Brilliant piece of writing. "People spending other people's money, with minimal accountability, rarely optimize for impact." The Uniswap Foundation/DAO has: 1. Committed $11.9M for Unichain builders and $45M for incentives, currently returning $4M/year in LP revenue (assuming fee switch activation and TVL remains same), and $1.6m in sequencer fees. 2. Spent $2.75M seeding 10 third-party L1/L2 deployments; TVL falling 80% after and annualized revenue from those deployments $46K/year 3. Spending $24M to incentivize UNI v4 pools, and $100M for Grants (2025-2026). In March, $165M was approved to the UF to cover budgets/grants/and incentives for 2 financial years - without any accountability if milestones will be met. "Accountability is built into corporate structures. Companies are bound by the discipline of the market: They expend capital in pursuit of profit, and the financial results — revenues, margins, and returns on investment — serve as objective indicators of whether those efforts succeeded. Shareholders, in turn, can evaluate performance, and apply pressure, when management falls short of clear goals." There is zero doubt in my mind that a traditional company would not (and could not) spend $100m+ -with essentially 0 questions asked once the proposal passes - while the protocol has returned 0 value to tokenholders/shareholders.