Consensus Check - UNI should fund a political defense organization for decentralized finance

There IS a discussion regarding the fee switch and things are starting to move.

I invite you all to the community call on the 16th of June on the Uniswap´s discord channel. Its fun and you can discuss all of your matters live there.


Character matters, this is just an absolutely absurd statement. 40 million dollars but the characters of the recipient doesnt matter? Are you serious?

1 Like

Agreed we need to flip the switch

LPS already hold UNI.

If they dont, they will after they see the switch is going to flip.

How can you hold someone in high regard that literally works for an organization that plans for you to own nothing and “be happy”?

She needs to be removed and shunned from decentralized finance as does anyone else with associations with the IMF or WEF.

I was watching this (youtube: “6. Smart Contracts and DApps” 44:37min) when I saw Lawrence Lessig say that these types of contracts (paying people to lobby congress) are illegal.

He was talking in the context of ethereum smart contracts

Unfortunately, I missed this message.

For conflicts, here is the most obvious ones.

  1. Each of the board members (except Marvin) is currently employed full time by a different organization, with different goals and reports directly to a boss who has different goals for them. Each cannot serve both his or her current boss and those businesses while serving the interests of Uniswap.

  2. Most of the board members also serve on lobbying or special interest organisations that have different goals than what is in the best interest of Uniswap.

  3. In addition, several of the board members appear to have been hired by Uniswap in the past to work on legal issues as outside counsel, which creates inherent conflicts on evaluating Uniswap’s current regulatory position and the need for more work (which could be done by them or their previous firms).

  4. Moreover, under the expanded mandate of this proposal, these very board members will be charged with decisions to fund (or not) the other lobbying and special interest organizations that they currently are part of.

To quote Harvard Law BFI:

  1. Jake Chervinsky , General Counsel, Compound Labs [CONFLICT] & Strategic Advisor, Variant Fund. **[CONFLICT]**Jake serves as general counsel at Compound Labs and as an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center.

  2. Larry Sukernik , co-founder, Reverie. [CONFLICT] Larry co-founded Reverie to steward the development of DAOs. Previously, he was an investor at Digital Currency Group.

  3. Rebecca Rettig , General Counsel, Aave Companies. [CONFLICT]. Rebecca is a well-known DeFi lawyer who has advocated before government bodies around the world. [CONFLICT]. Aave is based in Europe so she can help ensure connectivity with European based groups.

  4. Marc Boiron , General Counsel, dYdX Trading. [CONFLICT]. Marc is a DeFi attorney who has designed the regulatory strategies and DAO structures for many of the leading DeFi protocols [CONFLICT] in addition to having educated regulators on DeFi. [CONFLICT]

  5. Marvin Ammori , Chief Legal Officer of Uniswap Labs. Marvin has spent his career advocating for new technologies from the internet to DeFi. He has served as a board member of multiple advocacy nonprofits.

  6. Katie Biber , Chief Legal Officer of Brex, [CONFLICT]. Board of Directors of Anchorage. [CONFLICT]. Katie is a fintech and crypto leader and political superlawyer who served as the General Counsel of the Mitt Romney presidential campaign in 2012.

  7. Sheila Warren , World Economic Forum, Executive Committee (Cryptocurrency Lead). [CONFLICT] Sheila is trained as a lawyer who used to represent 501(c)(4) nonprofits such as Planned Parenthood and the ACLU. She now convenes experts on cryptocurrency regulatory issues at WEF [CONFLICT]

To fully understand the conflicts of interest, each potential board member should be required to disclose his or her other positions and conflicts of interest in the same way that a lawyer at a law firm hired by Uniswap would be, as well as in the ways a public company board member would be.

Who does Jake serve? Uniswap or Compound or Variant fund or someone else?

Who does Marc serve? Uniswap or DyDx or ,…?

Likewise, who do they support when they push this proposal? These are clearly conflicted opinions given that these folks will either be on the board or routinely work with the members of the board who they are supporting:

Jake Chervinsky


@lay2000lbs @HarvardLawBFI I’m 100% in favor of the proposal & will share more detailed thoughts soon. In short, the days of DeFi flying under the radar are over. Policymakers worldwide are paying attention. Now’s the time to allocate resources to education & advocacy, & this is the right way to do it.

And Rebecca Rettig signaled agreement with Marcs post [Rebecca is a former coworker of Marc’s who worked with him now from a different company and often Tweets her support and allegiance to him]

Rebecca Rettig


As usual, @boironattorney makes excellent, thoughtful points about the

For competence, there are numerous examples on Twitter and in podcast interviews in which several of these board members fear monger over the risks from regulators who have no jurisdiction over Uniswap or miss and mistate key risks to Uniswap, like OFAC (sanctions) risk. Unfortunately, we are not permitted to post linked or media to show them. And, it probably doesn’t make sense to start a gotcha witch hunt!

More importantly, if you look at their backgrounds, you will quickly see that none (?) of these lawyers has substantial experience with the two biggest legal risks facing DeFi protocols in the US: OFAC risk and Bank Secrecy Act money laundry risk.

Likewise, only Katie Biber appears to have experience actually working within government.

This is odd.

Why this board and not experts in the most important regulations affecting Uniswap and former government officials who have been involved in creating and enforcing these laws?

@lex-node @monet-supply

1 Like