Announcing Dharma's Intention to Propose the Retroactive UNI Distribution

Going further on this point, now that UNI is out of the bag, and it has holders, the governance process is meant to facilitate pursuing the interests of those that hold the token. I have yet to hear an argument on how airdropping Dharma’s users is in the interest of current UNI holders. All funds spent from treasury are an investment of the UNI holders capital. What is the ROI from this? What’s ‘fair’ vs. not ‘fair’ is completely subjective, not to mention completely irrelevant in business and economics. I want to understand why this should be the first investment from the UNI treasury.

2 Likes

I think you’re very right.

The incentives for UNI governance should include a balance of encouraging decentralized user participation + using the treasury in a way that is not damaging to the ecosystem.

This proposal runs counter to both of those incentives.

2 Likes

I got UNI from the first Airdrop and I would receive another big load of UNI from the proposal, because of other wallets and accounts like Dharma. I still vote no because I suspect the ones trying to force this proposal have personal financial interest - no one knows how many personal addresses they hold.

I tested Dharma and see no real innovation/benefit for users. There’s no benefit, at least for me, over Meta mask or Trust Wallet, whatsoever.

8 Likes

Absolutely and they did a good job.

1 Like

The initial distribution was most likely to maximize decentralization of governance, hence not implementing airdrops to orgs like dharma et al. Dharma not receiving uni airdrop is by design from the uni team.

If the dharma proposal passes, it opens a can of worms where every org wants to receive airdrops.

To clarify: At no time will Dharma control the voting rights of the UNI to be distributed in the retroactive airdrop.

If the retroactive distribution passes, UNI will be transferred from the Community Treasury to the merkle disbributor (see the code above).

Once the UNI is in the merkle distributor, anyone can submit a proof to claim UNI from the distributor, transferring the UNI from the distributor to the individual address. UNI in the merkle distributor cannot vote.

After UNI is claimed by one of the addresses in the merkle distributor, those UNI can be delegated for voting by the address owner.

The community has requested that Dharma give users the ability to vote / delegate votes using UNI in their Dharma wallets. We are investigating the feasibility of this feature.

But again, at no time will Dharma control the voting rights of the UNI to be distributed in the retroactive airdrop.

8 Likes

What is Phase 1 vs. Phase 2?

A blatant cash grab with more than 12,600 addresses that think they deserve something because they were directed to Uniswap because Uniswap was the cheapest option available at the time and could save them a few cents.

Won’t this just dilute existing UNI holders?

There may be no dilution, but there will be a dump.

Where is the UNI coming from?

UNI competitors will use the UNI treasury that was never meant to airdrop UNI to people who were gaslighted into thinking they deserve UNI.

Won’t this just put downward price pressure on UNI?

Perhaps? Ha! Of course it will. Nice way to cherry-pick stats to justify this cash grab.

“we believe is unlikely to materially impact the price of UNI.” In other words, we a cartel made up of what can loosely be called UNI’s competitors wanting a cash grab at the expense of those who hold UNI say, no without any evidence.

This will continue and never stop until UNI’s competitors get what they want with the added bonus of a hostile takeover of UNI.

4 Likes

This retroactive penalty disincentives future products / projects from investing in the Uniswap ecosystem

Thats wrong. Noone recieved a penalty. They just missed an retrospective airdrop. Just get along with it. Dont push more proposals just to get it. Dont push proposal that enrich whales.

One point of the long list of wrong assumptions is correct: There should be incentives to reward the integration of uniswap in other projects. Maybe we can think of some more interesting ways. Long time incentives. E.g. if dharma continously create volume on uniswap. Maybe the top 12 intergators can be rewarded every 2 month.

1 Like

Hey @nadav_dharma

Just chiming in to second this idea. It behooves Dharma to build in a voting featureset for the Dharma wallet as a gesture of goodwill for this community. It also empowers your users to participate as well. Regardless of how the proposal shakes out, consider adding the ability for Dharma users to participate in governance to your platform.

4 Likes

I disagree with your point here: Dharma as a platform isn’t receiving UNI as a result of this proposal. Unique proxy addresses created on the Dharma platform, and linked to individual end user accounts, would receive the UNI.

The rationale for the initial drop was smack on: decentralization. However, adding an additional, what, 2-3k unique UNI holders represents more decentralization, not less.

I agree, however, that one critique of this proposal is concern over a precedent and willy-nilly retroactive distribution.

1 Like

I’m a bit confused about this.

You mentioned that UNI would be claimed from the merkle distributor, then could be delegated for voting by the end-user.

But you also mentioned that Dharma wallets cannot delegate yet.

Can you add some clarity to this?

This narrative seems far-fetched to me.

  1. Users were not penalized. They were not retroactively rewarded, which is a big difference.
  2. This doesn’t disincentivize future projects from investing in the Uniswap ecosystem. This decision was made by Uniswap team and not by the Uniswap governance.
  3. When it comes to future airdrops:
    a) there is a high chance that there will be no future airdrops, as airdropping is an inefficient way to spend resources
    b) even if there were future airdrops, it would be odd to start building something on Uniswap in anticipation of getting an airdrop, don’t you think?

When it comes to future products / projects building on top of Uniswap, there are a lot of ways to incentivize them much more efficiently.

If we just stick with the present, I’m afraid I can’t find a meaningful reason to do an airdrop of UNI.
Some people got upset because they didn’t get free money while others did.
How does making these people less upset brings value to the network?
Why is it a good investment? What will it result in? Isn’t there a better way to spend this money?

When it comes to airdrops in general, it seems evident to me that they don’t do much.
If people want to participate in Uniswap governance, they don’t need an airdrop for it.
If they don’t, there’s close to 99% chance that airdrop won’t change it.

6 Likes

So Dharma wallets can already delegate and vote at the protocol layer via a generic function, executeActionWithAtomicBatchCalls — the feature just needs to be integrated into the actual application.

The ability to vote or delegate UNI hasn’t really been requested by Dharma users as-of-yet (note that there would have been a need for the feature if users were included in the original airdrop, and that there of course will be a need for it should this proposal pass). The current reality is that the call for this feature is mostly coming from non-Dharma users.

That being said, it’s a no-brainer to support this feature at the application layer as soon as there’s bandwidth to get it done. In the meantime, it’s obviously always an easy option to just withdraw UNI to an EOA and delegate or vote from there.

1 Like

This is very concerning. If Dharma users are clamoring to get a UNI airdrop, then why wouldn’t they be asking for the functionality needed to vote/delegate?

It would seem that either these users simply plan to dump the UNI, or they aren’t actually asking for it at all and Dharma just wants to give them a nice surprise.

Any clarity from Dharma team would be great.

Anyone that’s been paying attention would realize that Dharma users are hoping that they get a UNI airdrop. There are 2,833 Dharma users included in this proposal with a wide range of motivations, but at the end of the day they (along with those of Argent, DeFi Saver, and others) are all Uniswap users who deserve the same choice — whether or not they want to participate in the governance of the protocol — that the rest of Uniswap received.

2 Likes

This will be properly debated if those 2,833 Dharma users decide to launch an autonomous proposal.

I’m sure at least a few of them received the original airdrop on an EOA.

Where are they?

1 Like

There’s not even a frontend for interacting with autonomous proposals yet, and Dharma is one of only three delegates that meet the proposal threshold. Every day that goes by is another day that these 12,600 users remain disenfranchised, unable to participate in governance. Meanwhile, UNI will continue to drift further from where was at the time of the original airdrop in terms of community, functionality, and value. (We’re already seeing arguments being put forward that too much time has passed from the time of the first airdrop!)

To expand on that last point a touch, here’s the reality of the situation here — this correction to the initial airdrop has been the predominant topic of discussion since the airdrop was first announced, and everyone is ready to settle the issue and move on to more productive governance action. Dragging the process out doesn’t do anyone any favors, least of all the excluded Uniswap users across the ecosystem — who clearly have sympathizers who have delegated to Dharma with the understanding that we are qualified to advocate on their behalf. Let’s bring this issue to a vote so we can begin improving the governance process in earnest!

5 Likes

It can’t be a correction if no error was made. The code did exactly what it was meant to do. The potential proposal is asking UNI governance for a handout.

I’m not passing judgment on the idea of a handout at this point. But let’s call a spade a spade, and stop trying to obfuscate the facts.

Will you say “the code did exactly what it was meant to do” should this proposal pass?

Absolutely. I know that Dharma and its powerful friends have the voting power to bypass the will of the UNI community and force this proposal to pass. The code will have worked as intended if this vote passes.

As I said in my delegate pitch, I believe that this system is broken when stuff lilke this can happen, and I hope that situations like this inspire and warn future governance projects as to the dangers of power grabs by for-profit projects & companies.