Reason: https://gov.uniswap.org/t/blockfuls-delegate-platform/25765/4?u=blockful

Reason: https://gov.uniswap.org/t/blockfuls-delegate-platform/25765/3?u=blockful

Reason: https://gov.uniswap.org/t/unification-proposal/25881/39?u=blockful

Reason: Providing interface for networks that Labs doesn't support brings more volume for Uniswap.

Reason: And so the era of DUNAs begins. We vote FOR this proposal. Creating a DUNA for Uniswap will help the DAO achieve what it could not before, due to the legal impossibilities of an unincorporated organization. In addition, it provides more legal security for participants in governance, . We hope that, with DUNA, Uniswap DAO will not only improve legal and operational issues, but also others related to the evolution of the organization and the protocol.

Reason: We vote FOR this proposal. Incentive programs are not usually effective in the long term, since when the money runs out, capital migrates to new opportunities. In the case of this proposal, we like the idea of bringing in other protocols that partially fund the incentives, because it does not depend solely on Uniswap DAO to keep the rewards flowing.

Reason: We vote FOR the proposal. The incentives requested in the proposal can (1) help the migration of liquidity from v3 to v4 and (2) bring more TVL/volume to Unichain. As described in the proposal, incentive programs are common in the ecosystem - and can be one-off solutions to grow new solutions. However, it is important that KPIs are managed. Tracking the efficiency of capital allocation in liquidity programs is key to not throwing money at the DAO with no return for it. If the KPIs are not met, the Gauntlet must draw up new plans to achieve the objectives stipulated in the proposal. If they don't succeed, the money should go back to the DAO. In addition, it's essential to think about the long-term strategy - mentioned by Gauntlet/UF in the proposal. We know how incentive programs can work for a short time - only as long as rewards are distributed to users. It is essential that capital allocation is done with this in mind, with a view to not repeating the same problems of other projects that have done the same in the market. We also advocate the creation of a proposal that encourages more Hooks to be created on Uniswap. However, it would be interesting to fund mainly those that bring some kind of return to the DAO.

Reason: We vote FOR the Uniswap Unleashed proposal. The Uniswap Foundation's request for ~U$125M for Grants and Operations is relevant and will be important to (1) contribute to the development/growth of Hooks and (2) attract more projects/people to build on Uniswap/Unichain. We understand the competitiveness of the market, but we agree with the concern expressed by other delegates: it's a high amount and paid all at once. An update on the fulfillment of the KPIs proposed by Devin in the proposal is essential for us to understand the allocation of capital in this proposal. Just as we voted for the proposal on incentives for Uniswap v4/Unichain, we are concerned about how both products will benefit the DAO. We understand that the success of both is indirectly beneficial to the Uniswap DAO, but (1) there is still no direct revenue sharing mechanism and (2) most Hooks do not choose to enable charging a fee on applications created with the product. Therefore, we would like UF to continue the good work, funding good projects and supporting the evolution of Uniswap - as a product and DAO - but also to carry out actions with the organization in mind, holders of $UNI, its delegates and the entire body of people working on Uniswap governance. Good synergy between UF, Uniswap Labs and the DAO is essential. All parties need to be heard and have power to make decisions.