This proposal is about one thing and one thing only. MONEY! That’s it’s. MONEY. A cash grab. That’s all it is.
I was one of the lucky ones that used multiple addresses. Did I deserve to be rewarded over and above what I “deserved?” NO! Because I didn’t deserve anything.
I also have multiple addresses I used on other platforms that now want an airdrop. Do I deserve to be rewarded even more? NO! I and thousands of other were lucky. LUCKY! That’s all it is. LUCK. A decision was made by those who created Uniswap and their investors.
No one is stopping the platforms that want UNI for their users from airdropping their own tokens. If they do you can bet they won’t be rewarding Uniswap users and why should they? They can have their own airdrops with September 15th as the cutoff date, but guess what? There will be thousands of people saying it’s unfair because everyone should get and airdrop up until the date of the announcement.
You’ll even have more unhappy people threatening not to use their platforms if they don’t get what they want. Any airdrops by these platforms that want UNI will be full of people gaming the system that started to create multiple addresses on as many different platforms as possible after UNI announced their airdrop in anticipation of a copy cat airdrop like UNI’s.
Life isn’t fair. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. No one deserves anything including me.
Doesnt matter anyway based on comments made by Marco a moderator who made a post on instructions on how to claim the airdrop there are no more planned airdrops and most importantly that this forum moves on to the correct thing of talking about governance discussions going forward rather than focusing on the past airdrop.
We are pleased to learn that there is a sufficient amount of UNI delegated to allow a vote to now pass. Additionally, Dharma is now the #1 delegate in terms of UNI and, with 15.4M UNI of backing, are able to deploy the first proposal as we please.
The delegate distribution, however, is fairly concentrated amongst the top 3 delegates: Dharma, Gauntlet, and Univalent.
Before we go and bring the proposal to a vote, we want to invite our colleagues at Gauntlet and Univalent to air any blocking concerns with this proposal in this thread. We’d rather surface and address concerns in the open before the vote is started. @tarun@andre.cronje
Context
The following links, in sequence, will give you the background, community discussion, and process we’ve undertaken around the proposal thus far:
The spirit of the airdrop: It’s very clear that the intention of the airdrop was to retroactively reward early users of Uniswap with financial upside and skin-in-the-game in Uniswap’s future. The omission of users who interacted with Uniswap via proxy contract interfaces — many of whom were simply not comfortable with the technical hurdle of using Metamask — seems incongruous with this intention
Precedent for developer-friendliness: Seamless composability is a core competence & value-prop for Uniswap — it is very much in the interest of UNI holders to have more and more interfaces and money legos built on top of Uniswap. Excluding the users of products that took entrepreneurial bets building on Uniswap sets a sour precedent for the very builders Uniswap ought to court in the future. As I’ve previously written: the status quo has unfortunately punished our users and eroded our reputation with them — future builders will heed the signal and precedent set by how the Uniswap community addresses this. Rectifying this omission will send the exact opposite, powerful precedent: Uniswap is a community that rewards builders & risk-takers.
Process rigor & community will: We have conducted the entire process of soliciting community discussion, compiling lists of affected user addresses, and verifying said addresses with maximal transparency. We’ve given ample room for the community to provide feedback, and a cursory read of the above threads will attest to our belief that the broad majority of the community is supportive of, at the very least, Phase 1.
Happy to answer any questions or comment on any philosophical / technical concerns you all may have!
As the two phases make emphasis on the end-user context (app or dex), is couldn’t have been more accurate or possible to put Monolith user through ParaSwap into the Phase 1 instead of mixed them with DEX in Phase 2?
I am not a Dharma user but as a user of Argent and with multiple 1inch accounts this proposal would benefit me. But in my opinion it is not in the spirit of the original airdrop.
Why airdrop to users that weren’t aware they were using Uniswap? To quote from the UNI launch 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.
Trading through a proxy contract was not joining the Uniswap journey. It was using the Uniswap protocol without engaging with it. To proxy users, Uniswap itself was an inconvenience or a tool to partially route a larger trade.
These users were not engaged with Uniswap in the same way as Uniswap app users.
I would vote NO on this proposal, but would be interested for modifications and may be more willing to vote YES if the amount airdropped was reduced to reflect the alignment differences between app users and proxy users.
Very well put. Pretty much think the same. Fully agree about the point of the user knowing being an important distinction. For Dharma my understanding was that the user did know they were directly using Uniswap through their interface, but have also never used it myself. I hope that Dharma do not make a proposal with a load of apps bunched in. If I disagree with even one of the apps claiming the airdrop I will vote no on the entire proposal.
If we distribute 400 UNI Tokens to each, that would be over 5 million UNI tokens (worth over $17 mln at the time of writing this post).
You keep playing this “precedence for developer support” card, but I don’t think 17 million reward is adequate.
As I mentioned before, nobody here is saying that developers shouldn’t be supported and rewarded. We don’t know how many of those wallets belong to developers (because maybe they used hundreds for testing purposes, etc…?).
If you want developer rewards - it would be more fair if you created a separate proposal asking for rewards, for building tools to the ecosystem.
17 million dollar selling pressure is very unhealthy to the token price. I will vote no.
The main reason I used Kyber Swap was because of Uniswap integration. In fact I knew my transaction would run over Uniswap v2, I just didn’t want to route the trade manually through multiple trades - I thought might as well let Kyber figure the intricacies of the trade out.
This proposal and services integrated with Uniswap provide liquidity, tx volume, and a crazy amount of trading fees to Uniswap protocol.
I would encourage UNI voters to support this proposal and vote for DEX to receive the same right as other uniswap users - to me it only feels fair and I genuinely feel cheated out of the original UNI airdrop.
Just thought I would share my experience / 2-cents.
Its interesting how you registered just before writing this post.
We would love to see your particular case with more depth - could you be so kind and share your ETH wallet address so that the rest of the community can witness your particular case with more detail?
Otherwise, words coming from a freshly registered account, particularly supporting a much-disapproved suggestion look a little bit odd
Every point of view should be considered in this particular matter and everyone should be able to voice their opinion as this could be the one and only case where an airdrop of significance could happen.
The question at hand is a vital one which is should people who used Uniswap and its contracts through other means such as a DEX aggregator get UNI to which I would vote yes so long as they are within the original terms i.e. used the platform before the cut off of Septmeber 1st @ 12 and that their address was not also originally on the original list and they have not already claimed through app.uniswap.org.
I think using the age of an account to draw doubt upon someone’s character should not be used a way to discriminate against someone. Yes it’s very evident that some people are abusing the system and creating multiple accounts to bring a false sense to this forum but really it doesnt matter as what matters are the people who hold UNI who are the ones voting on it and really getting the final say on whether this goes through or not not the people making multiple accounts on the forum unless they are holding UNI in which cases they are as entitled to voice their opinion and vote as anyone else in this forum.
Let’s not descend this forum into some sort of dictatorship let’s try to maintain open conversation and talk about the topic at hand so that people voting can have a clear idea on a whole view of the situation to vote on
To close my view is
Future Airdrops in general = No
Dharma Airdrop so long as they’re within the terms = Yes
The risk is that this “false sense” with fake accounts can persuade many people in the wrong direction - that’s the goal behind people acting this way.
I respect everyone’s opinion, and since I had doubts, I asked if one can prove their claims. Honestly, I’d love to learn how the “average” profile of kyber user looks like. If he’s done 100 of trades on Kyber to Uniswap, I may reconsider my opinion on the airdrop, because now I think most addresses have only made a few trades and are mostly trying to exploit the situation (i.e. one person owning 5 wallets, etc.)
P.S. Is it possible to see the list of addresses that are being included in this airdrop? I’d love to analyze and compile a list of an average wallet.
I can understand your view of a risk of false sense persuading people in the wrong direction but I also think openness is as important and voting upon facts not accounts something I would hope evryone here voting would do.
To address this part of your comment no one could willingly and knowingly abuse the system by creating more wallets so long as it stays withing the original terms i.e. only reward users who used a DEX aggregator or exchange listed on the list of exchanges before the cut off of 1st september (Something I feel very important to maintain to keep a level field unless regular people after that date were also going to get another airdrop (a can of worms I think shouldn’t be opened right now))
In saying that many people even on the regular airdrop have come out and said they had multiple addresses they claimed on already so if people on the regular airdrop who happened to have multiple addresses could claim multiple claims why should people who used Dharma before the 1st September who also happen to have multiple wallets be treated any differently?
In terms of the list of addresses being included I think @nadav_dharma collected them in another post and included it somewhere before but again not sure if it was in this post or another but I’m sure they should be able to produce a list again of all wallets as they will need it anyway to know who to allow to claim if this is passed.
One of my fears, is that there’s little “control” how the addresses are being suggested.
I would appreciate if @nadav_dharma would share the list of all wallet addresses that would receive the airdrop, if this policy ends up being voted as a YES.
