It's always hard to figure out what people actually want from decentralized governance. The upcoming Unification vote will be: - proposed and executed entirely onchain - subject to the existing, public procedure that has been used successfully for Uniswap Governance for the past 4-5 years - 100% able to fail if the vote fails or quorum is not reached The code of the UNI token, which defines Uniswap Governance, is unowned and immutable, forever. Upcoming changes to fee parameters or the addition of new fee mechanisms will require another Governance vote. So I'm not quite sure what @lemiscate would prefer (and whether or not that's even possible, since Uniswap Governance is immutable), or how it's much different from Aave, which has a similar system of grants (including to the corporate entity that invented the core protocols), purely onchain governance, and service providers. I think of the Uniswap and Aave tokens as references for governance precisely because they're immutable. To me it seems like this is working exactly as intended? If someone opposes this proposal they are free to campaign with delegates and tokenholders to vote No. If a majority vote no, or a quorum is not reached, the proposal will fail -- that is guaranteed by immutable and public smart contract code.