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:
- at least one transaction before the 1st september.
- the unicity is the end-user address, not the proxy<->end-user transaction, … So end-user address can only claim once 400 UNI.
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…