Author: Chloe, ChainCatcher
The Uniswap Foundation (UF) recently sparked heated discussions in the DeFi community due to excessively high executive compensation. According to a detailed comparison of financial data between UF and the Optimism Foundation's Optimism Grants Council by @ImperiumPaper, UF's fund utilization efficiency is low.
This controversy has led UNI holders to question the value provided by the foundation and prompted Pepo, a former major contributor to Uniswap DAO, to respond. He had previously resigned due to dissatisfaction with UF's governance.
Salaries of Three Uniswap Foundation Executives Equivalent to Entire Optimism Team
According to the Uniswap Foundation's 2024 financial report, the foundation distributed approximately $9.99 million in grants, but total employee compensation reached $4.79 million, with executive salaries accounting for $3.87 million. Adding other expenses of about $2.80 million, UF's total expenditure was approximately $12.80 million. This means employee compensation accounted for nearly 37.5% of total expenditure, while executive salaries made up 22% of the total.
In comparison, the Optimism Grants Council had a total grant budget of about $63.50 million during the same period, with internal personnel compensation only around $2.14 million. Conservatively adding an estimated KYC cost of $500,000, the total is $2.60 million.
ImperiumPaper emphasized: "The cost of UF's three executives is equivalent to the entire Optimism team, but UF only distributed 20% of Optimism's grant amount." He called on UNI holders to demand that the UF board explain the value it provides. Supporters argue that hiring senior executives for a Web2 company of this scale would cost even more, while opponents believe that foundation compensation should not be compared to the private sector, especially for individuals with average qualifications receiving premium salaries, akin to many boondoggles in the crypto industry.
Looking back, UNI has experienced significant price volatility over the past two years. After closing at around $7.35 at the end of 2023, it surged to over $18 in December 2024. However, by early 2025, a broad crypto market correction caused UNI to fall below $10 in February and continued to trend lower mid-year.
Recently, benefiting from the Unification governance proposal, UNI surged approximately 19% in a single day on December 20th. While mainstream coins were trading flat, it quickly climbed from a consolidation range around $5.50 to $6.27. As of press time, the price has retreated to $5.76.
Meanwhile, Uniswap's TVL has declined by 60% from its peak of nearly $10 billion in 2021-2022 to about $4 billion. This means that while the token price and protocol locked value have both halved, executive compensation accounts for nearly a quarter of total expenditure, raising community concerns about whether employee salaries truly contribute to protocol growth. As of now, UF has not officially responded to the latest criticism.
Additionally, Pepo (@0xPEPO), a former Uniswap DAO contributor who resigned earlier this year due to dissatisfaction with UF's governance, reposted the controversial thread, stating that he prays all his friends can break through the salary hell, subtly mocking an executive's annual salary of $700,000.
Uniswap Operates on a Complex Byzantine Structure
Pepo resigned from his role as a DAO delegate in May of this year, at which time he held 455,000 UNI tokens, making him one of the top 20 DAO figures. According to a CoinDesk report, Pepo's resignation stemmed from dissatisfaction with UF. He accused UF of prioritizing its own interests and those of Uniswap Labs over the DAO as a whole after receiving $165 million in funding from the DAO, and cited a lack of response to feedback and insufficient transparency.
At the time, Pepo stated in an X post: "The Foundation's actions seem to prioritize isolation over collaboration, and this is hurting Uniswap." This reflects deep-seated issues in Uniswap's governance, including large delegates making decisions privately, insufficient influence for DAO members, and questions about the protocol's degree of decentralization.
Pepo's resignation was seen as a symbol of reduced DAO participation. GFX Labs' PaperImperium stated, "For any DAO, it's a loss when a contributor feels they can only make an impact by resigning."
Like most DeFi protocols, Uniswap operates on an extremely complex "Byzantine" structure: the for-profit company Uniswap Labs is responsible for technical development, the non-profit organization Uniswap Foundation (UF) promotes ecosystem growth, and the protocol's governance and resource allocation are managed by the DAO composed of UNI holders.
This multi-party governance structure has also sown the seeds for potential conflicts of interest. In March of this year, the DAO authorized the allocation of $165 million to the foundation, intending to grant it autonomy to drive development. However, this unexpectedly led to blurred lines of responsibility.
As contributors like Pepo worried, when the foundation's actions are questioned for prioritizing interests above the DAO as a whole, how to balance token holders with other stakeholders has become a core issue that Uniswap, and indeed all DeFi protocols, must face directly.
