A genuine question - why have only around 25% of the delegated votes been used to vote so far? Are delegates just waiting till the last second? But for what reason?
i can see your disappointment over there that airdrop only for uniswap
user not for coinbase pro trader. smh
Announcing Dharma's Intention to Propose the Retroactive UNI Distribution?
Dude 400 coins is only 1K in value, bro nice try tho. Appreciate the attention, once the coins hit the market and bring the uni price down. I will buy more coins and average down at a lower rate, thats called managing losses. But like your profile badge, your insult are basic lol. I guess you can keep using me for practice. I’m gamed for that smh.
Gauntlet and Univalent controlling 20M votes have decided to abstain.
Which, although I understand they wish to avoid the impression of collusion, is kind of a “dick move” considering that Dharma made (and voted “for”) Proposal #1 on their behalf. To my understanding, there were 80M votes delegated prior to the current vote on Proposal #2. So excluding the 20M, and the votes that have been cast so far (27M), there are 33M outstanding votes.
Dharma will need just over 14M of those outstanding votes to reach quorum, and pass proposal #2.
this is what plutocracy smells like
not quite like napalm in the morning - but similar
it’s pretty rich publicly abstaining in a vote that has quorum constraints
it’s like ripping the suspension out of a car and telling the driver they have enough to get to the gas station, if they can only scrape up enough parts - don’t want to set a bad precedent by giving them a fully functional car
we need delegates to vote - not abstain - in order to set a powerful precedent
votes should be cast ‘yay’ or ‘nay’ - otherwise, we’ll remove them from you - politics and abstinence never linger long before unrest arrives
The way I see it is, Dharma still has a path to winning the vote but it seems improbable.
The prediction market on Polymarket implies that there is only a 16% chance.
This being said, according to Dune Analytics, 32M additional votes were delegated (or self-delegated) since the vote on proposal #1. There were ~48M eligible votes on Proposal #1, and ~80M eligible votes on Proposal #2.
Which curiously enough, the additional number of UNI delegated between the two proposals (32M), roughly matches the number of uncast votes excl. Gauntlet/Univalent (33M) minus the “No” votes (1.3M) in the current vote. I suspect Dharma “whipped” some votes from some larger accounts in their favor - who will vote “Yes” close to the end of the voting period.
If slightly over 14M out of the uncast votes vote “Yes” then the proposal can pass.
Thanks for the reply mobydock, I hadn’t realised Gauntlet and Univalent’s call to abstain.
I tend to agree with you rabbidfly - what is the point in being a delegate if you’re not going to engage with proposals?
I suppose in Univalent’s case they were really only positioning themselves as a delegate to be able to pass proposal #1, but even so it would be a better outcome for them to ask to be ‘undelegated’ or to delegate to another voter than to abstain.
Good project i like it project
The best way is to allocate same 5 million in airdrop to bring in new users to uniswap from all other platforms. Those depositing $300 mimimum for 30 days must be made eligible. The above amount can shared equally by liquidity providers.This will help the community.
This is what I was talking about, pulse check will this bring in more investor or not… Not a real question, but I’ve been told that I was just trying to get free coins smh. I trade everyday all day and this is what I do… look back at my prior messages, I said this would happen… now that UNI is on coinbase… more people see what’s going on with uni and this is bad news on your first impression… @samscalet We because I am still averaging down at the moment, Need to find a better system that works when we send something for a vote. We need to focus on one item at a time, get it passed and move on. How about we do a pre-vote on stuff, get the details worked out first like the senate does.We should build it together with everyones feed back provided during the construction of it, that way we can stand solid enough to pass a bill. At least people can see the benefits of what the proposal can do for UNI growth etc. Just my opinion. We gotta do better, and just like any business… You can have a good or the best product, but it won’t matter if the people in business aren’t working together. It will fail, happens all the time…
At this point, the “sell pressure” from the relatively number of small tokens that will be airdropped from the Community Treasury if Proposal #2 passes has probably already been priced in. It could potentially do more damage to the UNI price if governance is never able to pass a proposal due to large holders abstaining, and preventing votes from reaching the quorum.
So it’s plausible that the UNI price will rise if the proposal passes, simply by establishing confidence that its possible to pass something through governance.
Thanks a lot Gauntlet. Personally I wouldn’t put my votes with a delegate that abstains. I would pick a delegate that votes no before one that abstains.
Yeah strange. Idk why this was reported. Honestly it was on the topic of this vote.
see that you have no interest on this governance, better stay on
coinbase pro a lot profit there waiting for you
lol, true. But I rather be here for the long haul like you
Took part in the airdrop. But I didn’t get anything.
It is a pity that we cannot qualify for the airdrop as we have accessed uniswap through Dex. That’s why I don’t use both dharma and uniswap as much as before. Thankfully the 1inch showed the value we deserved …
I stand 100% behind @chrisblec in that the way this is going about to get voted through is highly questionable and deserves further examination from Uni governance users. Looking at the date of this proposal I realize that I’m late to the vote. That said, I have some things to say and am going to say them.
Uniswap Governance token is reflective of a ‘Pay-to-Play’ model. I earned my UNI through purchase from exchange and some free from airdrop. I own few, but they are mine. Uniswap has provided me a platform to raise myself out of poverty. I am one on those that has been greatly effected from COVID-19 in regards to employment.
This looks like a ‘giveaway’ that is not beneficial to UNI token holders. What is Uniswap? Is it a non profit?! This is partly a serious question I want you all to ask yourself. I use Uniswap to partially receive income. If this is also you then this is not to your benefit. This is an intentional hemorrhage on Uniswap’s treasury. While I’ve appreciated Uniswap’s generosity in assisting other projects (ie Sushiswap,
I am new to Uniswap’s Governance, but by no means new to Uniswap. I love Uniswap for its fair launch for what it has accomplished in the last year is nothing short of a miracle of developer ingenuity. Let’s not to mention all the Uniswap LPs.
Is Dharma a competitor? If it is, that is dilution of value of the UNI token. The token I feel is being bleed of its value that UNI LPs worked hard to give it its value. My fear is user flight from Uniswap to other projects because its token and yields become less competitive. Sure, you can be loyal to a project for other reasons that our not financial; though I’d argue that this is financial in essence and the tight community is held together by fair, equitable profiting for all.
Measures to Uniswap need to ideally be benificial to Uniswap and its token holders. Many of the proposals propose divestment from Uniswap. This is concerning. We should vote to better fine tune Uniswap. I noticed several copycat exchanges that add/subtract minor value. We don’t need more Unis, we need a harder, better, stronger Uniswap🦄
I hope this did not pass. I’m a Dharma end user and still don’t want token transfer dilution on projects like UNI. Uniswap needs Whale-free laws and UNI Token Caps on airdrops and UNI Token % Data.