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