Because the users who were wrongly not included have been demanding Dharma help us out and they have been kind enough to carry the weight. There are other people involved, but Dharma have taken the lead and shown the initiative.
2 Likes
It was not an oversight. https://twitter.com/haydenzadams/status/1319292528688967682?s=20
1 Like
Sir
I am a user of Dharma. I am in support with the proposal. Please do support users like me.
Hope you vote for users. Even if you consider some conspiracy, keep that aside for this particular vote.
Thanks 
5 Likes
Okay, not an oversight but he says he is/was aware some rightful owners would be left out and that it is up to the Uni holders to decide. I think the reason for leaving them out originally then to make sure it wasnât just arbs/bots getting tokens is fair, but Dharma, Gauntlet, Defi Saver, etc. have put a lot of work and effort into compiling a list of actual users that make sense. They were Uniswap users, and helped grow the platform like every other user. They deserve a share of governance too. You say you want it more decentralized but donât want 12,000 actual users to come on board?
I think you just want to protect your investmentâŚwhich was free
4 Likes
Hayden didnât say anything about ârightful ownersâ. That idea has been put out there by Dharma mostly. Hayden just said that it would be up to UNI governance to decide whether to distribute any more tokens.
Rightful ownersâŚreal usersâŚsame thing
2 Likes
We are here. We are now aware. We are loud. We are Uniswap users.
1 Like
Just wanted to suggest that anyone interested in this thread watch this live stream that took place today. Very good convo between a bunch of us UNI nerds including Nadav of Dharma. https://youtu.be/i0VhUQzj2hU
6 Likes
As far as I know an account cannot have its owned UNI automatically delegated to anyone.
The delegation records are stored within the Uniswap token contract and they are per account and can only be entered by account address owners. The delegation information is not made or stored within tokens themselves in any capacity.
Specifically, in terms of DeFi Saver, for example, the Smart Wallet (or DSProxy) is a proxy smart contract wallet that is solely owned and managed by the account that created it. No one could affect the delegation of any tokens potentially owned by the Smart Wallet except the account that owns the Smart Wallet. (And just to further clarify if potentially needed, one account can only have one Smart Wallet / DSProxy associated with it.)
6 Likes
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 itâs reached today, just like users through many other integrations have.
Unfortunately, I still see people asserting they are against âcompanies receiving additional UNIâ 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.
7 Likes
+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, Iâm all ears and will gladly provide more info
4 Likes
Will be voting no and hopefully if this is voted down Dharma can stop wasting our time and energy with this.
3 Likes
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 âfiduciary responsibilityâ. 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 Nadavâs 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. iâm 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 donât give a squirrelâs errant fart for my thoughts, but thatâs the beauty of my world - iâll 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 itâs there, how it can be leveraged, and more importantly, what itâs not meant to solve (world hunger for instance or any existential fear about the philosophical dilemma of a DAO). Heâs 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. donât 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. iâm pretty sure for all of Nadavâs faults, lacking empathy for his users wouldnât 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 heâs the worldâs greatest thespian, but all i saw was authenticity, genuine frustration, and a real fear that his users will abandon his teamâs product - which iâm 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 âdue dilligenceâ and precariously close to ânow we are just spinning endlesslyâ. letâs reframe the proposal to address all concerns and then letâs 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 âfor nowâ 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, letâs 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
7 Likes
Iâm 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.
3 Likes
I am here! in favor of the innovation and technology that these applications bring to uniswap users
3 Likes
I fucking hate governance.
For one, itâs 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 doesnât 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.
Iâm inclined to vote NO, mostly selfishly, but also because I think âredistribution of wealthâ 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, thereâs 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 hereâs my compromise proposal. I will vote YES (and encourage others to do the same) if and only if:
THIS IS THE ABSOLUTE LAST FUND RECOVERY EVER.
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 doesnât 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.
Iâve spent more time than I care to admit fighting ProgPOW exactly because itâs a zero-sum redistribution of wealth that favors special interests, and because if that shit passes it will erode my and many other ETH stakeholdersâ faith in ETH governance as it would demonstrate to us that the core devs are captured.
Letâs try to avoid these kinds of governance quagmires for Uniswap.
Iâll 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
10 Likes
We need the team of Uniswap to take actions in this period of time and only the team, we donât 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 Ameenâs proposal, but thatâs 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 letâs 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 donât think that we will get much return on investment by giving money away.
I will vote NO
5 Likes