[Proposal] Excluded Proxy Contract Airdrop — Phase 1

Proposal Discussion
151

My follow up to you would be did you buy in the interest of gaining profit/farming and or speculative comments on the future price of Uni or did you buy in the interest of Governing and having a say on the platform and the direction it takes in the future? (if you’re comfortable answering that question).

Some people may have invested because they have used Uniswap in the past or more recently, liked the platform and wish to suggest or maybe even make a change they think would find useful to the wider Uniswap community.

We don’t know anyone’s intentions here. Everything me, you or anyone says is just guessing really the only way to know is to have friendly, calm discussion and maybe even poll in here followed by a follow up vote on the Snapshot page where only token holders can vote to see the consensus before finally possibly putting it forward for the real vote on the vote page of app.uniswap.org

Also this is not a general forum price discussion is more general discussion than governance discussion and should really be put in the Uniswap discord (think admins would agree)

152

I personally wouldn’t have any objection to reviewing the amount of tokens being reconsidered if the community at large felt it to be the right thing to do. I think this is where discussion on the precise topic is important and should be covered/discussed before this goes to vote on whether we feel they should have the opportunity to get the same amount as the official airdrop or not

153

A snapshot of this proposal has already been made and was heavily rejected. You can see it on the snapshot page.

I am more than comfortable answering that question. UNI is an investment vehicle with governance aspect. So both of these things are intertwined and cannot be treated separately. I think its highly likely that people who bought the token think along a similar line. It is incredibly selfish to discard the people who have vested the most amount of trust you can possibly put into a project. Snapshot results also reflect this by the way.

With this comment, I would like to invite @nadav_dharma to offer further clarity regarding the waybackmachine accussation because it is outrageous.

3 Likes
154

That’s fair and hopefully Nadav can now answer the new questions that have been posed to Dharma which may or may not in turn change peoples votes. A lot has been presented since that original vote I think if a lot of new information has been presented or another “shoot/stem” as it is is presented a new vote would need to be had to see the current view again and confirm that people still wish to vote the same way in my opinion :slight_smile:

155

My post showing how Dharma edited their landing after the Uniswap airdrop (they added an “Uniswap” section), has been flagged by the community. Why hide a post like that? It’s direct evidence that Dharma is not being honest here… unless the post has been flagged by Dharma-followers

156

Dharma posted a link to a tweet from July 30th prominently advertising their Uniswap integration in the application thread which is linked in the OP under ‘How’. I would suggest people thoroughly examine the applications from each app before throwing around baseless accusations of deception.

As for the snapshot, it is less than 50k votes, around 0.1% of currently delegated UNI or 0.3% compared to those delegated to dharma who presumably support the proposal, suggesting that it is a useful gauge of opinion is ridiculous.

Personally I am for the phase 1 distribution but not phase 2, integrations of uniswap in apps provide volume, fees and ultimately extra value to Uniswap and this is a relatively cheap way to heavily encourage that.
I think it is worth noting that users in app integrations may be more ‘loyal’ than those using uniswap through a browser when new competitors appear since they tend to value convenience over minimal fees or other perks and the use of the platform may be abstracted anyway.

I do not support a drop to DEXs such as Kyber or 1inch however as there is no risk of them not implementing uniswap integration (it is in their own interest to do so) , they simply go where the liquidity is and their added volume is incidental.
Disclosure: I hold/have purchased UNI and would benefit from this proposal on 1 address in P1 and 2 addresses on P2

157

I am not saying that Dharma integration didn’t existed, what I am saying is that before the UNI drop Dharma didn’t advertised Uniswap on their main landing page… the 18 of September they added it. To me that seems more like a move to appear more “Uniswap friendly” and swing the opinion of UNI holders, not really a deal breaker, but it shows bad intentions.

I think the opposite, if an Uniswap competitor appears any of the app integrations can switch backend without their users even noticing, they are using “Dharma” or “MEW”, not really Uniswap, if suddenly Dharma offers them better rates, why bother changing wallets?

One solution could be that these apps sign an exclusivity contract with Uniswap, and only then we procede with the airdrop. Something like: “Dharma can only offer token swap services exclusively through Uniswap, for the next x years”

1 Like
158

If there ever was a snapshot done already, I see no point in using it as an argument here. It was certainly not publicly promoted and it was surely not participated in by a huge part of the UNI holders and certainly not by some of the larges current delegates - Dharma and Yuni.finance.

The argument that Dharma updated their website in order to influence the voting for this proposal honestly does not make sense. They integrated Uniswap and trading in general only months ago (July, iirc) and it is only natural that they are gradually updating their landing pages and marketing as they keep adding new features built around Uniswap. For example, they introduced limit orders via Uniswap yesterday, a feature that is not available with the Uniswap frontend. How one can see these developments as non-beneficial for the core Uniswap protocol is beyond me.

More importantly, though, another thing that appears to be overlooked by most arguing against a follow-up airdrop for proxied users is that these UNI would go to actual end users. Not to Dharma and not to DeFi Saver (whose users I’m representing here for the most part, though some have joined the discussion, too) and not to any other team’s account - but specifically to end users.

In terms of DeFi Saver, the Uniswap integration went live in July 2019, at a time when DEXes were still not that popular and were certainly not enjoying the spotlight that they do now. Users like those from DeFi Saver made millions upon millions of volume and helped the Uniswap protocol grow and reach the success it’s enjoying today.

I fail to see how including these users in the proposed airdrop is against the original idea of the UNI aidrop that aimed to include everyone who helped Uniswap protocol attain its current status, but I am following this thread for any arguments that oppose that.

1 Like
159

It is against the original idea of UNI because they WERE NOT included. If they were part of the original idea, they WOULD have been included regardless of an “innocent” overlook or not. Airdropping more to end users of these companies, when the token is publicly traded, is a disgrace as you are exposing people to potential loss of value.

I find the snapshot a valuable piece of evidence as you can see the power of the small UNI holders who actually have skin in the game. Even if Dharma voted for the proposal, they will still lack a considerable amount of UNI to pass it through so every single token counts.

I still have not seen anybody address the issues Pipo, shitcoingambler, and others raised…

160

You may not know this, but many users of apps that are not the Uniswap default frontend have already received the UNI airdrop. Would you say that those should not have received the airdrop either? Because the fact that they did signals that the goal of the airdrop was to reach all the accounts that interacted with Uniswap protocol, disregarding the end interface used.

Additionally, three of DeFi Saver smart contracts received the original UNI airdrop. We are almost absolutely certain that the goal there was to reach the end accounts whose funds were actually being swapped via Uniswap (and whose addresses we submitted for this proposal) but the technical solution that was used to prepare a list of accounts was not adjusted to skip through these proxy contracts that some of the apps utilizing Uniswap have in place.

What would be “skin in the game” in this case? Usage of the Uniswap protocol? Because in that case there’s no difference between accounts that already received the UNI airdrop and those that are being proposed to receive it here.

I believe you are trying to argue that users of Uniswap = users of the app.uniswap.org frontend which I don’t consider to be valid, in the light of previously mentioned included accounts that used Uniswap protocol outside of it and, ultimately, the actual concept of decentralized exchanges which are meant to be accessible through a number of means and not a singular website.

The “end users of these companies” as you call them are users of decentralized exchanges and decentralized finance protocols that decided to use a different UI to interact with Uniswap. If we’re looking at DeFi Saver, those are for example users who prefer to use our one app for quicker, more convenient leverage management instead of using the Oasis app and Uniswap separately. Their goal is to interact with these protocols in the way they find preferrable. I would argue that they are ultimately and consciously primarily users of the underlying protocols.

It sounds like you are suggesting that the primary idea of the original aidrop was to provide participants with monetary value, whereas I would argue that the goal was to distribute voting power and help kick-start a decentralized governance for the Uniswap protocol.

However, I naturally cannot speak on behalf of the Uniswap team and stand to be corrected by any one of them.

2 Likes
161

From looking at the ongoing discussion I think it can safely be said that there was not infact a very clear no to this proposal and that it very much still needs a lot further discussion as only a subset of holders actually knew about the vote.

Surprised the vote closed would be interested to know who and what controls how long a vote on the snapshot page is open for is it decided by the creator or is it automatic.

I suggested the same thing above and have similar thoughts as you good to see someone else on a similar thought pattern to me it’s a governance token yet a lot of people seemed to assume it was for monetary value or for farming which was not at all suggested anywhere on the original announcement page (https://uniswap.org/blog/uni/)

I quote this from the Uni announcement page

Community-led Growth

Since its inception, the Uniswap Protocol (”Uniswap”) has served as trustless and highly decentralized financial infrastructure.

Inspired by Ethereum’s vision, we have long committed to the ideals of permissionless access, security, and immutability, all indespensable components for a future where anyone in the world can access financial services without fear of discrimination or counterparty risk.

Now rivaling centralized incumbents on daily volume, Uniswap’s success to date — achieved without involvement of the core development team since deployment — indicates that there is considerable demand for permissionless financial services.

In less than two years, the protocol has:

  • Supported over $20bn volume ($270k of which was socks!) traded by over 250,000 unique addresses across 8,484 unique assets
  • Secured over $1bn liquidity deposited by over 49,000 unique liquidity providers (LPs), earning $56m fees in the process
  • Emerged as foundational DeFi infrastructure, with integrations across hundreds of interfaces and applications

Having proven product-market fit for highly decentralized financial infrastructure with a platform that has thrived independently, Uniswap is now particularly well positioned for community-led growth, development, and self-sustainability . The introduction of UNI (ERC-20) serves this purpose, enabling shared community ownership and a vibrant, diverse, and dedicated governance system, which will actively guide the protocol towards the future.

Uniswap has always embraced the tenets of neutrality and trust minimization : it is crucial that governance is constrained to where it is strictly necessary. With this in mind, the Uniswap governance framework is limited to contributing to both protocol development and usage as well as development of the broader Uniswap ecosystem.

In doing so, UNI officially enshrines Uniswap as publicly-owned and self-sustainable infrastructure while continuing to carefully protect its indestructible and autonomous qualities .

Nowhere in that do they mention money or Farming but they do mention that all important word Governance

As mentioned before hopefully Dharma will answer any questions put to them they feel reasonable to answer and things can be cleared up so the conversation can continue past its current stuck state

1 Like
162

You keep bringing this point, but you are still failing to explain why then isn’t a good idea to add a vesting program to this new airdrop? A good vesting program will ensure that those new tokens holders don’t insta-dump on the market (This proposal requires 15m UNI, that’s almost as much as the whole budget for the farming). Also a good vesting program will align their incentives, they would be invested on Uniswap during the whole length of the vesting program.

EDIT: By the way, it’s really necessary that you paste wall of texts with each post? It seems like you are trying to make this hard to read on purpose

These companies don’t promote Uniswap, they sell it to the user the same way a restaurant does, with their own brand without promoting their providers.

If this is the case every company that benefits from the airdrop should first sign an exclusivity contract with Uniswap.

2 Likes
163

Its giving information to supplement my comment not posting a wall something you keep repeating also

Trying to introduce reading content so people know I’m not at just spurting out gibberish hopefully someone reading gains benefit from it

164

Please, both Jay-Prime and you address the argument Pipo made and kindly stop dodging them as this would directly contribute to moving this discussion forward. Thank you.

I think I had to state it outright as Pipo had to repeat himself as nobody addressed his valid argument.

2 Likes
165

Probably best to get Dharmas response to the questions you asked earlier as we were waiting for before continuing anyway as otherwise this conversation will just continue down the same back and forth never ending cycle.

Would think the signal to noise ratio of this post is low right now due to the same conversations of repeated text being posted over and over again by multiple parties best to wait for an answer to one question one step at a time

166

I’m not actually sure which argument you’re referring to @Buckerino, but hope this post I quoted covers it.

Sorry, I missed this suggestion previously, as there’s been a lot of back and forth and overall noise in the thread.

Forcing a vesting period on this potential new airdrop would in a way be marking and making these users/accounts covered by the proposal less worthy of the original airdrop than those that already received it, which I don’t believe would be the fair approach.

I try to provide as much context and information to my arguments as possible, I don’t see anything wrong with that. It isn’t pasted over from anywhere, it’s freshly typed text.

I believe your restaurant analogy is flawed. In a restaurant you wouldn’t have a clue where any of the ingredients are coming from. With these apps you know that Uniswap is there in the backend.

Perhaps a better analogy would be how my ASRock B450 motherboard for using an AMD CPU has AMD and Ryzen logos on the box, similar to how DeFi Saver, a tool for interacting with defi protocols including Uniswap, has the Uniswap logo on its homepage. You know that Uniswap is one of the ingredients.

You are once again saying that companies are benefiting from the airdrop which is simply not true. The proposed airdrop would be going straight to the affected accounts. And I have to once again highlight that users of some apps already received aidrops without ever using app.uniswap.org or the previous uniswap.exchange frontends at any point.

Finally, the exclusivity contract idea just goes against everything DeFi stands for and I don’t think any further comments are needed.

167

I think that you need to logout and log back in with @Uniguy772 account.

These accounts are users from third party companies and competitors, that happen to interact with Uniswap by pure chance… I think that Dharma, Kyber, 1inch etc should be giving them free tokens, not us. Giving them voting power it’s not fair, for current UNI holders not for them.

You don’t need DeFi saver to interact with Uniswap, you do need a motherboard to install a CPU

So those apps can’t even promise us to keep using Uniswap after the airdrop, again, why are we going to spend 40m USD on them?

Edit: Again flagged for being off-topic, what part of this post is off-topic? this is as relevant to the conversation as any other post pro-dharma proposal.

3 Likes
168

Hi all :wave: Seems like this conversation has…escalated.

Folks are entitled to vigorous debate and I think there are reasonable arguments against this proposal; please let’s keep ad hominems at a minimum and try to stay high-signal in this discussion.

In trying to sift through the above, I’ve picked out a few misconceptions I just want to clarify. If I’m missing any questions that I’ve not answered, please ping me more directly and I’m happy to answer.

First — the proposal is technically not dilutive to UNI holders any more than the status quo. The UNI would be taken out of the community treasury in which UNI is vesting for purposes of investing in the Uniswap ecosystem and its success. There is a fair argument to be had over whether this proposal meets the community treasury’s mandate, but it is not accurate to say that this is dilutive (i.e. no more UNI would be in existence in the world where this proposal fails than if this proposal passes)

Re: @Pipo-Mandarina concerns on whether or not the Dharma web-page made reference to Uniswap prior to the date of the UNI drop — I feel a little silly entertaining this assertion, as I’m not sure to what extent it should even matter whether or not the word Uniswap was on our website, but it seems to have spooked some folks, so let me be clear: this is false. We deploy our website very frequently and part of the deploy script re-uploads images. The copy screenshotted has been on our website since we launched the feature, and, more concretely, the app itself made pretty explicit, visual reference to its sourcing liquidity from Uniswap well-before this time.

Happy to answer any more questions as need be — please keep discussion civil, and assume positive intent.

On a more practical note…

Vote Proposal Update

It appears that the Univalent delegation has its sole priority set on lowering the delegation thresholds required for proposal submission / quorum, and is not comfortable voting on matters unrelated to that. We at Dharma are supportive of lowering the delegation thresholds and empathize with Univalent’s desire to abstain from involvement in unrelated proposals.

Given that we will not be able to reach the 40m quorum without the UNI delegated to Univalent in active participation on the vote, we will need to wait for the Univalent delegation to submit their proposal and pass it through governance before we move this proposal forward.

We are supportive of their proposal at a conceptual level (pending the proposed threshold numbers) and will likely be casting a vote in a favor.

TL;DR — it will be quite difficult to pass anything through governance until the quorum / proposal thresholds are lowered, so we’re shifting our attention to supporting the Univalent delegation in their efforts before we move forward with this proposal.

6 Likes
169

How do you feel about proxy users getting a different amount of airdropped tokens than direct users?

170

You say it wouldnt be fair to the Dharma end users etc…HOW is it fair to the people who invested their hard earned money into UNI??? Or are we willing to ignore them?

@nadav_dharma you completely skipped over the conflict of interest part. The airdrop is dillutive in a sense that the actors can market dump their coins and impact price! Please, address this issue openly.