These points are COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.
What would happen to this exchange feature on Dharma all UniSwap liquidity migrated to SushiSwap and there was 0 left on UniSwap?
It wouldn’t work and because all of Dharma’s users are using UniSwap via Dharma’s app. They are still UniSwap users.
I hope this is clear.
You’re right, I’m blinded by the excessive amount of branding on the uniswap app itself, such a huge difference…
What would happen to this exchange feature on Dharma all UniSwap liquidity migrated to SushiSwap and there was 0 left on UniSwap?
Dharma will not punish their users by plugging into or setting the default trade to route through an illiquid exchange.
You’re right, I’m blinded by the excessive amount of branding on the uniswap app itself, such a huge difference…
I refuse to take the bait on this one.
Look. I used Dharma. I used Argent. And Lord knows I’ve used 1inch more times than I can count.
What you guys are arguing for is a thinly veiled handout.
Read the blog post. Read the critiques. Of course we’ll find ways to spin this into some justification that we’re owed $1200. That’s understandable. But it is not at all inline with the Uniswap blog post.
Once again, I ask you to look at the screenshot I posted. Imagine yourself using Dharma and then try to understand why the complete lack of reference to Uniswap is at odds with the Uniswap journey and being an early Uniswap community member.
Again. From the blog post:
Uniswap owes its success to the thousands of community members that have joined its journey over the past two years. These early community members will naturally serve as responsible stewards of Uniswap.
If the Dharma users are unaware they’re a part of the UniSwap journey, then why have so many shared their thoughts about wanting to get the UNI they missed out on?
Because they found out they could get free UNI (Dharma made their plans public) and came here to push for it.
The complete omission of “Uniswap” from the Dharma swap feature is a key factor here. The icon is not even expandable to show that the icon relates to Uniswap.
Going further, I could argue that Dharma’s integration of Uniswap to enhance their product, whilst not providing clear credit to Uniswap, is another reason to vote against this proposal.
This proposal brings to a formal vote the Retroactive Distribution, discussed at length in the above links.
This proposal retroactively distributes 400 UNI to 12,619 distinct addresses who interacted with Uniswap via a proxy contract. These 12,619 users are “Phase 1” of the Retroactive Distribution, encompassing users of application-integrations. All of these 12619 addresses were excluded from the original airdrop.
The Phase determination was made based on how easy it is to programmatically hook a trading bot into them, as this is a proxy for what portion of these cohorts risk representing multiple addresses per end-user. Phase 1 is the less programmatically accessible cohort, indicating a lower likelihood of multiple addresses per end-user.
Specifically, this proposal distributes 5,047,600 UNI in total in 400-UNI increments to accounts held by users of the following projects:
| Project | Accounts | % of total |
|---|---|---|
| Argent | 3418 | 27.09% |
| DeFi Saver | 890 | 7.05% |
| Dharma | 2833 | 22.45% |
| eidoo | 301 | 2.39% |
| FURUCOMBO | 57 | 0.45% |
| MEW | 4278 | 33.90% |
| Monolith | 19 | 0.15% |
| Nuo | 740 | 5.86% |
| Opyn | 79 | 0.63% |
| rebalance | 4 | 0.03% |
Dharma is committed to carrying out the Retroactive Airdrop proposal. This includes proposing Phase 1, and, if Phase 1 is successful, proposing Phase 2.
If either Phase fails, we will accept that as the final determination of the Uniswap community. Should both Phases pass, we will not vote in favor of any further retroactive airdops.
Dharma is committed to being an active, engaged member of Uniswap governance, just as we have been in the Compound community. As a signal of this commitment, if this proposal passes, we will commit to:
The speed at which this is being pushed through is alarming and disgusting.
I urge those who want Uniswap governance to remain credible to vote NO on this proposal.
This proposal has been in discussion ad nauseam on these forums, on Twitter, and in the broader community for well over 5 weeks at this point.
There are legitimate, philosophical reasons to take issue with this proposal — the idea that this is being “rushed” is not one of those.
5 weeks on a protocol that may exist for a century is rushed.
And I understand why. The longer the wait the more decentralised the governance. It’s now or never. But that doesn’t change how horrible this is to deal with.
Stop this nonsense
Go and VOTE.
No one is stopping you from doing that.
What you call “nonsense” I call “checks and balances”.
I firmly believe this entire process is totally against the spirit of the UNI launch post for the reasons I’ve stated above.
Dharma (and other) users were not part of the Uniswap community nor were they on the Uniswap journey.
As evidenced above, the chance that any Dharma user even knew they were interacting with Uniswap is slim to none - let alone deserving of the full 400 UNI airdrop.
A complete sham and total subversion of the process. Vote NO.
Vote for Dharma.
12k user might be added to uni community in one way or other.
Dev’s that build on uni feel encouraged and work towards a greater good.
Maybe Dharma wasn’t the more explicit proxy through Uniswap, but some was more.
I used directly Uniswap post-1st septembre (3rd september actually), and believed I had already used it before… So after looking through my apps (MEW, Monolith, …) I discovered that I was in the Monolith (so going through ParaSwap) adresses.
I choose Uniswap, cause Uniswap looked more trustable than others… On my apps, it was more displayed than only a logo, and Dharma isn’t even the more respresentative of the phase 1 list.
So I delegate my ~41 UNI (40 that I bought + 1 I claimed from UNI pool rewards) to Dharma, cause I support this proposal, and I will do the same for the phase 2.
I will not convince you, because everyone seems stuck on their positions here, but everything I can say is that voting is governing, go against if you want, or support the proposal if you want.
At the end, if this proposal is accepted, some Dharma/MEW/… users will have the choice to claim, to sell, to hold, … their UNI, like had the first UNI holders.
I think it’s about fairness, at the initial drop some had able to claim the drop on multiples adresses, was it fair? no, but it couldn’t be avoided.
Here, for many users this could be more fair if this approval is accepted.
Maybe some will say “life is unfair”, yes it could be, more or less, but when you living under a dictatorship government, you don’t vote, it seems unfair. Here we can vote, even if we don’t have the same weight in the vote, so I don’t think I would vote to make things more unfair even for the small weight I represent.
this is pretty bad just looks like a group who missed out on free money wants their money, if this is all the “voting” is going to be used for then this is worthless
I think we can all agree with this assumption:
1 Dharma user != 1 Uniswap user
Yes. You may have used Dharma knowing it was Uniswap and supporting Uniswap. But we can say without doubt that this did not apply to 100.00% of Dharma users.
If you follow the objective rationale here, you will see that airdropping 400 UNI to a Uniswap user and 400 UNI to a Dharma user is imbalanced.
It is saying: “you may not knowingly used Uniswap and you may not even know what Uniswap is. But here’s 400 UNI tokens.”
Once again. This is not in the spirit of the UNI launch post which explicitly states that Uniswap users and community members will be “responsible stewards” of the Uniswap protocol.
For many users (Dharma, Argent and so forth), they did not fit the description. 50% might? 90% might? But not 100.00% as implied by the equal 400 UNI distribution.
look you guys missed out on free money its not the end of the world quit ruining the UNI eco system with your greedy AF proposals. Even if you guys do get the airdrop it wont be worth more then a couple bucks cause you will have destroyed the value of UNI
Let me get this straight. You think Dharma, with their reliance on the Uniswap protocol, missed out on the first airdrop? I’m fairly sure they have plenty of UNI, and yet they seem to want to dilute the value of it. That seems contrary to greedy to me. They will not be the receivers, theirs users will be.
exactly man at this point lets give uni to every breathing person in the world and dilute this coin down to nothing, sounds like a plan.
this will just tank the price into the ground man
Before the initial airdrop I think most of Uniswap users looked at UniSwap like a tool, not like a community, the community has been made by the airdrop and the UNI token creation.
This proposal concern users with a transaction BEFORE there was any community (before the 1st september, as did the initial airdrop).
Indeed 1 Dharma user isn’t 1 Uniswap user, and this will not be change by this proposal. As I said I’m a MEW user (without Uniswap transaction before 1st september on this one, so no reward on my MEW address) and a Monolith user (with one transaction on this side), so I don’t know exactly how works Dharma, but the rules of the airdrop as I understand it are stricts enough to keep this another airdrop in the spirit of the initial airdrop:
Before 1st september, people was using UniSwap because they needed to exchange some token without centralization… (yield farming, DeFi, …), I used it with Monolith cause they encourage their TKN token to avoid fees using their cards, and Uniswap was conveniently here (and back at these time I wasn’t a big user of Metamask). I wouldn’t trust someone telling that using Uniswap before 1st september was the act of joining a community (especially counting the failed transactions).
If Dharma valid transactions in this proposal look like my Monolith transaction ( https://etherscan.io/tx/0x4fbbedb9308aad2c9fe67f420fb2ef23289d68de94d6d861f6351e4a3282e9ac ), it’s doesn’t look against the initial airdrop spirit. (and if I quote TokenBrice from Monolith project on another thread of this proposal ( Application For Retroactive Proxy Contract Airdrop [For Projects / Apps] ) about how much end-user could profit from this proposal “The current estimation is around 200”). So yeah with ParaSwap and for Dharma/… there is much more end-user concerned by this… But it look fair enough to be supported, even if some deserve it maybe more than other… Because I think it’s better to handle this once for all than doing a proposal for each plateform later during months (and as the UNI amount required to be able to do a proposal isn’t small, it’s more fair for small project to be in this proposal than alone for making it’s own proposal).
It’s the second proposal on vote, and I’m not sure who is on the greedy side, some are against because this could make the price lower and prefer keeping the “initial community” closed, after some weeks only… Some probably want it just because 400 UNI free money and they will sell it as soon they claim it.
But there is wide more profiles than those 2 extremism, and I guess this could be benefict for the community to make it grow (it’s not because I support this proposal that I will sell my soul to Dharma or MEW or Monolith… And I could vote against their future proposals if I disagree with…)
What would be the worst case? Dharma telling SOME of their customers “hey you got 400 UNI thanks to us, go claim them”?
Even in this situation every users will not sell them directly after. I guess most of them will sell a part, and keep the other one to become part of the community and vote…
