I find it really odd that some voters oppose the proposal because of who is submitting it. Why would it matter if Dharma submitted the proposal vs Dharma users? VCs have the right to vote with their UNI tokens either way.
I encourage everyone to consider this proposal on the merits, not based on vague conspiracy theories.
Please outline specifically what I said that was false and that you consider to be a âconspiracy theoryâ.
Where exactly will these tokens get airdropped to? A users ETH address or within the Dharma ecosystem. If within the Dharma ecosystem how does the voting work? Is it automatically delegated to the overall Dharma delegate?
it is simple, the team wanted a good initial distribution of 150m UNI and they set their own parameters
now after few weeks of UNI launch a company is trying to to take 10s of millions of dollars because they think that the initial distribution parameters set by the team are not fair
the distribution was not meant to be fair or to solve world problems but to find a significant initial liquidity for UNI and it is done
dumping on UNI holders for no reason is the worst type of govenance
This question is just as important as the issues that I am raising (possibly even more important), and voters should demand an answer from Dharma before making any decisions.
My limited understanding is, due to the way the proxy wallets are currently set up, Dharma Inc would have voting control over the airdropped UNI. Not the end user.
I could be incorrect on this, and if I am, I encourage Dharma to correct me.
+100000
So true. Thank you so much for putting this so eloquently.
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 Dharmaâs 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? Whatâs âfairâ vs. not âfairâ 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.
I think youâre 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.
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. Thereâs no benefit, at least for me, over Meta mask or Trust Wallet, whatsoever.
Absolutely and they did a good job.
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.
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.
Wonât 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.
Wonât 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.
âwe believe is unlikely to materially impact the price of UNI.â In other words, we a cartel made up of what can loosely be called UNIâs 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 UNIâs competitors get what they want with the added bonus of a hostile takeover of UNI.
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.
Hey @nadav_dharmaâ
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.
I disagree with your point here: Dharma as a platform isnât 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.
Iâm 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.
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, Iâm afraid I canât find a meaningful reason to do an airdrop of UNI.
Some people got upset because they didnât 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? Isnât there a better way to spend this money?
When it comes to airdrops in general, it seems evident to me that they donât do much.
If people want to participate in Uniswap governance, they donât need an airdrop for it.
If they donât, thereâs close to 99% chance that airdrop wonât change it.
So Dharma wallets can already delegate and vote at the protocol layer via a generic function, executeActionWithAtomicBatchCalls â the feature just needs to be integrated into the actual application.
The ability to vote or delegate UNI hasnât 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, itâs a no-brainer to support this feature at the application layer as soon as thereâs bandwidth to get it done. In the meantime, itâs obviously always an easy option to just withdraw UNI to an EOA and delegate or vote from there.
This is very concerning. If Dharma users are clamoring to get a UNI airdrop, then why wouldnât 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 arenât actually asking for it at all and Dharma just wants to give them a nice surprise.
Any clarity from Dharma team would be great.