[Proposal] Excluded Proxy Contract Airdrop — Phase 1

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.

1 Like

this will just tank the price into the ground man

1 Like

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…

2 Likes

Who has voted for Dharma last time, does he need to vote again for Phase1?

1 Like

I think that if you’re voting power is still delegated to Dharma in uniswap app, you should probably not have to change something about this. If you vote on your own, you will need to vote again.

(by the way, I didn’t vote the previous proposal but it wasn’t the same purpose)

I had handed over my last vote to Dharma Delegate and since then there has been no change in Delegate! From what you told me it seems that now you will not have to vote again.

1 Like

Yes and that is why not 100% of Dharma users are getting the airdrop, only those who were users of UniSwap are included in this. Same with every other wallet included in the list shared by @nadav_dharm

If every single Dharma user was due to get UNI then I could sympathise with you and agree that’s not right, however you can do a quick check on their app store page and see they have well over 10,000 users of their Android application alone and not including their iOS application user numbers.

Dharma doesn’t even have the most amount of UniSwap users who will benefit from this proposal, as you can see from the table below, the most amount of users to benefit would be those who used UniSwap via MEW.

Project Accounts % of total
MEW 4278 33.90%
Argent 3418 27.09%
Dharma 2833 22.45%

Here’s a couple of key vital extracts from that post.

15% of UNI 150,000,000 UNI can immediately be claimed by historical liquidity providers, users, and SOCKS redeemers/holders based on a snapshot ending September 1, 2020, at 12:00 am UTC.

There’s nothing explicit there saying that the end users must be aware they are using the UniSwap protocol and quite frankly, I doubt the UniSwap team care if they are aware, at the end of the day it’s more impressive KPI numbers for them and those are the numbers make UNI increase in value which is what we all want as UNI holders right?

400 UNI are claimable by each address that has ever called the Uniswap v1 or v2 contracts. This includes ~12,000 addresses that have only ever submitted failed transactions — love you guys.

Have all of the users in this proposals called the UniSwap v1 or v2 contracts? YES.

At this stage I am convinced @UniT is just trolling.

6 Likes

Paraswap has been excluded from Phase 1, while Monolith (which uses Paraswap) seems to be in. Is there a reason for this?

Notice how you’ve not made any sense?
You call 5 weeks on a proposal a rush?
Dharma is taking its time and delivering as they have promised. If you don’t like it, vote against it and leave. Quit crap talking the proposal.

The reason is explained on the Github account:

19 adresses of Monolith user (mine isn’t in this one), wasn’t in the ParaSwap adresses, for a not well known reason (anyway, 19 adresses that you could check by yourself to find the transaction)

On the Monolith case, all adresses could have been in phase one, due to the nature of their integration.
But as ParaSwap is a DEX, they have been relayed to the phase 2 I think. And instead of changing the ParaSwap list to exclude Monolith adresses and put them in phase 1, it has been choose to exclude from Monolith list the ParaSwap adresses.

I will be voting in favour of phase 1 and against phase 2.

I don’t believe there’s a significant number of people who’ve used dex aggregators but never interacted with uniswap directly.

I’ve used kyberswap on a few occasions in the past however on these occasions eth2dai has provided the liquidity for the trade, not uniswap. I did nothing differently to people who would be entitled to the airdrop in phase 2, however wouldn’t be entitled to receive any tokens.

On other occasions I’ve used both dex.ag and 1inchexchange, however after seeing that 100% of the trade would go through uniswap anyway, I’ve decided to make the trade directly through uniswap.

Either:

Users that use Uniswap via aggregators/proxies are considered equal to any other user, charged a fee for their trade and their volume is counted towards the platforms overall volume, in which case they should have been included in the airdrop and not including them was an oversight.

Or:

They are not considered users, in which case they should not be included in the airdrop, their Uniswap fees should be refunded and their volume excluded from metrics as they are not considered users of the platform.

1 Like

I posted my take on Twitter a few days ago but have tried to sum up my position as best I can in a video.

I hope this adds something to the discussion:

1 Like

I am in favour of this and will vote yes

if the previous user get again phase 2 uni airdrop then it will be injustice with the new user.

The voting ended about 8 hours earlier than stated on the official voting page at https://app.uniswap.org. This same issue caused Proposal #1 to be defeated by a slim margin. This is a significant procedural error that calls into question the validity of the result IMO.

Proof: https://twitter.com/RootPhish/status/1322298930793730049

For all we know, there could have been large accounts which could have been waiting till the last minute to vote at 8:53 CET, but the vote actually ended at 00:53 CET. In any election, if some voters did not get the opportunity to vote because the official literature misstated the time that the polls closed, the election would be declared invalid.

For this reason, Dharma should be released from its commitment not to re-propose phase #1 of the retroactive airdrop.

1 Like

Regardless of the result that timer was very misleading indeed. I hope new proposals would have a block timer link in their description preferably on the first paragraph.

1 Like

Agree - voter suppression either way is not a desirable result.
Although I am personally FOR the proposal, if this suppressed AGAINST voters, this is equally bad.
Regardless of how one might argue that “code is law” and it should’ve been up to the voters to read the smart contract themselves, it should be reasonable to expect that the official Uniswap frontend provides correct information.

1 Like

God I hope they stop hindering uniswap with more proposals so we can actually move on and get some good things going for uni

7 Likes