Demand for Transparency from DeFi Education Fund

The DeFi Education Fund committee members, the Uniswap core team and its investors (including a16z) have refused to answer any specific questions posed to them about the fund’s origins, who came up with the idea, how future policy will be derived, and more.

In this letter dated June 24, I asked the proposer some very specific questions about these issues that were willfully ignored (and, in fact, ridiculed by inside parties):

After the vote finished and the Fund was created, I sent a new set of questions on June 29 to a16z, as it appeared that the vote only won due to governance delegates using voting power given to them by a16z. These questions were also willfully ignored:

The Fund was subsequently created and 1m were sent to the Fund’s multisig.

Yesterday, without any explanation as to “why”, and with no real notice to the UNI governance community (aside from this tweet a few minutes before the sale), 50% of the UNI sent to the Fund were sold to Genesis Trading.

It’s time for us to stop “requesting” and time to start “demanding”. This has been promoted as a decentralized governance community, however over the past 6 weeks it has not behaved as such. We (concerned members of the UNI governance community) deserve answers and now we are demanding them.

We demand answers to this abbreviated list of questions by the Fund committee members, the proposer (Harvard Law BFI), the Uniswap team and/or its investors including a16z. Whoever has the answers should provide the answers today.


  1. Who did Harvard Law BFI discuss this proposal with before bringing it to the public? Were there discussions with or encouragement from past or current Uniswap core team members, investors, proposed committee members, or other influential backers such as Consensys? If there were internal conversations, why were they not made public prior to a firm, unchangeable proposal being made?

  2. Who contacted each proposed committee member to tell them about the Fund and to ask them to be on the Committee? (This is assuming that the proposal was not the committee members’ own idea.)

  3. Was this proposal drafted in response to any ongoing, suggested or expected government investigation of the Uniswap corporate entity (Universal Navigation, Inc.) or any of its employees or investors that inside parties were made aware of? If yes, why was this information not made public to add context to the proposal?

  4. What conversations led to a member of the World Economic Forum being on the committee alongside known DeFi attorneys?

  5. How can UNI tokenholders be assured that the committee will not use its free
    reign to start new spin-off organizations that are no longer beholden to UNI interests?

  6. What assurances do UNI tokenholders have that members of the proposed committee will not pay funds to themselves or to other organizations that they have a vested interest in?

  7. Harvard Law BFI, the proposer, clearly intended for the UNI to be sold over a 4-5 year period. Why was 50% of the UNI sold, all at once, for USDC on July 12, 2021? Why was the UNI not sold via Uniswap over a longer period of time (i.e. a Uniswap v3 LP position with a tight upper range)?

  8. Why did a Fund committee member sell 2,612 UNI just a few hours ahead of the 500k UNI sale mentioned in #7? Does the Fund, core team or investors consider it acceptable for committee members to trade UNI with inside information about massive sales like this? https://twitter.com/FrankResearcher/status/1414923534019743758?s=20


You need to engage in open dialogue immediately. This decentralized community does have power that extends beyond simple voting rights. Please think twice before testing that power any further.

43 Likes

I fully support this proposal.
we will wait for a response from the concerned parties first.

2 Likes

Would like an answer to these questions as well

1 Like

I encourage everyone support that these questions be answered. Considering the DeFi Education Fund has $10m in usdc now, I imagine that they can spend an hour educating the UNI governance with some answers.

6 Likes

I agree 100%, they should be more transparent about this. I would gladly suggest to use another 1M of the treasury to hunt all the comitee for life if they try to make a fool out of all UNI community.

1 Like

I totally agree with this proposal.
no one can go against the spirit of UNI committee!

1 Like

I think by now the big holders are using voting power to give theirself money and just dump the uni after voting, then get the uni from treasury and dump it again.

1 Like

I fully support this proposal!

1 Like

Agreed. I think the most important thing the UNI team should do right now is:

  1. Return the UNI to the treasury
  2. Write a comprehensive proposals for how each theoretical FUTURE smaller chunks of UNI will be used going forward
  3. Get those approvals approved by the COMMUNITY like any other proposal

This kind of money grab by insiders is an insult and a disgrace

2 Likes

I FULLY support this! And not only for this issue, but but every other ongoing and future proposals that ask for FREE MONEY!

1 Like

This whole experience deserves full clarification and an entire uniswap blog post. We’re just inviting social engineering attackers to take advantage of voting system.

What’s stopping me from bribing Kenneth for votes?

3 Likes

I think the DeFi Education Fund committee members need to answer this question at the governance forum of uniswap.

A statement has been released on medium, but this is not a dialogue with governance.

1 Like

Total support to this proposal.

3 Likes

“10 M cashed during the price crash in order to… fund the fund?”
Even before the non-profit’s budget is in place? Even before a non profit is in place?
Wow.
The 1st and principal question is: WHO received the 10.2 M USD? Who owns the bank account? This requires an immediate answer. In case it is not immediately given (with proof), reporting and criminal investigation should take place, given that the funds were supposed to go to specific projects and the fund’s structural expenses were advocated to be minimal. If those voting for the project counted on these assurances, then there may be liability for fraud, not excluding other offenses.
If I remember well, there weren’t any answers in the initial stages of the proposal either, probably because they knew the project could pass.
I believe this is a as cynical, as disrespectful to the community and as provocative as it can get.

5 Likes

And now we see how decentralized governance really works. Those who own the most control the flow and deals. I smell a rat. I’m running from UNI as fast as I can.

Maybe the DeFi Education fund can make it to our next Uniswap governance community call. Initial committee members: Larry Sukernik, Rebecca Rettig, Jake Chervinsky, Marc Boiron, Katie Biber, Sheila Warren, Marvin Ammori

I see from their medium blog update that they are in the process of hiring a DEF Policy Director that will then start making their annual budget. The proposal passed on June 5 so <90 days later for a budget would be on or before Sept 5, 2021.

Here is the budget that the DeFi Education Fund has provided so far:

  • Full-time DEF policy director 150k-250k per year [Indeed Application]
  • Committee compensation < 150k per year