I ultimately decided to vote for proposal 1 because:
Current quorum thresholds are very tough to meet, particularly considering that Univalent has ~5 million UNI and have said they will only vote on reducing quorum and proposal thresholds.
Dharma has proposed a secondary UNI distribution. There are good reasons for and against doing this, but I think it benefits everyone to try to come to a decision on this as soon as possible.
Liquidity incentives are scheduled to end in less than 1 month. If we’re still unable to pass proposals by then, it could become an opportunity for other AMM platforms to eat our lunch.
As for concerns that Dharma and Gauntlet would have too much power in governance - this is only true if the remaining UNI holders decide not to participate. I’m hopeful that lowering proposal thresholds will lead to more activity and engagement.
I would highly suggest people reconsider delegating their votes to this person as he does not intend to act in the best interest of the Uniswap community based on his constant push and backing of proposals which were detrimental to the overall health of the Uniswap community.
Monet supply was the first one to back the Dharma cash grab. When Uniswap community rallied together to defeat it and was ready to move on to more constructive proposals, he is making a push for another liquidity campaign despite the arguments outlined in the thread against it.
You do not have to go far to see how detrimental this actor is to the community and other fellow UNI holders as even he himself admitted that his proposal would pummel the value of UNI. Perhaps, this is so he could load up on more UNI so he could get more power for himself or for potentail personal gain.
I firmly disagree with your assessment. Monet has been nothing but professional in trying to coordinate the various interests of the Uniswap ecosystem. There are two sides to every coin, and he has clearly laid out his justification for every vote. Everything you’ve described as detrimental to the best interest of the Uniswap community can be looked at as a long term investment in its growth (I don’t agree with that sentiment, but I am just saying that it’s a valid perspective). I have not personally delegated to him, because I am an active participant, but if my time was ever too short to participate I most certainly would.
Either way, thank you for participating in governance. We’re all on the same team here, so let’s try collaborate and move forward.
I firmly disagree with your assessment. Monet has been nothing, but trying from day one to pass proposals which were detrimental to the community as they were aimed to dillute the small holders to enrich the few.
I wish we were on the same boat, but some people have their own boat and camouflage it as Uniswap boat while in reality they are trying to gain maximum profit out of the protocol. I will not stand by idle.
I would urge anyone who was considering delegating to monet, but feels swayed by recent posts in this thread, to first listen to all the arguments that have been raised in the previous community calls as to why supply dilution could be considered a net positive for governance.
Buckerino, its pretty transparent that you don’t care about the overall health of the protocol and are only particularly concerned with holding the token.
Its a pretty basic idea that restricting the supply may generate positive price pressure in a vacuum, yes - but this is a governance token for which the purpose is the distributed governance of the largest dex in crypto, so it should be fairly easy to understand why people care less about the current price of the token and more about the health of the protocol and governance itself.
Either way, you’ve restated your point, and your attack on monet’s credibility, a few times now. Please say no more about it.
First of all, I am a man of a fair and square principle. I have been raised all my life with a belief that damaging ,stealing, or devalueing common property is a crime. Monet´s voting behavior in every proposal, unfortunately, has been characterized by a pattern strongly violating the principle I believe in. He voted for dillution of the current holders every single time.
I have been with Uniswap for a very long time so its more or less pointless to say what you stated. I am probably the most interested person in the well being of the protocol. This is why I believe that intentionally damaging the value of the UNI token is detrimental to the health of the protocol as a whole. You have to understand the concept of other people investing money into the token so they could vote and engage in governance just to see that some people are voting in favor of dilluting them beyond belief. Do you think its fair to those people? Do you think this is how Uniswap will attract more users, more governance? I do not think it is and Monet is a delegate which has always voted FOR dillution.
People have already stated their doubts regarding the mantra that more supply dillution is beneficial to the protocol many times over and over again. Its dubious to say the least.
I think its shameless, egoistic, and damaging. I will voice my opinion on it to protect other people and myself included.
Given that the Dharma retrospective airdrop proxy proposal already went to a vote and was defeated, am i reading it right that “Money-Supply” suggests UNI governance entertain another vote on this subject. Has anything major changed to warrant another treatment of this issue?
On delegation, if done correctly there are less risks in delegating to a decentralized organization as opposed to an single individual, because the risk of a single point of failure is minimized. Public/open blockchains have evolved naturally to heed this lesson.
I do appreciate that Monet-supply has volunteered to help the UNI swap community, has worked hard and appears to have done a great job calling for and moderating the community calls, but understand he has a corporate banking background skill-set. I think ex -banking leads into DEFI could be anathema to the DEFI revolution if the right checks and balances are not in place, and that would be my only worry. Defi pretends to be something else, and although many bankers are getting on-board it is because the banking industry is being disrupted but DEFI and blockchain has evolved from more humble actors with just a computer and internet access, and imo momentum of resources or decision power or community “trust” on issues of governence which must include dev opportunities to define refine protocols should be mostly channeled through these actors.
I therefore would prefer to endorse decentralized UNISWAP DEV groups that also understand about protocol politics and have hands-on experience like HITURUNK at the Penguin Party who have shown themselves to be active, easily approachable at the community level: ie via the PP channel under the UNI discord, telegram, etc.
On UNI/XXX incentivized pools, I do support them, because I think a larger number of smaller UNI holders (% devs) that are steadfast, should receive proportional a higher rate of ‘rewards’ than large whales that just participate in UNISWAP LP. Governance participation seems to me to be an obligation in real democracies, as should be involvement in protocol development, if decentralization of Money Supply is to accelerate.