although there has been some modest improvement in Taiko volume recently.
Were we to include a fourth chain, we might include Taiko, but believe support for three chains is more acceptable to the DAO. We believe the three chains listed have the most value to the DAO.
Hello Uniswap delegates,
GFX Labs has been sitting on this proposal, hoping that the quorum/delegation situation would improve, and it seems to have improved thanks to the Unification initiative.
Based on some recent feedback from delegates, we're going to put up a proposal to renew the Linea deployments (lapsed in May), Mantle (lapsed in August), and Gnosis (lapsed in September).
The high-level reasoning to continue with these three deployments is the following:
Additionally, none of these deployments are available on app.uniswap.org.
We already deprecated Blast and Polygon zkEVM from Oku. We can also report that the offboardings went smoothly, and we have built a tool for users to close their lingering positions on deprecated chains so they do not need to do it manually.
The DAO also sponsored Taiko, but based on the activity and some delegate feedback, we will move to deprecate it. Separate from the DAO, Oku has been supporting Scroll unpaid for nearly two years. Based on the limited activity, we will also delete the deployment from our interface.
I would personally be in favor of renewing all four chains: Gnosis, Mantle, Linea, and Taiko. Although I hold a higher degree of reluctance on Taiko.
Linea All four of the chains have nearly over $150M in TVL, which could be stated as a loose metric for determining what chains uni v3 should be on. If the approach with Oku is that v3 accessibility is meant to be as ubiquitous as possible, continued presence on these chains would generally make sense. The scenario in my head that should be avoided is backtracking—for example, a team like Linea could one day announce a large ecosystem resurgence by way of any number of their partnerships, product synergies, and connections, bringing about a large influx of capital. In the event Uniswap wants to issue incentives, or apply for incentives from the Linea team if possible, then the flexibility for this should ideally be present. Deprecation of the Oku interface would make capitalizing on potential future opportunities difficult. Yes, the current activity is underwhelming on this particular deployment, but the cost we're paying here is likely access to future growth. It may happen—it may not. But for Linea specifically, I wouldn't necessarily rule it out. Linea could also in the future opt to prioritize a tried-and-tested DEX like uni v3 over alternative forks for reputation reasons, but that's speculation of course.
I would personally be in favor of renewing all four chains: Gnosis, Mantle, Linea, and Taiko. Although I hold a higher degree of reluctance on Taiko.
Linea All four of the chains have nearly over $150M in TVL, which could be stated as a loose metric for determining what chains uni v3 should be on. If the approach with Oku is that v3 accessibility is meant to be as ubiquitous as possible, continued presence on these chains would generally make sense. The scenario in my head that should be avoided is backtracking—for example, a team like Linea could one day announce a large ecosystem resurgence by way of any number of their partnerships, product synergies, and connections, bringing about a large influx of capital. In the event Uniswap wants to issue incentives, or apply for incentives from the Linea team if possible, then the flexibility for this should ideally be present. Deprecation of the Oku interface would make capitalizing on potential future opportunities difficult. Yes, the current activity is underwhelming on this particular deployment, but the cost we're paying here is likely access to future growth. It may happen—it may not. But for Linea specifically, I wouldn't necessarily rule it out. Linea could also in the future opt to prioritize a tried-and-tested DEX like uni v3 over alternative forks for reputation reasons, but that's speculation of course.
Taiko
Taiko is an interesting one. My hunch is that their future growth potential is likely less than that of Linea. Much of the narrative surrounding their chain was focused on the zk tech utilized by the chain. They ran a handful of campaigns at launch to draw liquidity, and this got spread across numerous DEXs. The DEX landscape on Taiko is broad, most of which have seen large TVL attrition, including Uniswap. Taiko also did not prioritize Uni as a go-to DEX, making them more agnostic with DEX incentive allocation. Note that Linea also showed zero favorability to Uniswap so far either. If we were asked to renew the Taiko FE like 6-7 months ago, I would've been more fervently in support. It really seemed like there was genuine traction on blue chip pools, which is typically the asset sector that Uni plays in on these deployments. Below is an excerpt from a grant the growth program applied to in December 2024 (sadly it wasn't accepted, but the point stands):
The story is quite a bit different now, however, hence my hesitation. All this to say—there was a period, even after incentives expired, in which this deployment performed decently. Could happen again in the right market conditions.
Gnosis
This makes sense to renew since Uniswap has become the main CLMM on the chain. It has also overtaken older deployments like Curve since Oku went live. Balancer is still the top DEX on the chain, but Uniswap has become a key player in the ecosystem. Their DAO has also prioritized the v3 deployment, as evidenced by the below RWA campaign they ran with Backed:
Mantle Mantle is in a way similar to Linea. They are very well-capitalized and could run programs in the future that would enable Uniswap to benefit. Such optionality should ideally be preserved. There's almost no chance though that their team would exclusively prioritize uni v3 if they don't attain the Uniswap.org FE. They've been difficult to negotiate with in the past around this matter and were unwilling to allocate any incentive matching to Uniswap due to no access to the Labs FE. However, one of the benefits with larger chains like Mantle is that partner protocols are often willing to participate in growth on those chains. For example, as this deployment went live, Gamma provided some incentive matching on their end. If potential partners like ALMs are actively involved in certain ecosystems, Uniswap has the potential to leverage those connections. This is not the case with all chains.
Polygon zkEVM and Blast
Below is a list of chains that the DAO has subsidized Oku on:
| Chain | Oku Implementation |
|---|---|
| Linea | $105,000 |
| Blast | $105,000 |
| Mantle | $105,000 |
| Taiko | $105,000 |
| Gnosis | $105,000 |
| Celo | $105,000 |
| BOB | $105,000 (structured as a rebate to BOB, not paid to Oku) |
Thanks for putting this forward — we appreciate the structured approach Oku has taken in evaluating the outcomes of the Onboarding Package program across different chains. Looking at actual performance data to guide renewal decisions feels like the right path for ensuring DAO resources are used effectively.
We agree with the framework proposed and would support renewals for Gnosis, Mantle, and Linea:
Hello Uniswap delegates,
GFX Labs has been sitting on this proposal, hoping that the quorum/delegation situation would improve, and it seems to have improved thanks to the Unification initiative.
Based on some recent feedback from delegates, we're going to put up a proposal to renew the Linea deployments (lapsed in May), Mantle (lapsed in August), and Gnosis (lapsed in September).
The high-level reasoning to continue with these three deployments is the following:
Additionally, none of these deployments are available on app.uniswap.org.
We already deprecated Blast and Polygon zkEVM from Oku. We can also report that the offboardings went smoothly, and we have built a tool for users to close their lingering positions on deprecated chains so they do not need to do it manually.
The DAO also sponsored Taiko, but based on the activity and some delegate feedback, we will move to deprecate it. Separate from the DAO, Oku has been supporting Scroll unpaid for nearly two years. Based on the limited activity, we will also delete the deployment from our interface.
I would personally be in favor of renewing all four chains: Gnosis, Mantle, Linea, and Taiko. Although I hold a higher degree of reluctance on Taiko.
Linea All four of the chains have nearly over $150M in TVL, which could be stated as a loose metric for determining what chains uni v3 should be on. If the approach with Oku is that v3 accessibility is meant to be as ubiquitous as possible, continued presence on these chains would generally make sense. The scenario in my head that should be avoided is backtracking—for example, a team like Linea could one day announce a large ecosystem resurgence by way of any number of their partnerships, product synergies, and connections, bringing about a large influx of capital. In the event Uniswap wants to issue incentives, or apply for incentives from the Linea team if possible, then the flexibility for this should ideally be present. Deprecation of the Oku interface would make capitalizing on potential future opportunities difficult. Yes, the current activity is underwhelming on this particular deployment, but the cost we're paying here is likely access to future growth. It may happen—it may not. But for Linea specifically, I wouldn't necessarily rule it out. Linea could also in the future opt to prioritize a tried-and-tested DEX like uni v3 over alternative forks for reputation reasons, but that's speculation of course.
I would personally be in favor of renewing all four chains: Gnosis, Mantle, Linea, and Taiko. Although I hold a higher degree of reluctance on Taiko.
Linea All four of the chains have nearly over $150M in TVL, which could be stated as a loose metric for determining what chains uni v3 should be on. If the approach with Oku is that v3 accessibility is meant to be as ubiquitous as possible, continued presence on these chains would generally make sense. The scenario in my head that should be avoided is backtracking—for example, a team like Linea could one day announce a large ecosystem resurgence by way of any number of their partnerships, product synergies, and connections, bringing about a large influx of capital. In the event Uniswap wants to issue incentives, or apply for incentives from the Linea team if possible, then the flexibility for this should ideally be present. Deprecation of the Oku interface would make capitalizing on potential future opportunities difficult. Yes, the current activity is underwhelming on this particular deployment, but the cost we're paying here is likely access to future growth. It may happen—it may not. But for Linea specifically, I wouldn't necessarily rule it out. Linea could also in the future opt to prioritize a tried-and-tested DEX like uni v3 over alternative forks for reputation reasons, but that's speculation of course.
Taiko
Taiko is an interesting one. My hunch is that their future growth potential is likely less than that of Linea. Much of the narrative surrounding their chain was focused on the zk tech utilized by the chain. They ran a handful of campaigns at launch to draw liquidity, and this got spread across numerous DEXs. The DEX landscape on Taiko is broad, most of which have seen large TVL attrition, including Uniswap. Taiko also did not prioritize Uni as a go-to DEX, making them more agnostic with DEX incentive allocation. Note that Linea also showed zero favorability to Uniswap so far either. If we were asked to renew the Taiko FE like 6-7 months ago, I would've been more fervently in support. It really seemed like there was genuine traction on blue chip pools, which is typically the asset sector that Uni plays in on these deployments. Below is an excerpt from a grant the growth program applied to in December 2024 (sadly it wasn't accepted, but the point stands):
The story is quite a bit different now, however, hence my hesitation. All this to say—there was a period, even after incentives expired, in which this deployment performed decently. Could happen again in the right market conditions.
Gnosis
This makes sense to renew since Uniswap has become the main CLMM on the chain. It has also overtaken older deployments like Curve since Oku went live. Balancer is still the top DEX on the chain, but Uniswap has become a key player in the ecosystem. Their DAO has also prioritized the v3 deployment, as evidenced by the below RWA campaign they ran with Backed:
Mantle Mantle is in a way similar to Linea. They are very well-capitalized and could run programs in the future that would enable Uniswap to benefit. Such optionality should ideally be preserved. There's almost no chance though that their team would exclusively prioritize uni v3 if they don't attain the Uniswap.org FE. They've been difficult to negotiate with in the past around this matter and were unwilling to allocate any incentive matching to Uniswap due to no access to the Labs FE. However, one of the benefits with larger chains like Mantle is that partner protocols are often willing to participate in growth on those chains. For example, as this deployment went live, Gamma provided some incentive matching on their end. If potential partners like ALMs are actively involved in certain ecosystems, Uniswap has the potential to leverage those connections. This is not the case with all chains.
Polygon zkEVM and Blast
Below is a list of chains that the DAO has subsidized Oku on:
| Chain | Oku Implementation |
|---|---|
| Linea | $105,000 |
| Blast | $105,000 |
| Mantle | $105,000 |
| Taiko | $105,000 |
| Gnosis | $105,000 |
| Celo | $105,000 |
| BOB | $105,000 (structured as a rebate to BOB, not paid to Oku) |
Thanks for putting this forward — we appreciate the structured approach Oku has taken in evaluating the outcomes of the Onboarding Package program across different chains. Looking at actual performance data to guide renewal decisions feels like the right path for ensuring DAO resources are used effectively.
We agree with the framework proposed and would support renewals for Gnosis, Mantle, and Linea:
Thanks for putting this forward — we appreciate the structured approach Oku has taken in evaluating the outcomes of the Onboarding Package program across different chains. Looking at actual performance data to guide renewal decisions feels like the right path for ensuring DAO resources are used effectively.
We agree with the framework proposed and would support renewals for Gnosis, Mantle, and Linea:
On the other chains, we don't see strong enough traction or retention to justify ongoing subsidisation of a dedicated frontend.
Thanks for putting this forward — we appreciate the structured approach Oku has taken in evaluating the outcomes of the Onboarding Package program across different chains. Looking at actual performance data to guide renewal decisions feels like the right path for ensuring DAO resources are used effectively.
We agree with the framework proposed and would support renewals for Gnosis, Mantle, and Linea:
On the other chains, we don't see strong enough traction or retention to justify ongoing subsidisation of a dedicated frontend.
