Reason: I support this proposal because it introduces a governance-driven framework for activating protocol fees in Uniswap v4 that is compatible with the protocol's flexible hook architecture. Rather than managing fees on individual pools, the proposed V4 Fee Controller applies transparent, deterministic rules while remaining upgradeable through governance if future adjustments become necessary. The phased rollout across multiple chains, combined with the use of policy-based fee management and on-chain governance oversight, provides a measured approach to expanding protocol revenue while preserving the ability to refine the system as real-world data becomes available.

Reason: I support this proposal because it extends the protocol fee framework to Robinhood Chain using the same governance and infrastructure model already adopted on other supported networks. Reusing the established Arbitrum Orbit implementation minimizes execution risk while expanding protocol fee collection and UNI burn mechanics in a consistent manner. This represents another incremental step toward a standardized multi-chain fee architecture for Uniswap.

Reason: I support this proposal. Updating Uniswap's cross-chain governance infrastructure to current best practices improves long-term security, maintainability, and operational consistency. Migrating away from deprecated messaging systems while simplifying governance across supported networks is a prudent step for the protocol's continued expansion.

Reason: Supporting this proposal. The original franchiser delegations helped bootstrap governance participation, but the current delegate ecosystem is now mature and decentralized enough to sustain quorum organically. Returning these UNI to the timelock improves governance legitimacy and reduces structural misalignment between voting power and economic exposure.

Reason: Supportive overall. Would appreciate continued transparency on TokenJar flows, burn efficiency, and long-term governance oversight of cross-chain fee operations.