That’s fair. I definitely want all concerns to be addressed. I just wish them to be unique and add something to the conversation. Yelling at each other over cash grab this or that is unproductive. If you feel someone echoes your point of view, please upvote them.
I am 100% for addressing fair concerns and making sure the methodology is bullet proof. I suppose I had been following the other threads, and feel confident the Univalent, Gauntlet, and Dharma teams are competent enough to make sure the airdrop is conducted smoothly and fairly.
I don’t mean to rush anything, take your time, I just like to see things moving forward.
Buckerino, a question - what did you think of the initial UNI airdrop?
I think most were in agreement with the choice that devs made to distribute UNI evenly to Uniswap users. Some positives with this approach include:
An even distribution of UNI, ideal for governance purposes.
Increased engagement from users who had little understanding of how DAOs and protocols work, and even less understanding of their place in the ecosystem.
Fairness. Users are the lifeblood of every protocol, and in the UNI airdrop they were duly rewarded for their usage.
The UNI airdrop expanded the Uniswap community, and increased awareness of the possibilities around permissionless, decentralised protocols.
So why is this airdrop different? It’s not. If anything, this airdrop would bring in a brand new swathe of participation, people who are even more green around the ears and have even more to learn.
Crypto is about empowering individuals with the tools to take ownership over their lives, but if we play the protectionist card then that ambition will be left unfulfilled. My two cents.
Hello! The methodology / logic can be found in the README here.
We worked with Argent to verify that all eligible wallets on their end are in our submitted list of addresses, and so Argent closed the PR on their side.
However, as there are now 2 phases, it seems like Argent’s PR was re-opened and merged, resulting in the duplicate addresses. See the PR here.
I can exclude all Argent addresses from our list, but given the composability of the projects, the more efficient method would be to aggregate all Phase 1 and Phase 2 addresses, then remove Phase 1 addresses from the Phase 2 addresses,
The initial airdrop was different just solely because of the fact that there was no dillution and no potential conflict of interest. Now, when UNI is publicly tradeable, you encounter a significant conflict of interest where people aim to take advantage of the free money to enrich themselves by taking advantage of millions of people who poured in their hard earned money into the token.I simply do not believe all of the actors here have honest intentions not to rob the current holders of UNI of value.
If it is voting power the actors are after, then adjust the proposal that the coins will be locked in a contract forever and cannot be sold and can used only for voting matters, but even then, I would not trust the people implementing that they exercise such a feat as they have a direct conflict on interest. No, no, and NO!
While initially I was for this proposal, I’m realizing that there are more complex aspects to this issue.
This would be unfair to people who were not a part of the initial airdrop, yet still bought the UNI token after the launch. Many of them were likely unaware of this proposal, and they bought seeing the value of this project to support it while also hoping to see returns. Since ‘fairness’, ‘not burning bridges’, and building ‘good faith’ within the community (specifically in reference to third party devs) was brought up earlier, I feel this same point should be acknowledged for those in the community supporting the project monetarily, whether individually or in a group.
The difference between proxy users and direct users may indicate the need for a difference in the airdrops, were this proposal to go through.
The best thing would have been for this to have all been accounted for in the beginning, so that it would have been a clean launch. Unfortunately this reminds me of the ETH fiasco that spawned ETH Classic. I think no matter what happens, unity is the most important thing, and that means considering the consequences for all sides, not just developers.
UNI tokens represent voting shares in Uniswap governance. You can vote on each proposal yourself or delegate your votes to a third party.
This isn’t a farming token and never was mentioned to ever be a farming token where people got that idea i’m not sure. The token was also not made as a money maker although it did have significant value when listed.
The token is a governance token representing a Voting Share in Uniswap Governance. Please can we stop discussions on how this is a cash grab and focus on the logic and merits of the Airdrop and logical queries such as @jumnhy question to the Dharma/relevant team(s).
With this criteria we should do 20 more airdrops, send UNI to every single Ethereum address… the line has to be drawn at some point, repeating the airdrop blurs everything
What hijacking are you taking about? it seems like you only want supporters of the proposal to voice their opinions, we shouldn’t limit ourselves to “make sure this is done right” we can also be against this entirely.
It has been said multiple times already, but if the argument is giving 3rd party users the ability to vote on the platform, the proposal should include a strong vesting schedule, and it doesn’t…
My point being the team has clearly laid out what their vision was for the token the fact it has since been twisted away from the original vision is a whole other conversation.
All voices of opinion are good her but this conversation has got waylaid to the point of ridiculousness. I re-quote the original post posted by @nadav_dharma
so the question is if this were just a governance token representing Voting Shares would you disagree to a second airdrop and for more people to be able to vote or would you limit it to just a small handful as I see it to be right now.
Crypto is about empowering individuals with the tools to take ownership over their lives, but if we play the protectionist card then that ambition will be left unfulfilled.
“ridiculousness” being “don’t agreeing with Dharma proposal”, I think the proposal is fundamentally wrong and I don’t see the point on arguing about details on the list of addresses or queries.
Of course I disagree with a second airdrop, for two reasons:
a) It dilutes voting power and the value of the share owners
b) It benefits primarily Uniswap competitors
It’s the same reason why Intel doesn’t dilutes his shares to give shares to AMD CPU buyers, because it makes no sense at all, nor from a “voting” perspective or from a financial perspective.
Crypto is about empowering individuals with the tools to take ownership over their lives
Dharma is a company, it has shareholders, why don’t they also dilute themselves for the common good? 1inch and Kyber both have a token, where is the discussion about airdropping those tokens to empower the life of individuals? It’s so easy to do charity with other peoples’ money
On the Uniswap Governance forum? Why would the discussion of another token happen on another companies Governance forums those discussions would be happening on those companies discussion forums surely?
I think personally in my opinion better to have more people who bring value to the platform be allowed to have a say and be allowed to vote on any prospective changes rather than just a select few.
There are also some big CEX that have a lot of Uni tokens right now so keeping the circle closed could actually end up causing more damage than one would think where as opening it could potentially be the difference to offsetting these big CEX from voting in something that could ideally ruin Uniswap and help the CEX’s
So in my opinion airdropping tokens to people who have used and brought value to the platform in the past both directly/indirectly in my opinion will open up the process and in the end show fairer decision making.
You are absolutely ignoring the points he made and you cherry pick sentences out of his main point. Where is your counter argument? He stated two valid points and you ignored them. You are just repeating the same over and over. I am flagging your response.
I have found something even more outrageous, most of these companies don’t mention Uniswap on their main pages at all
Kyber network
They don’t name Uniswap at all, neither on their main webpage or on the “swap” page, it always says Kyber everywhere, no sign of Uniswap
Dharma
This one is an obvious attempt of deception, if you go to https://dharma.io/ you will see a gigantic image, “Uniswap - Minus Metamask”, nice, so, they are supporting Uniswap after all?
The url of the image is https://www.dharma.io/static/media/uniswap_unicorn.e3af465e.png, this URL is supported by the WayBackMachine… and surprise! The image was uploaded the 18 of September, the day after Uniswap launched UNI
Most likely Dharma never mentioned Uniswap on their landing, until the UNI airdrop happen and they realised that they needed to show themselves as “Uniswap promoters”, so they rushed to add a big section mentioning Uniswap… @nadav_dharma care to comment on this?
Edit: This post has been hided for being “off-topic”, I don’t think this is off-topic, a 3rd party company is giving the appearance of being an “Uniswap friend” using deceptive techniques, this is direct evidence of that
Not an appropriate use of the flagging system and just causes unnecessary backlog for admins which is a suspendable offense admins have suspended accounts in the past for abusing the flagging system just a FYI
This is a complicated one which has a yes and no part to its answer.
Yes if its purpose was only for governance in my opinion it should never have been listed but then here comes the no part.
No because if it wasn’t listed then only airdrop holders would gain to vote which isn’t ideal again an open system where as many people who have used and brought value to the platform to be able to vote the better in my opinion really and airdropping to these people is a start with buying as another option if someone feels they wanted to have a say on Governance.
My main point is its main focus and topic of discussion I feel shouldn’t be “money” but “Governance”
I strongly suggest you use the services before you say incorrect things. Eidoo users are fully aware of which dex they are using for a specific pair as it is specified in the user interface from which dex passes the swap. At the moment the available dexes are Uniswap, Kyber, Bancor and we have provided the list of unique users who have used Uniswap proxy contracts. On GitHub, you will be able to find all the addresses that can be checked on Etherscan.
For long term prospects of the health of the project I overall agree with you.
I feel this cat is already out of the bag. Like you said it had to be listed, in order to function as a governance token. Its just unfortunate that since the token already launched and people have already invested, things get much less clear in terms of what the correct course of action would be.
What do you think about proxy users getting a different amount of voting power/tokens? I feel this may alleviate the problem on both ends.
The guidelines directly state that you should provide a counter argument to his argument. You have not provided a counter argument. Instead, you provided a knee jerk contradiction cherry picking sentences out of his point. How is that not an appropriate use of the flagging system? In my honest opinion, it is.
Also, you cannot have a discussion about governance solely when you have a token where people invested their money. That is my counter argument here to you saying it should be only about governance. I still feel like the main points @Pipo-Mandarina made remain not properly addressed by anybody…
