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
etc.
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.
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
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.
My vote would be a yes. Not going to repeat the ecosystem arguments. Personally I received UNI as a MetaMask user and LP. I even explored dharma myself, but more importantly pointed a handful of good friends towards dharma for its ease of use. They used dharma precisely because a MetaMask walkthrough was not to be bothered with at the time. These friends leveraged dharma to swap and engage in the ecosystem that we see thriving today. Many of these friends were early users of uniswap whether they realized or not.
Odd to me to play king maker with uni based on brand of wallet…when we were making the same trades on different platforms…maybe not odd to you but odd to me…yes yes I understand the reasoning why wallets like theirs were excluded originally…better than most I am sure from reading these 100+ comments. But fees all fund the system all the same…their transactions are sprinkled all through what has become such a remarkable success story.
For me it’s about my fiends, Ty, Dave and Rob, who told countless people about there experience with Dharma that also always ended up being a story about uniswap. In all fairness, since fairness is a common thread in so many of the “no” signals… if you knew how much UNI someone like me earned from the LP drop…you’d be putting a proposal together to strip me of my UNI because who the f&ck am I to deserve such bounty. Well I was early like many of you and like my buddies.
Appreciate all the yes and no signals, I really do. Also, a hard no on phase 2 for many reasons suggested.
Final thought, if you participate on compound you already know Dharma to be active and an engaged steward in governance. Which is valuable.
Hi, normal user here. It takes 1% of the total UNI supply to submit a proposal. I don’t have that much. I used Dharma, I swapped tokens. I’d like a UNI airdrop too, same as you received.
