The next key decision for Uniswap is not about which new pools to launch, but whether to regain a portion of its "voting power." Currently, the Uniswap DAO is voting on a governance proposal: whether to reclaim approximately 12.5 million UNI that were lent to several governance representatives and the Uniswap Foundation between 2022 and 2023. According to current market prices, this batch of tokens is valued at approximately 42 million dollars. If the proposal passes, these tokens will be returned to an address directly controlled by the DAO. According to information from the public governance page, this vote is expected to end on May 8, 2026. As of around May 5, on-chain voting data shows that about 53% of voting power voted in favor, about 46% abstained, with very few votes against. Though it appears that support is predominant, it also clearly exposes the hesitation and wait-and-see attitude of participants.

This is not a simple vote on "whether to reclaim tokens," but a reflection on the governance structure. In order to support the low participation rate at the time, the DAO actively lent approximately 12.5 million UNI to representatives and the foundation, allowing a few addresses to "step in" at critical moments. Now, the official statement believes that overall governance participation has significantly improved, and continuing to retain this concentrated voting leverage in the hands of a few entities could be interpreted as a deviation from the commitment to decentralization. Therefore, the real question this vote aims to answer is: does Uniswap have enough confidence to remove the support mechanism and reclaim more governance power from the "few that were supported" back to the DAO itself.

42 Million Dollar Governance Voting Power Demanded to be Returned

The "return" demanded actually refers to a governance voting power that has long been designated. Between 2022 and 2023, during a period of low participation, the Uniswap DAO proactively lent approximately 12.5 million UNI to several representatives and the Uniswap Foundation, hoping that someone would "step up" to vote in every ballot. Years later, most of this batch of tokens, which should be collectively owned by the DAO, remains concentrated in wallets controlled by these representatives and the foundation. Estimated at current market prices, its value is about 42 million dollars, forming a unified voting source on-chain that can influence the direction of proposals.

The core demand of the current proposal being voted on is very straightforward: to reclaim all 12.5 million UNI that were lent back to an address controlled by the DAO, allowing the DAO to decide when and how to use this portion of governance power again. If the proposal passes, the related representatives and foundation addresses will lose this "borrowed voting power," and this portion of tokens will no longer appear on the governance page in the names of a few entities, but will return to a public position indirectly controlled by all token holders through governance procedures.

For any protocol that relies on public on-chain governance, reclaiming a concentrated voting power worth 42 million dollars from a few individuals is a substantive rewrite of the voting landscape, not merely a technical parameter adjustment. The proposal vote is expected to conclude on May 8, 2026. As of around May 5, on-chain data showed a pattern of approximately 53% in favor, 46% abstaining, with very few opposing votes. Behind the predominant support is a large number of addresses choosing not to express a stance, indicating a voting structure where many acknowledge the direction of returning but collectively hesitate; this reveals that the requested return of the governance voting power has implications for the balance of power within Uniswap that go beyond mere numerical modification and summation.

From Lending Tokens to Reclaiming: The DAO's Journey Back

To understand the psychological pressure behind the demand for the return of these 12.5 million UNI, one must rewind time to 2022-2023. At that time, the Uniswap DAO was ostensibly an enormous organization with open governance, yet public governance discussions repeatedly mentioned an awkward reality: proposals were becoming increasingly professional while voting was lackluster, with many key changes often depending on a few active representatives to "keep the momentum going." Faced with low participation, the DAO ultimately chose a pragmatic engineering solution—directly lending governance votes to those willing and able to participate in voting long-term. Hence, between 2022 and 2023, approximately 12.5 million UNI were lent to several governance representatives and the Uniswap Foundation, hoping that this "supporting voting power" provided minimal attention and expression in every vote.

Two years later, reflection from the project team is that this dose of adrenaline has had a phased effect. Since 2022-2023, the official stance believes that governance participation has significantly increased, with more active addresses, richer discussions, and better proposal responses than those seen earlier. The initial anxiety that "if representatives don't take action, voting might go cold" has somewhat eased. On this basis, Uniswap is now willing to publicly state that it no longer needs to rely on these additional borrowed governance tokens to ensure participation.

Therefore, this reclamation is not an administrative order but has been incorporated into the normal on-chain governance process: as a change in parameters and asset allocation, it must be approved via community voting before the tokens can be reclaimed to an address controlled by the DAO according to the proposal's content. Formally, this is merely moving a temporarily loaned asset back to the "general ledger"; substantively, it is a retrospective examination by the Uniswap DAO of its governance mechanism—acknowledging both the existence of the early need for external support and recognizing that now it should transition from relying on centralized voting power to a more organic power structure composed of more spontaneous participants.

Support and High Abstention: A Subtle Split in the Voting Faction

According to AiCoin data, as of around May 5, 2026, the governance vote concerning approximately 12.5 million UNI presents a subtle yet clear structure on-chain: about 53% of voting power voted in favor, about 46% abstained, while opposing votes are almost negligible. Formally, this is a "support is dominant" result; substantively, however, it resembles a "basic agreement on direction, but reservations on attitude" collective vote—very few stood up to say "no," while more chose to abstain, expressing complex emotions regarding the proposal's stance and implementation path.

The logic of the support camp is relatively straightforward. For them, this proposal neither involves new issuance nor destruction; it simply reclaims the portion of UNI that was borrowed between 2022-2023 from the dedicated voting wallets of a few representatives and the foundation back to an address controlled uniformly by the DAO. Given the widespread belief that governance participation has significantly improved in the current context, they no longer view the maintenance of a "borrowed voting source" held by a few fiduciaries as a necessary condition; instead, it appears more like a potential risk. Voting in favor means supporting the weakening of centralized supporting voting power, allowing these 12.5 million UNI to return to the public pool, where a broader group of token holders can decide when and how they will be mobilized again through regular mechanisms.

However, the almost equally large abstention ratio reveals another layer of concern. According to governance rules, abstaining is neither a positive endorsement of the proposal's content nor a substantive opposition; instead, it is a public expression of "agreeing with the direction toward decentralization but unable to provide a certain answer regarding specific consequences." Many community discussions revolve around the same issue: once the UNI used to maintain voting participation is uniformly reclaimed, will it actually raise the effective voting threshold in the short term, weakening the daily execution efficiency of the representative system? They believe that reclaiming power from a few addresses is not difficult; what is challenging is how to carry out this power redistribution without harming the current governance operations. This is also what makes this vote truly tense: on the surface, the direction seems set, but it exposes the ongoing tug-of-war within Uniswap's governance culture between "decentralization" and "operability."

Decentralization and Participation: The Governance Dilemma Post-Reclamation

From the design intention, reclaiming these approximately 12.5 million UNI from a few representatives and institutions back to an address controlled by the DAO (as the proposal describes) indeed weakens centralized custody power. In 2022-2023, when these tokens were lent, it was to prop up the voting framework during a phase of low participation using "a few large votes" (according to various sources). Today, if this portion of voting power no longer remains long-term in the hands of fixed fiduciaries, theoretically every parameter adjustment and capital allocation in the future will rely more on the individual UNI held by regular token holders, making proposal outcomes more likely to reflect the real preferences of a wider range of token holders rather than being "represented" by a few professional representatives.

Yet the cost is equally clear: those UNI that were previously lent often served as "supporting votes" in critical ballots, able to barely maintain quorum and pass thresholds during periods of overall indifference. After the reclamation, Uniswap itself acknowledges that the reason it dares to take this step is due to the significant increase in governance participation over the past two years compared to 2022-2023 (according to several sources citing official statements). The issue lies in the fact that DAO governance is fundamentally highly dependent on the willingness to actively participate; once centralized voting power is removed as safety, the outcome of any vote will become更加敏感于社区活跃度和情绪波动——当热度高时，也许会呈现出前所未有的多元讨论；当市场情绪转冷，重要提案可能反而更难凑齐足够多的“有效赞成票”。

因此，这次收回既可以被视为向去中心化迈出的实质一步，也意味着 Uniswap 把原本依赖少数地址稳定供给的治理效率和投票稳定性，交还给了更难预测的市场情绪与长期参与意愿，本质上是一次用制度松绑来换取治理正当性的权衡选择。

Will Uniswap's Self-Repair Become a DAO Model?

From borrowing approximately 12.5 million UNI to "support" governance activity in 2022-2023, to attempting to reclaim these tokens to an address controlled by the DAO through a public on-chain vote in 2026, Uniswap is completing a closed-loop correction of its governance structure: first admitting the insufficient early participation that needed temporary support from centralized voting power; then, when governance participation is judged to have significantly improved, actively dismantling that support, fully exposing voting rights to the open market and community willingness. The current vote’s predominant support and high abstention rate also reflect the DAO's hesitation between "efficiency or legitimacy"—most people lean towards supporting the reclamation, yet are reluctant to too aggressively endorse all future implications.

Three points are worth observing next: first, the final result of this proposal around May 8 will decide whether this approximately 12.5 million UNI truly returns to the on-chain treasury and is indirectly controlled by all token holders; second, once reclaimed, how the DAO manages and uses this governance capital worth about 42 million dollars—whether it remains in the treasury, redesigns the delegation mechanism, or reappears in other future governance arrangements—will become a focal point of the next round of debate; third, after losing this portion of "supporting votes," whether Uniswap governance participation and voting structure remains stable or will exhibit new voting cold spells or extreme results under the impacts of market cycles and narrative fluctuations. For other DeFi protocols exploring governance reform, if Uniswap's path of "first using concentrated tokens for support, then dispersing reclamation through voting" proves to enhance early governance efficiency without compromising long-term legitimacy, it could very well be seen as a replicable self-repair paradigm; otherwise, this experiment itself may become a cautionary tale that the industry must reflect on when designing the next generation of DAOs.

Join our community to discuss and become stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
AiCoin On-chain: https://aicoin.com/hyperliquid
AiCoin Exclusive Hyperliquid Benefits: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
AiCoin Exclusive Aster Benefits: https://www.asterdex.com/zh-CN/referral/9C50e2

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。