Announcing Dharma's Intention to Propose the Retroactive UNI Distribution

On behalf of DeFi Saver team, I would like to say that we support this proposal and have delegated our team owned UNI to Dharma.

DeFi Saver users have been active Uniswap participants since June 2019 and we believe they have had an important role in helping Uniswap grow to the status and success it’s reached today, just like users through many other integrations have.

Unfortunately, I still see people asserting they are against “companies receiving additional UNI” or similar, and I would like to highlight once again that all UNI airdropped in case this proposal passes would go directly to user owned accounts and would not be delegated to anyone by default.


+1, same deal here for Dharma. Dharma would not have the ability to delegate UNI that our users receive to ourselves, as I wrote here.

@chrisblec would appreciate if you could clear the air here and acknowledge that this is no longer a concern. Unless you have additional questions, in which case, I’m all ears and will gladly provide more info


Will be voting no and hopefully if this is voted down Dharma can stop wasting our time and energy with this.


well done Chris. expertly mediated. i really believe you have a special talent for this.

some of the questions were framed as accusations, but for the most part, i think everyone recognized that there was a middle ground to explore that represented mutual benefit for the entire uniswap ecosystem.

hiturunk campaigned vigorously for the developer funds, and i almost hit the ceiling when he mentioned ‘fiduciary responsibility’. well done mate for that gem. i agree wholeheartedly with rewarding under-funded teams with enough capital to enrich the tooling and the user experience. i also empathize with Nadav’s argument on that front, because even an expertly crafted product with disenfranchised users, is just that. an exquisitely crafted product sitting idly on a shelf. towards the end it sounded like you were ok with both the dev funding and the retro airdrop, but the framing is what required modification.

chris, your role as an investigative and objective mediator seemed to occasionally clash with your decentralized platform, but overall, you reigned in the conversation when it needed to be. i could see the struggle and appreciate how you stick handled it. far better than i could ever do tbh. i’m far too opinionated and insensitive to consider how others feel. it takes significant effort. i love watching others work, especially when it highlights a weakness of mine. i know you probably don’t give a squirrel’s errant fart for my thoughts, but that’s the beauty of my world - i’ll give it to you anyway. :slight_smile:

which brings me to Aguilar. mr. robotic. the logical unit in the group. he constantly brought the panel back to the nuts and bolts of governance, why it’s there, how it can be leveraged, and more importantly, what it’s not meant to solve (world hunger for instance or any existential fear about the philosophical dilemma of a DAO). He’s a developer, and i learned a lot about governance mechanics listening to him. he was a joy to watch, because despite his self-restraint, the transparency with all the head shaking and eye rolling was reassuring - it confirmed his humanity. :slight_smile: don’t deny it!

cComp was faceless, so it was really hard to read his body language (80% of human communication). he sounded thoughtful and measured, however, trying to catch Nadav repeatedly in a logical/semantic trap by getting him to admit that he was going to abandon his users if the vote failed… well. i’m pretty sure for all of Nadav’s faults, lacking empathy for his users wouldn’t be among my chief worries.

Nadav looked like he was either operating in his bedroom or in a hotel. wearing a plain t-shirt over a chiseled chest to match his expertly refined scalp, painted quite the picture. anyway, it was the furthest from vc backed affluence seeking to manipulate governance in a get rich quick scheme. maybe he’s the world’s greatest thespian, but all i saw was authenticity, genuine frustration, and a real fear that his users will abandon his team’s product - which i’m sure they have considered a labour of love for some years (3 rounds of investment!). i agree with his sentiment that 6 weeks of merri-go-round discussion is sufficiently beyond “due dilligence” and precariously close to “now we are just spinning endlessly”. let’s reframe the proposal to address all concerns and then let’s vote.

more importantly, it sounded like fierce conversation and dialog. stressful at times, but necessary to drive towards compromise. perfect alignment is never achievable of course, but aligning ‘for now’ is infinitely better than the alternatives. a proven ability to navigate the unknown is essential. a proven ability to avoid conflict is a recipe for failure.

now that everyone is in the vicinity of agreement, let’s move forward productively and accept the outcome as a DAO - a DAO that functions a tad bit better today than it did some hours ago. :slight_smile:

proud of you guys, and happy to be among this great community


I’m right here dude. Would love to vote in uniswap. Honestly the only person that seems to want the power centralized here is you. Why does it matter who starts the proposal? Dharma is proving delegating to them actually does something.


I am here! in favor of the innovation and technology that these applications bring to uniswap users


I fucking hate governance.

For one, it’s expensive. If there are ~1,000 participants that put in on average ~10 hours reading/thinking/talking/debating this, and their time is worth on average ~$100/h, then so far this proposal has cost the community $1M.

In this specific case, the outcome is also fairly zero-sum, in that 1) it doesn’t create any wealth for UNI holders, it 2) takes UNI from the treasury that could be spent on other things, and 3) gives it to folks who will likely sell it, probably having a small negative price impact.

I’m inclined to vote NO, mostly selfishly, but also because I think “redistribution of wealth” is basically the absolute worst possible norm to set in governance. The obvious failure mode to avoid is UNI holders voting to give themselves the remaining UNI treasury (or alternatively, giving it only to those who vote YES).

However, if we vote NO, there’s basically nothing stopping Dharma from continuing to do propose this, just like how Polkadot shills tried to infiltrate Ethereum governance [LINK BELOW] to pass EIP999 and recover the $100M+ they got stuck. And given that Dharma has $15M on the line… ugh.

So here’s my compromise proposal. I will vote YES (and encourage others to do the same) if and only if:


What I want to see is basically everyone who is in support of this proposal also promise that they will never support another retroactive UNI distribution for as long as they live (and hold UNI). That doesn’t mean abstaining on some future redistribution, that means actively assembling the squad and shooting that shit down. If the supporters of this proposal and the community can rally to establish the norm of NO MORE RETROACTIVE UNI DISTRIBUTION, then I think this proposal is not as bad.

If not enough of the supporters of this proposal signal as I described above, I will vote NO and encourage everyone else to do so as well, EVERY SINGLE TIME THIS PROPOSAL COMES UP, until Dharma gives up.

I’ve spent more time than I care to admit fighting ProgPOW exactly because it’s a zero-sum redistribution of wealth that favors special interests, and because if that shit passes it will erode my and many other ETH stakeholders’ faith in ETH governance as it would demonstrate to us that the core devs are captured.

Let’s try to avoid these kinds of governance quagmires for Uniswap.

I’ll conclude by saying that I think the Dharma squad is chill and has good ETH vibes, so if we can get norm right they are probably at the top of the list in terms of being aligned community members. There could be much worse potential recipients for this grant.

[LINK] twitter .com /rzurrer/status/1103627204250877953


We need the team of Uniswap to take actions in this period of time and only the team, we don’t trust any third party!

1 Like

I expect this proposal to set a clear precedent as to whether a similar proposal arrising in the future will be passed or defeated.

I am not really following Uniswap governance, but this really looks like a bad idea.
Uniswap holders are crossing Rubicon for marginal gain.

I would vote no. Maybe i would go as far as Ameen’s proposal, but that’s it.

1 Like

Seems like this is the current situation:

We have a bag of money
We need to grow Uniswap

So how do we best spend that money? There are many ways to spend this money, so let’s list a few:

  • Spend it on development grants to develop the ecosystem.
  • Use it as incentive for people to provide liquidity to Uniswap, to stay competitive in the market.
  • Give out free money in hopes that more people will join governance

Where do we get the biggest return on investment?

I personally don’t think that we will get much return on investment by giving money away.

I will vote NO


This is not a zero-sum proposal.

What’s being achieved here increases the fairness of initial wealth distribution, as all past users are being treated the same. It also increases the decentralization of supply distribution by adding more small holders.

An example of zero-sum distribution would be if someone would suggest giving extra 100 UNI to all the users who already received 400 UNI.
And this would be a completely different proposal, as it would create a direct financial incentive to vote for it for 73 million UNI.
Do you see any proposal of this kind in the governance forum?

Zero-sum implies that one group is getting advantage of the others while providing nothing in return.
So theoretically people who received the initial airdrop could try to hijack the governance treasury and distribute it towards themselves continually.

Zero-sum proposals are pretty straight forward: it only makes sense to vote for them if you directly benefit from them.

The phase 1 proposal can only pass if a lot of UNI token holders who don’t directly benefit from it make it pass.


Governance treasury will get 430 million UNI over the next 4 years.

By spending 1% of that we get the consensus in the community that Uniswap past users have been treated fairly.

Fwiw, it’s not an easy task - to reward users with the governance treasury.
On the other hand, it is easy to reward liquidity providers and developers with it - and I have no doubt they will be rewarded.


The “fairness” increase is very tiny. Plus I don’t see much fairness in “all past users being treated the same”. I would prefer differentiating between users by:

  • how early they used uniswap (maybe v1 users should get more UNI)
  • addresses with more transactions should get more UNI

My point being, forget about fairness. In the end, airdrop was defensive move + money grab for devs. You are are also mixing up addresses with users.


This proposal does not benefit UNI holders in any way. I have delegated No.
I will probably vote against all Dharma initiatives in future because the antithetical nature of this one.


This is not true, in my opinion.
The increase in fairness is not tiny. Fairness tends to be viewed as a binary thing.

If the proposal fails, part of the community will consider that another part of the community was mistreated.
If the proposal passes, I doubt that many people will feel that initial distribution to past users was unfair.
So we can acquire community consensus on a fundamental matter here.


You prefer a model where past users are rewarded unevenly; I prefer the model where they’re rewarded evenly.
Either way, it is a tough sell that uneven rewards are substantially fairer than even rewards.
Still, in your uneven reward model, there is a reason why some users get more UNI than others: due to being early birds or active users.
Even distribution already happened, it is not in discussion. What’s the reason behind not completing it?

Addresses are the closest thing to users we can get on Ethereum. I don’t know of a better way to reward past users than to reward addresses.

It is beyond my comprehension how the most generous value distribution in cryptocurrency history still can be viewed as a money grab.

Why should we forget about fairness?
Is it because you think there was a better way to reward past users?
Or is it because you devalue what the Uniswap team did by marking it as a money grab and defensive move?

Given that UNI holders’ main job is to distribute governance treasury, I believe keeping fairness in mind is one of the most important things.


I don’t want to go into long discussion, but in the end - it’s all very dishonest (when talking about communities):
there was no community (or very tiny) before airdrop, just users. I am not familiar with Dharma, but i will assume it’s the same situation.


Never expected to witness poetry like this here :joy:


It is possible to mitigate this downside, you could use Sablier or Superfluid and have the UNI gradually streamed over a period of time (e.g. 1 year) to reduce the chance of an immediate negative price impact - although you do run the risk where everyone just waits until the streaming of UNI is finished to sell.

A combination of that along with being able to delegate / vote with both a.) The UNI which will be received in the future & b.) The UNI already received, would be great as it:

  • Reduce the chance of immediate negative price impact
  • Allows for the participation of Dharma UniSwap users in the UNI governance who missed the initial airdrop
  • The Dharma users will still gain all of their entitled UNI

Only negative is the Dharma users will have to wait a period of time to sell all of it although if you ask those who sold UNI sub $3 valuation maybe they wish they had their UNI locked up at the start of the UNI distribution too :smile:

1 Like

This is how Penguin Party would like to see Development Grants structured, as severable sablier payments that the Uniswap governance could cancel if projects were not proceeding correctly.