Whatever be the outcome of this effort, Uniswap has succeeded in uniting various Devs from different projects under one forum and it is great to have all these Devs from different projects like 1inch, Dharma, Argent, Kyber, DexAG, Furucombo, 0x, Mew, Defi Saver, Eidoo, etc., (@Jay-Prime, @mounir_paraswap, @varundeshpande, @nadav_dharma @hsuanting, @itamar_argent.xyz, @easyswaptrade, @bannplayer, @Anyhowclick, @deacix, etc.,) who are fighting hard for their community members, as part of the Uniswap community! It is good to collaborate rather than compete in the field of DeFi, in order to be able to take on the might of the Centralized Exchanges! Uniswap is a great project and has been extremely generous in rewarding its community members! This is extremely positive for the project to have all these great developers of the DeFi space taking active part in the discussions and hope this will continue to be the shape of things going forward, not just for the Airdrop for their individual community members, but for all governance issues of Uniswap going forward. I see a bright future ahead for Uniswap and UNI with this kind of participation! We can never see this happening in real life. Can you ever imagine executives and top shareholders of GOOG. APPL, AMZN and FB getting together and deciding about the governance issues of MSFT? I love this collaborative openness in the DeFi space. Truly Amazing! It augurs well for the financial health of Uniswap and for the strengthening of the project and the entire DeFi space going forward!
Just wanted to provide a bit of context on any overlap between addresses that we submitted vs what 0x submitted in terms of swaps made on Uniswap by DeFi Saver users.
The list of accounts we submitted as the accounts affected at DeFi Saver are only accounts that interacted with Uniswap via our UniswapWrapper. (Meaning the chain of accounts and contracts within the transaction that goes TxSender > UserDSProxy > DFS UniswapWrapper > Uniswap.)
Any list of accounts provided by 0x would have been from transactions that were TxSender > UserDSProxy > DFS 0xWraper > 0x > Uniswap. And we’ve also seen some DeFi Saver user accounts included by Kyber for transactions that were TxSender > UserDSproxy > DFS KyberWrapper > Kyber > Uniswap, for example.
While we didn’t consider these other cases eligible, it is definitely true that these, too, were initiated from an app integration, though there was additional routing involved.
If there’s any additional information that we can provide to help in drawing a better line we’re definitely available.
@hazucf @fulviamorales — depending on how quickly delegation accumulates, there may still be time to modify and redeploy the phase one merkle distributor. A prerequisite to this would be to prepare a script to retrieve relevant accounts and submit a PR for each project to the repo as soon as possible.
@coffice — It does seem like this transaction would be valid under phase two, assuming it isn’t already part of the original airdrop. Can you take a look at 1inch’s submission script and see if you can a) work out why this account wouldn’t be included in the query and b) if there’s a modification to that script that would catch it?
Vadim from Zerion here, wanted to follow up on Fulvia’s and John’s message.
We confirm that many of our users facilitated trades using 0x API to get better prices. Much of that volume went through Uniswap. We can provide a breakdown for Zerion users used 0x API.
We also allow users to claim UNI tokens directly within our interface. So they will see the reward instantly within the interface.
This is indeed amazing, and just to be clear - this claim is not because we think it’s our “right” but we believe it’s the right thing to do since as a community we are protecting each other and solely this feeling of belonging is already positive for the ecosystem as a whole.
I hope Uniswap and other users find it legitimate.
Kindest regards,
EasySwap
Why would a UniSwap token holder vote for this? You are essentially voting with your money, that you want someone else to get free money.
What is someone else going to do when they get a free airdrop? Obviously dump it on the market.
This proposal is no way beneficial to $UNI token holders.
The idea behind the first airdrop was to broadcast to crypto community about the $UNI token. Now it doesn’t make sense to airdrop, as everyone know about it already.
You see $UNI as money - we, product providers see as voting power and a way to benefit other users by protecting their funds against RUG PULLING, I see quite a benefit here but I understand it’s a hard battle to win.
Developers building products on UNI have other economical incentives in the first place - that’s why they go for building products on it, etc.
I don’t see a reason why you should get the airdrop, considering that’s not the purpose of it. The purpose of the airdrop is to create initial buzz, not to get someone wealthy (even though there were singular cases).
I don’t see a problem if we decide to take all these unclaimed $UNI and put it in a pool, where token holders get to vote which developers should get what $UNI amount, for providing help in the ecosystem.
I don’t believe you should be rewarded by the initial rules of the airdrop though.
You keep talking about money incentives. For us, UNI is nothing more than a voting slip
my point is: ALL token providers were rewarder. No exception, but those who were locking their liquidity on a vaul for the benefit of the buyers can’t withdraw. I think the team can be sensible to the topic.
I think you are not considering the implications the price has on a project.
A successful token price leaves a large community with big interest. The moment price goes to shit, the community leaves and everyone loses interest.
I’m not saying we should speculate, but distributing 40M USD worth of $UNI today may have a much bigger (negative) price impact rather than it was distributed on a day one, because of reduced volumes.
If it was the voting slip for you, you’d be providing liquidity on Uniswap already and getting the free UNI.
I don’t see a reason why arbitrage addresses should get free UNI, etc. Moreover, I don’t think a developer needs to have more tokens because he’s building products on UNI.
I treat UNI like stock - it gives us voting power, and I wouldn’t want people who have received large quantities of free UNI tokens to vote for decisions that benefit them (or don’t make sense), where I, who put hundreds of thousands of dollars into UNI should pay for it.
It is my understanding, that as long as you bought or sold on UNI prior to Sept 1, you should have received the tokens. If you provided liquidity other than in Uniswap, you didn’t get free UNI tokens, and it’s your own fault that you didn’t provide directly with Uniswap. What’s the issue?
Oh, I see your point now.
The thing is that my issue in particular is not the proxy one. On my case I simply locked the Liquidity tokens on a vault so that the team can’t pull the rug- that’s it. We are talking about a minimal quantity of tokens that are locked there considering the airdrop.
these tokens can never be used
so I think there would be no harm to the community and no considerable price impact if those tokens are considered burned and new tokens issued to the contract owners. Why is that such a big issue?
I don’t see a problem in your particular case, if they would be burned and re-issued.
I see a problem, however, rewarding other excluded wallets, as the first post suggests.
Understanding developer sentiment and building in public are what today’s projects are all about. Rightly incentivizing the developers to build on top is important to accumulate the reach.
Expecting to win this, though it looks a really tough battle. @nadav_dharma even if we lose this, we would have won the battle to bring devs together on the same page.
devs, unite - and give power to the people!
We submitted a new PR for Matcha users and are working with the Zerion and DeFi Saver teams so they can submit the addresses that interacted with Uniswap through their 0x API integration.
Where can we see how many votes have been delegated?
My hypothesis might be wrong but I find it hard to believe it is: If someone used a DEX aggregator they were highly likely to also have used Uniswap independently. All of the DEX aggregators I did use and I probably would receive some additional UNI if this proposal passed from them. However, anyone that is using a DEX aggregator and didn’t independently use Uniswap; I have to think we are talking about a niche segment of users there. I’m not sure the intention of the distribution was to reward users that used multiples addresses. Sorry if it is resolved already somewhere in the thread, but did anyone from the Uniswap team comment on this? It may well be that DEX aggregators were intentionally left out. I would want to have a look through the addresses to investigate how much recycling of addresses was happening and how many links to trading with Uniswap independently there were with addresses.
Actually it’s because we are a niche segment of users that this proposal can be acceptable.
On my situation (and I guess it’s the most common here):
I used Uniswap through Monolith (so through Paraswap) in August, because I like having a wallet with my private key on my smartphone, I think it’s an important vector for Ethereum economy.
Then, I used Uniswap directly the 3rd september. But I feel like I could be a member of the UniSwap community as I used it (through a proxy) before. On the Monolith app, I choose to use UniSwap for swapping tokens, so it’s not like we didn’t choose Uniswap, I wasn’t ever aware of this proxy thing or Paraswap existence but I known that UniSwap was here.
So I think it should be the right thing, we are not that much, so the impact shouldn’t be that bad.
And it’s not even sure that every adresses on the list will claim their UNI. I think that you could reduce the list and amount of UNI used by letting the owners of addresses asking before the proposal if they are interested for “claiming” their UNI by themself proving their interest without letting the app tell them “hey you maybe got UNI”.
Afterall, I’m here, I bought and staked UNI After the 15th, I haven’t be able to claim any UNI on my addresses, and one of my address is on the ParaSwap list.
I think it’s fair to users like me to receive some UNI coins.
And as I said, you should let users claiming to be on a definitive list proposal if they are in one of the lists on the Github. So less UNI reserved, less UNI claimed, less impact on prices, more fairness in the distribution for member that could have the right to vote and would like to participate in UNI governance.
You could also be in the segment of users that used it beyond sep 1st for which there is another thread wanting another airdrop for the time between then an launch. 90% of the addresses are associated with Kyber. I don’t think your story is really representative of the question being posed here. I think the community needs to consider the Kyber end user solely; just the way the proposal is layed out. Everything else is just along for the ride with what the community thinks happened with Kyber end users. Wouldn’t really make sense in my view to assess the smaller aggregators and use that to make a decision when Kyber is 9/10th of the substance.
I can be more sympathetic towards the application integrations where I think there would be less overlap, but even then, not sure. Think the OP is making a big assumption that these cohorts were left out unintentionally. Think it’s a very valid point that if you didn’t use Uniswap directly you were primarily using some other service. Like lets say 1inch releases a governance token distribution to it’s users, are Uniswap users conversely going to get rewarded for being used by 1inch? I think it’s reasonable that the lines had to be drawn somewhere.