Reason: A good project and strong team in a predictable and transparent roadmap, planned and projected. I think in the near future we will see an unprecedented growth of this project. But in all seriousness, there's a bit of a free-rider problem with supporting this sort of public good/open access gov infra, but I think at Uniswap's scale it makes sense to bite the bullet and put forward a small but meaningful contribution, even if other daos end up free-riding on it.

Reason: Huge fan of the work this team has been doing at Compound. I think they can fill some key gaps at Uniswap as well.

Reason: Bit of risk of increased liquidity fragmentation. But overall I think the potential benefit is more than enough to justify activating more fee tiers.

Reason: Reward amounts seem reasonable (total yearly cost <$1 million), and should help support a vibrant ecosystem of DAO contributors.

Reason: DEF has delivered good work, and I believe this is good value for money for UNI holders and the Uniswap DAO. There's a bit of a free rider problem and I hope to see other DAOs make meaningful contributions as well, following Uniswap's lead.

Reason: I don't completely agree with proposal's framing (eg. dont think the UNI treasury is "underutilized", as UNI in treasury is basically just unissued tokens, not an asset). But having greater runway in less volatile assets would be useful, and these assets could also be managed strategically to benefit the Uniswap ecosystem (eg. deploy stablecoins into concentrated LP pools). Excited to see what this group comes up with.

Reason: The customer is always right. Yes v2 is in many (most) ways inferior to v3, but it still sees consistent demand and usage on mainnet (and forks of v2 see demand on external chains). Easy yes.