Better than having yes men… not a troll just trying to help there be clear, concise information but whatever if you really think Uniswap made this token to “Pay your fees” or whatever you want to think it to be you believe that.
you’re entitled to vote no like anyone else is entitled to vote yes/no no one is taking that away from you but lets try and get the discussion back on track and focus on the question of the post at hand
As far as I know these are all smart contract wallets. Same as Argent accounts which are smart contract wallets.
And same applies to DeFi Saver “Smart Wallets” (also known as DSProxies) which are smart contract wallets. We provided more context in terms of this in the readme file of our submitted list, as well as here on the forums previously.
For all intents and purposes the Smart Wallet/DSProxy is the user’s account when using DeFi Saver.
Hello all,
Just made an account to chime in here. Some may know me from reddit where I’m under the same tag.
This may be late in the process, but I’d like to voice a concern–I see that my address is listed both under Argent and through Kyber. This, of course, makes sense–I swapped tokens on Kyber using Uniswap liquidity with the front-end provided by Argent.
That said, my understanding was that these lists of accounts should be mutually exclusive; I believe Argent specified that their list was intended to be only unique, non-duplicative accounts, ie, accounts not already included on Kyber’s list.
I’m not a developer. I don’t have the technical wherewithal to audit the queries, simple though they may be, that generated these lists.
I may be a sample size of one, but my account is absolutely duplicated across these two eligibility lists.
@nadav_dharma, you have stated that your team was well suited to lead this proposal due to your technical expertise.
Can you give us some assurance, in light of the above, of how the expanded distribution will work? I’m not familiar with the exact mechanism, but I’d like to know that it won’t be as simple as “every address on all these projects’ lists gets 400 UNI” without any sort of error-checking, particularly with the 2-phase structure proposed for the distribution. My Argent wallet could/would get 400 UNI in phase 1–what’s to stop it from getting 400 UNI in phase 2?
@itamar_argent.xyz would love to hear y’all’s takes on this as well.
Again, I’m not intending to disparage the effort everyone has made on this proposal. However, if we want this to work, it’s got to go off as flawlessly as the initial drop. Re-visiting a one-time drop and making it a (potentially) three-time drop invites enough criticisms around bad precedent–any hint of a potential issue needs to be clearly and transparently addressed.
Thank you for your help, and I look forward to your replies.
Very honest of you to point out the mistake and not just choose to potentially leave it and exploit it seeing stuff like this will hopefully let people see that there are genuine good people behind these accounts and not just bots and contracts as some of the naysayers have falsely said without any proof. Hopefully this will help them to decide on/whether this drop would be a good idea or not
@jumnhy — your observation about duplicate addresses is indeed accurate, and there are many duplicates between various projects. In particular, single accounts end up interacting with multiple DEXes somewhat frequently. (It’s less common for user applications, where you find distinct smart wallets rather than EOA’s — for instance, there were no duplicate accounts between the Dharma address set and those of any other projects.)
That being said, each account is only included once in the final airdrop merkle root, even if it occurs in multiple projects, and phase two specifically excludes any accounts in phase one (just as both phases specifically exclude accounts that were part of the initial airdrop). I strongly encourage verification of this claim via inspection of the included accounts themselves!
Thanks, mate. I’m pretty agnostic about whether this drop is a good idea, myself, but if we’re going to do it, we need to make sure it’s done right.
@0age–Thank you for the clarification! I saw your post (would link, it’s in this thread, account too new) of the merkle root for both phases and checked my address there–can confirm that it appears on phase 1 but not phase 2.
Much appreciated.
Exactly! We at defi saver used uni through our smart wallets so we should also get the airdrop!
To the people saying that users who weren’t aware they were using Uniswap don’t deserve the airdrop: of course I was aware I was using Uniswap, I just used it through Dharma because they had lower fees and I already had a wallet there so it seemed convenient but in my mind I just wanted to use Uniswap and that’s what I thought I was doing so I was very disappointed when I tried to claim the airdrop and I didn’t have any tokens. So I believe this is a fair proposal and I hope enough people support it.
This proposal is just an utter cash grab aiming to dillute the current owners of the token. Anybody with a sane mind who invested into UNI believing in Uniswap´s future will not vote yes for this proposal.
The way I see it is that you are asking for a disproportional amount of UNI for a little less than 1 % of overall Uniswap “users” who, in reality, are people who ditched Uniswap for cheaper options and will jump ship the second another opportunity arises.
As a holder of a significant amount of UNI, I am utterly disgusted by this proposal and I will voice my opinion with a big fat NO as a vote. I do not understand how 37 addresses delegated their votes to Dharma totalling 15M uni in the first place to support such a blatant attempt to dillute current UNI holders. It is a disgrace really and you should all be ashamed that you are trying to steal other people´s money.
No one held a gun to your head and said “Invest in Uni” you made an active choice to invest. No one is robbing anyone otherwise you would ideally be saying anyone who go a free airdrop is robbing people of their money which is just untrue.
If you can’t deal with the crypto space probably best to get out now before you risk losing everything but again this isn’t financial advice and as always DYOR.
Hayden split his share among us, he did it willingly, now everybody who is trying to claim “airdrops” is just plain stealing.
This is a plan to dump on the current holders of UNI and as I have stated before, shame on anybody who defends this blatant theft.
I find your answer highly disrespectful by the way and offensive in every way.
I´d say your comment here violated the guidelines directly and thus should be flagged.
Be Agreeable, Even When You Disagree
You may wish to respond to something by disagreeing with it. That’s fine. But remember to criticize ideas, not people . Please avoid:
Instead, provide reasoned counter-arguments that improve the conversation.
Do you work for Hayden? what is your position in the company? would love to know if this is @haydenadams view.
Very clearly someone has spend a lot of today making new account to clearly try and swing voting for this matter to 1 side this should really be investigated and if this is a single person their IP address should be banned and handed over to police
Your post presented a verbal personal attack on me implying violence and threat of financial ruin. I´d like moderators to intervene as this forum should not have any tolerance for such barbaric, improper, and utterly uncivil behavior which does not contribute to the debate.
I don’t think his goal was to attack you, but either way the tone of this conversation isn’t encouraged on this forum. We should move on and keep conversation civil and productive. Please refer to the rules in the future: Uniswap Governance Forum Rules
Otherwise we’ll have to hide / remove posts and do whatever else is necessary to preserve the signal to noise ratio here.
My apologies Kolten if my words were against Governance rules I will try to be more mindful of what I post and the way it could be interpreted in the future. I did not mean any attack on anyone but I could see how it could possibly be misinterpreted looking back on it now
Thanks for your assistance in this 
This conversation has really devolved. I suggest addressing any unique objections like double checking for duplicates, and unless there are any other objections other than “Cash grab!”, I recommend moving on with the vote.
If the main voting delegates decide to vote yes, people have 24 hours to withdraw their votes. At this point it seems like the discussion has been exhausted.
There are lots of issues with this @lauracroft123. I have asked very valid questions and got no responses. I will be thoroughly disappointed and surprised if this even comes close to passing in it’s current state.
My concern about duplicated addresses has been addressed to some extent by @0age; however, I’d still appreciate an ongoing discussion around due diligence in the distribution.
And while I agree that nothing productive has been added to the conversation in the last few hours, flag the posts and move on. As I said above, if UNI voters want to do this, we need to make sure it’s absolutely bulletproof.
There’s no need to rush the voting process. Governance doesn’t go live until Oct. 17th. I understand that everyone is eager to get UNI they didn’t have before, but that’s a hard-coded limit.
I still welcome responses from @itamar_argent.xyz and @Anyhowclick as to the validity and logic behind their respective platform’s lists–particularly as Argent’s list was initially touted as unique/distinct from Kyber’s.