New Snapshot as of 9/15/2020 to include users from 9/1/2020 until the announcement was made

Requests for Comment
162

Well, why do we need decentralized platforms and communities in the first place? To sustain trustlessness/transparency/fairness.

If you are going to randomly decide to reward the user that has used the platform on 30th of August and not the one that has used on first of September while they have both paid the same fees and contributed equally on the platform without any knowledge of a potential future-reward. It just really sounds like a bad governance, sorry.

Informing investors “about an airdrop” shouldn’t be as important as leaving some of the community members behind and security auditors could always leak anything about any project at any-time, as professionals they have to respect the NDA/CDA.

6 Likes
163

It was ment as a reward for those using the protocol without incentive. Changing that now would defeat that. I didnt get on the bandwagon, but im not going to complain. Not to mention they have 45% to hand out over 4 years. Asking for a change in drop is pointless.

3 Likes
164

What incentive did those clueless users from 1st to 16th have!?

2 Likes
166

None, and it shouldn’t be expected. Do you think because you used a protcol you deserve something? They were generous enough to hand out millions in UNI. To complain about not getting any is arbitrary.

3 Likes
167

Guys, do you know what the reason that makes user from 1th - 15th not eligible to get Rewards, someone might knows??

1 Like
168

I agree your suggestion because lot of people now no access to thier Eth address they loase there phrase like in trust

169

Including users from the last 2 weeks doesn’t really bring any value to what was already accomplished in what was one of the most fair distributions in Crypto history.

Let’s just say that some lucky noob who installed Metamask in late August and made a trade on Uniswap already got the same 400 UNI as a heavy user that been using Uniswap since early 2019, so why include even more “lucky” noobs in this proposal? To be fair, anyone who just discovered Uniswap recently doesn’t deserve that much those 400 UNI as someone who has been using it for a while, so nothing to “correct” here, the process was already too generous.

What makes sense is to set a date limit for unclaimed UNI’s, for example 6 months, and do something that would be beneficiary to all UNI holders or overall UNI tokenomics… burn them? add those to the liquidity mining program? something like that makes sense.

3 Likes
171

Those “People” who were lucky to have 10 wallets were still valid they traded using those accounts and thus were applicable for the airdrop.

All in all sad to see so many immature cry babies in here, as said by others before the airdrop has happened move on. If the token dropped to $0.10 per token tomorrow or every platform removed liquidity so it couldn’t be traded and was only useable for its purpose as a Governance token I’m sure 99% of the people here crying would disappear anyway.

Lets not forget the true use of the token isnt for money but to be able to vote and come to consensus.

2 Likes
172

This is something to think about, A lot will be unclaimed…–> Distribute to VOTERS.

Since a lot of scammerrs used many wallet to provide fake LP and rugpool unexperienced uniswap users. They shouldn’t be rewarded at all.
I see contracts that have 900 uni just for doing 2 rugpools scamming our users, i wish they will not dare to claim or vote…

173

The reason is to prevent insider trading based on leaked knowledge. Hayden Adams explained this in one of the first few dozen responses to this topic.

It sucks for those who just missed out, but it would undermine the entire distribution to extend the snapshot to a time when a significant number of insiders knew about the pending distribution and could have Sybil attacked it. For this reason, this whole proposal is a non-starter. Sorry.

1 Like
174

Looks like there is a bad precedent in the future.

175

Insiders who knew BEFORE about the snapshot at 9/1 would not set up new wallets AFTER 9/1. That makes no sense.

This whole problem only exists because there was a misthinking about the snapshot and the announcement.

This problem would not have occured if either the airdrop would have been announced at 9/1 with the words:

“All users of Uniswap who traded on the platform before 9/1 will get their share of the airdrop - distribution of the airdrop in two weeks.”

Other possibility would have been an announcement at 9/16:

“All users of Uniswap who traded on the platform before 16/1 will get their share of the airdrop - distribution of the airdrop in two weeks.”

And that is what has happend. Announcement at 16/9.

The way it was done messed up the airdrop and the users who don’t get their share because they traded some hours too late are kicked in the ass.
These users are still early adopters and did the same as all the other users before. They heard of the platform and used it.

2 Likes
176

I tweaked my proposal to account for this possibility.

I need to add a con I missed: The possibility that the distribution could be gamed by the small group of people who had knowledge of the distribution prior to the announcement (Auditors and the like)
To minimize that risk I would tweak the original proposal to restrict the eligible addresses to those that were older than 9/1 and limit the distribution to just 400/wallet instead of the dynamic allocation

3 Likes
177

@JakELips

Insiders could have known about the plans of an airdrop, but now about the date of the planned snapshot. My guess is that the bubble of insiders got a lot bigger after 9/1 due to having to request permission for the airdrop to several authorities. Thereby, increasing the risk of abusing this knowledge exponentially.

These users didn’t get “kicked in the ass”, they missed out on a freebie that they didn’t even expect to get at the time purchase.

178

I think you did not get what I was trying to say:

Is it fair that someone who traded for the first time on 8/30 got rewarded and someone like me who traded for the first time on 9/1 got not rewarded? What’s the difference between those two supporters of the network? One of them got lucky - the other one get kicked in the ass.

But I see…it’s a senseless discussion here.

You think that I do not deserve the Airdrop.
O.k., I get it now…

What I was trying to say in my previous post was the following:
There was a logical error with the snapshot and the announcement of the airdrop.
Just imagine Uniswap would have made it the one or the other way as stated in my previous post.
We would not have that discussion here…if you cannot see that I cannot help.

2 Likes
179

To bad biometrics can’t solve the multi wallet aspect by having either fingerprint or facial verify the wallet. Then that info can be stored as a hash so as to keep privacy in tact.

180

Sorry, not sorry, the world isn’t fair.

No one will ever be happy no matter what decision is made. Someone’s always going to be “left out.”

Doesn’t matter what you did or didn’t do before the cut off date announced by Uniswap. No one deserves anything. People are lucky they were granted free UNI. Yes, the people who were airdropped UNI were lucky and those who didn’t are unlucky. That’s just the way life goes. Shoulda. Coulda. Woulda.

Life isn’t fair.

There’s nothing stopping those projects who are begging for UNI from airdropping their own tokens to their customer base.

1 Like
181

This is not true. Any random user who started using Uniswap on 30-Aug likely has not contributed a fraction as much to the network as any randomly picked user who’s used the system between inception and the airdrop notice.

At some point when switching from the centralized government that bootstrapped the system to a decentralized government you must draw an arbitrary line somewhere. Unless the goal or extending the airdrop is setting up an elaborate distribution scheme based on how much value was contributed to the network over some X length of time, it’s just another arbitrary decision to be made that has no real consequence over the governance of the network and could be potentially harmful.

Now, we can either carry on with the decision that was made (mind you, in the context of de-centralizing governance), or make what is essentially another arbitrary decision; we just get to choose the context. Is it “fairness”? Is it “inclusion”? By what metric would either of those be determined.

Let’s say we decide that all users up until 15-SEP should be included in the airdrop. We can clearly see a spike in use during that time and while I know that there were good actors included in that number, there were a lot of bad actors, using Uniswap hoping for a proposal like this to come up.

In order to even have a valid argument we need a valid context, which we don’t have. The fact that some people feel left out by the decision should be irrelevant when it comes to community governance, which is the context of this entire discussion. The airdrop is a distribution of governance, so the essential question is:

Who do we want to be in charge of the community?

The answer is simple, people who care about the network, good actors. The fact that tokens are currently on exchanges means that some people who received the airdrop decided that value was worth more than the network. This was good for the community, because it weeded out those who did not care to govern it. If we extend the airdrop period to include additional users, how exactly is this improving the quality of governance?

I would wager that the majority of people asking for an extension are envious not of the (perceived) missed opportunity to govern the system, but of the missed value.
As the fiat price of UNI declines there is ample opportunity to get in on the ground floor of governing Uniswap, I’ve already bought more UNI than I was airdropped.

An extension would at the end of the day be an arbitrary decision and I don’t see why, now that governance is decentralized, any more arbitrary decisions are required.

Any good actor who did not get the airdrop, but wants to be a participating member of the Uniswap network would consider the sheer amount of value locked in DeFi, the clout that Uniswap holds within that sector, and realize that the current exchange price is an absolute steal to get in this early.

1 Like
182

The fact that the token is for governing the network is the crux of the argument that is not being considered by a lot of people here.

2 Likes
183

There’s also nothing stopping users from buying UNI on an exchange. To anyone who cares about governing the network who missed the airdrop then buy and hold UNI to keep the network as decentralized as possible.

3 Likes