Below, words of @strangechances .
"I would emphatically clarify three points about the UNI discussions regarding retroactive distribution and lowering thresholds. There’s a lot of misinformation surfacing in the forums and media, and misinformation is bad for governance. So let me share these assertions:
Dharma itself does not get UNI from its proposal for retroactive distribution. It’s the users of multiple wallets (Dharma, Argent, etc.) who will receive the UNI, for trading on Uniswap via meta-transactions. This is in alignment with the goals of the initial UNI distribution.
Dharma is not a UNI “bagholder”, and there is no chance of Dharma “controlling Uniswap”. This is something that was incorrectly argued by blockchain media company Decrypt. Some investors, who are not invested in Dharma, have delegated to Dharma, and this is a vote of trust.
If the Uniswap Governance parameters remain the way they are (40m UNI), it’s unlikely that any decentralized UNI governance could happen this year. Either voter participation or share of delegation needs to increase significantly for it to be viable.
Further discussion: I believe UNI community should prioritize proving that decentralized can governance work. The retroactive distribution proposal is fair and lower risk than the initial distribution, since we know there is a 1:1 user:address relationship. It’s a great step."…
Wait, is this whole proposal currently tied up entirely over Dharma? It seems that the controversy has landed squarely on their participation and not any of the others for the past week or two. If that’s the case then why can’t the issues be separated out? There are clearly specific, particular issues the community has with 'Dharma’s participation that isn’t really apparent for the other services.
This is ridiculous. It’s a dex aggregator the people were not directly interacting with uniswap’s website or program, which was the entire purpose of the airdrop. Now rewarding people who used third party dex aggregators. And lowering the amount for quorum is also ridiculous since it’s crazy easy to delegate votes on here. Very likely were seeing exactly what the creators of Uniswap didn’t intend. I guess we’ll see in a few months after they lower the quorum and give themselves free uni which was a 1 time thing as far as I’m concerned. Change the rules of game after halftime and the games already over.
Agree with this 100%; that’s just like saying all metamask users should get a uni airdrop because a third party aggregator they used made a swap through uniswap. It’s actually quite insane.
By the way, idk for Dharma, but apps like MEW or Monolith, the user could read exactly “Uniswap” or better, can CHOOSE to use Uniswap and not something else, and we talk about decentralization technology. So, there should be no reason to discriminate users using Uniswap directly from the website, or directly from a third app on their smartphone.
And in someway these apps have help Uniswap to become popular, I heard about it on apps, before using it directly myself (but post-1st september, like the 3rd or 4th), so I continue to find unfair in the way I choose to use it BEFORE the 1st september, and didn’t be rewarded because I didn’t use a centralized point, but used some proxy through third apps.
It’s not replay the game, it’s just be more into it, it’s not because you reward people with it, that people will run and selling it, maybe some will keep their UNI and participate into governance, or use it as liquidity/…
So yeah, you can choose to vote against this, but I think we should vote, it’s not changing the rule of the game by letting the vote decide, the vote define the rules.
Disagree apps are directly profiting from users using their dapp and not going directly to uniswap… so your totally wrong there. Life isn’t fair either it was a blind airdrop; no one knew. But it was the choice of the devs to do with it as they saw fit. They should also publicize the vote more as it wasn’t real clear when the first vote was going to happen.
yes[quote=“hazucf, post:20, topic:5811, full:true”]
John from Matcha here, just wanted to echo Fulvia’s message.
Given the switch up on grouping and cohorts, Matcha should be submitted with the first cohort as it is a customer-facing application. Per the grouping criteria, Matcha provides no API integration for programatic usage thus falling squarely into an ‘application integration’ criteria. (e.g. No trading bots can be used on Matcha)
We can provide a breakdown for Matcha users specifically. Can you confirm @0age
[/quote]
I personally used Dharma because I am on my phone most of the time. I feel they deserve UNI but we have people who doesn’t even hold 100k UNI but they are making a lot of noise. Let your vote speak for you.
Perhaps I missed it, but why should a random person who got lucky and received UNI as part of the airdrop vote to dilute their holdings and give free UNI to someone who got unlucky and didn’t get anything in the airdrop?
Imagine if the airdrop was just distributed randomly to existing Ethereum accounts, with no rhyme or reason other than randomness. Why would the randomly selected individuals choose to give up their free money to those who were not randomly selected? Is the hope here that UNI holders are altruistic and will give away their free money to strangers out of a sense of fairness/karmic balance?
Perhaps I missed it, but why should a random person who got lucky and received UNI as part of the airdrop vote to dilute their holdings and give free UNI to someone who got unlucky and didn’t get anything in the airdrop?
most of current UNI holders are not the lucky ones who got 400 UNI… most of current UNI holders bought their UNI from people who sold their airdrop
it’s as if you have read nothing from the entire thread above. I urge you to please scroll up and read a little (i know its long and some people don’t have time) but everything you have asked or implied has been discussed earlier.
TL;DR
distribution is from the treasure (no such indicated dilution)
imagining the random distribution and the concept of “lucky” that you mention is everything the UNI airdrop was not. it wasnt a get rich on luck based scheme, its for the community, its for everybody who got uni to where it is today, knowingly or unknowingly. and unfortunately some people who built on top got cut out.
I’m indifferent to the eventual solution btw just fyi
It is dilution when you consider that the treasury could, instead of being given away, be burned or given to existing holders or spent on value-add services for Uniswap (e.g., development, tooling, etc.).
Is that true? Not making a claim one way or the other, but I’m sure there’s data out there on how much of UNI supply is held by the same addresses that got the drop.
I imagine there’s some folks who strictly sold, some who tried to swing trade, and some who have held and accumulated.
If you’ve seen that sort of analysis, or know where to find it, I’d love to read it.
Is that true? Not making a claim one way or the other, but I’m sure there’s data out there on how much of UNI supply is held by the same addresses that got the drop.
after only 8 days of the Airdrop, 55% was already sold
now after more than 1 month I am pretty sure it is much higher
Appreciate that. Looking on etherscan as of today, it looks like we’re back up to 90k holders from the 78k that that article references (and still down from the 190k addresses that had claimed then). I’ll do some more reading.
Again, would love to see what (undoubtedly small) proportion of drop recipients have sold and bought back in versus speculators picking up the sellers’ bags.
I came across uniswap after the deadlines… can we do an airdrop for new users? My point is where does this stop?
Also if the first proposal which wasn’t as controversial didn’t pass, how will this? Is dharma submitted this proposal to appease it’s users so even if it fails, they can say they tried their best.