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.
The system is only truly broken if it is no longer possible to recover from prior mistakes. I’m confident that UNI governance, and on-chain governance in general, will continue to improve and grow from here — starting by recognizing the intent, the spirit, and the utility in a broad, decentralized distribution across a diverse set of participants.
1 Like
I just discovered that 98% of Dharma’s voting power (15.4m of 15.7m) comes from just 4 Ethereum addresses.
I thought that might be relevant to this thread and wanted to share, since many are under the impression that most of Dharma’s voting power is coming from passionate users.
1 Like
- Does 12600 addresses mean 12600 users?
- How many of these 12600 users didn’t receive any UNI airdrop?
- How many new users do we really “recruit” for Uniswap governance with this distribution?
Do you think that bringing 300 new voters to the system is worth spending 15 million dollars?
I want to note that people are not “disenfranchised, unable to participate in governance.”
I wasn’t a receiver of the airdrop, but I’m able to participate in governance. And so are everyone else.
You can mine UNI. You can buy UNI, and you can participate in the governance forums without being a UNI holder.
No one is disenfranchised.
Even though I’m somewhat neutral on the proposal itself, I’m reading the topic, looking for arguments for it - and all I find are narratives of how people are being oppressed.
I think the main issue I have with this proposal is that it doesn’t bring much value to the Uniswap governance. It might bring some more decentralization (?), but this type of decentralization isn’t fruitful.
The conversion rate from receiving an airdrop to participating in ecosystem development is extremely low.
3 Likes
Yeah, and Dharma has the third-most unique delegating accounts, behind Univalent and andrecronje.eth, but it’s not really relevant to this thread — that would be to give a final heads-up on what’s being proposed and to encourage everyone to delegate their UNI before then if they want to vote. Either way you vote, I sincerely hope you do delegate somewhere — our delegation address is 0x7e4A8391C728fEd9069B2962699AB416628B19Fa, or better yet delegate to yourself!
2 Likes
Though I do believe this proposal brings real value to Uniswap governance, to me personally the more important distinction is that it is in keeping with the real values of Uniswap. From the very beginning, Uniswap has fostered a culture of inclusivity and fairness, an energy that it carried throughout the broader ecosystem, and that same culture is the catalyst for the very decision to distribute ownership over the protocol so broadly. This is in keeping with the ethos that Uniswap has always foster and that I hope it continues to foster, and that I want to build on and participate in going forward.
3 Likes
dharma should know better. Number of addresses != number of users. Using this illogical reasoning to justify their actions is malicious as it gives uneducated users false information. I myself utilize utilize many addresses, and I would be surprised if the dharma team did not utilize much more if not the majority of the 12k address they quote.
Couple points here.
First, you are correct that addresses != users.
But these 12600 addresses are across several different projects, only ~20% of which are Dharma addresses. So your assertion that the Dharma team is the majority of the 12600 addresses is factually incorrect.
3 Likes
At Dharma, why are you acting like anyone has a legal right to this token? Bring your customers over here? It seems you are instrumentalizing them. Make them aware of this forum.
Did you tell your customers that using your service might cause trouble? This is your obligation.
Here is my proposal. Burn those freaking tokens and let’s get back to the good uniswap. This reminds me of kindergarten kids fighting over cookies that someone ate. Cookies are gone!
2 Likes
This tidbit was just shared by @brendan_dharma in Discord, hope he doesn’t mind me sharing it here as I believe it’s very relevant to the conversation if the Uniswap team & investors are quietly attempting to influence/control the vote despite “decentralizing” governance.
2 Likes
Again with the spin!
By delegating their votes to us, these persons do not get to “influence/control the vote” as you allege. In fact the opposite. They have (temporarily) abdicated their voting rights, transferring them to a team (us) that had fewer rights than they did. This is the definition of decentralization.
4 Likes
What incentive is there to hold governance tokens when there is suggestions put forward so early on that aren’t in all current holders interests. Truly defeats the purpose of a governance token. The airdrop should have taken the dharma users into consideration first time round - the airdrop can only be a one off event otherwise confidence in the token will disappear.
The thing is, that the way you tried to force 2 proposals with one vote upon us had some very bitter taste. As I noticed, you are very aware of marketing strategies and should know about emotions - as you try to stir up some for your interests.
You earned a lot of mistrust and some of your defenders were calling out a win with arrogance, even though the quorum had not been reached. What do you expect us to do? Take you by your word? I think most of us are beyond that. Gosh, I love trustless protocols!
Instead of forcing it another time with blatant arguments, how about trying to regain trust? No… you claim to know what is good & right for all of us. This a very paternalistic perspective at least from where I stand.
3 Likes
Hi
I have a question regarding uni distribution,
If anyone who’s already claimed uni by using uniswap via metamask and if he is also used uniswap via 1inch same wallet address on previous snapshot date then he will received uni airdrop by this proposal if passed ??
@brendan_dharma @nadav_dharma plz reply…
This is the conspiracy theory I’m referring to. It should be clear to everyone that most UNI is still controlled by core team and investors (it was in the announcement blog: https://uniswap.org/blog/uni/). I think this could actually be a reason to support Dharma’s proposal, as it could potentially help counterbalance insiders’ voting power.
It’s a little rich to hear about “hidden profit motivation” from someone who runs an influencer/content platform for a living.
5 Likes