Proposal: Reduce amount of UNIs required to submit governance proposal

10M UNIs are required to submit governance proposals, that’s insanely high. That’s like ~$65M worth by today’s price.

Proposal: reduce it to 10k. The community is already wanting to make proposals but they won’t go anywhere with this limit.

It’s understandable there are risks given the airdrop, but the team, their backers, and the wider community can surely thwart any obvious attempts to weaponize governance.

index

38 Likes

Agreed it is unreasonably high. Another thing that can help is if Uniswap implemented Compound’s Autonomous Proposals: https://medium.com/compound-finance/compound-autonomous-proposals-354e7a2ad6b7

5 Likes

I support this 100%.

Another suggestion would be that proposals go through these steps like they go in Yearn finance-
Forum Post & discussion > Mods create Poll if decent amount of interest > Governance Vote
This works beautifully.

8 Likes

No. 10k is too low. Keep it a 10 million for now. We can always delegate. More than enough coins are circulating in the community to do so. Your proposal doesn’t even meet in the middle.

6 Likes

Barrier of entry is too high. Let’s get more voices in the mix.

2 Likes

Good idea. Post your address so we can delegate our votes to you so you can formally create it.
EDIT:
Just saw this. We might not need to lower the proposal creation threshold at all.

3 Likes

+1 to this - needing 10M UNI, ~$65M worth of tokens to make a proposal doesn’t make sense.

Maybe 10k UNI is a little too low? (This only 25 claimable addresses). But 100k UNI again seems like an unreasonable amount at $650k. Middle ground of 50k UNI to submit governance proposal

But also +1 to the idea of making proposals with any token balance if that’s being rolled out.

2 Likes

The Compound way is a good solution h/t @mak

Eliminates delegation while at the same time ensuring only proposals that eventually gather quorum and obtain majority vote pass through.

Effective and fair.

7 Likes

Still think that $65 mil (at the current price!!) is still a unnecessarily large amount. I agree with @Jamesabout 50k threshold. I’m happy to delegate 800 UNI to you to create this proposal.

1 Like

Honestly I think you have to reduce the number of UNIs required to submit a proposal once you have a system that is a bit more stable. I think for now we are barely figuring out how do do things, it’s all very new, so I think for now it is okay to have it high in order to maintain stability.

Though it might be an unnecessarily large amount.

2 Likes

Fair. We could introduce the proposal with a time delay (maybe 3 months or further?)

The reason for having it be so large is to stop people from making awful proposals.

The lowest id like to see it go is 7 million.

2 Likes

Does delegated UNI count towards the threshold to create proposals or will voting power be the only ability? I would think it is better to have a higher UNI threshold for creating proposals to drive the communities need to participate in larger goals and avoid proposals made by people who only plan to hold their UNI until the effects of governing have ended. There should be more requirements on who can participate and vote if they lower the necessary UNI such as an approval by 33% of verified holders. Do we want every vote to count or every voice? :money_mouth_face:

1 Like

Agreed, the lower the threshold to have proposal the lower the quality of proposals will be!! In my opinion this is what will make changes hard to implement and will give stability to the project. If changes are made easy and there is low quality proposals that get promoted through attack vectors it just makes people loose confidence in the whole ecosystem. I think its best to leave governance the way it was meant to be and see how the community evolves before starting to change it.

3 Likes

Support this. Obviously need to decrease

Agreed. 10K seems like a happy medium, worth looking into creative governance systems too!

Keep it the way it is.
Most people here have no idea yet how any of this works. 10m is a very high amount, yet as stated above, the team has mechanism in place for this. lets give them the benefit of the doubt that they didn’t just randomly go for this number and see where it brings us.
besides, 10k is waaaaay too low. thats not even whale level holdings. really don’t feel like sifting through a ton of spam proposals for bigger airdrops while the real issues get ignored.

3 Likes

damn i was thinking i was good with 1k…

I support this very much. I don’t know if 10,000 is the right number, but I’m happy to adjust it upwards if it becomes chaotic at this level.

1 Like

I just posted this on another similar topic, so I’ll share my personal (again, I’m not a team member) opinion here:

‘‘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.’’ - from the blog post

That being said, I’m pretty sure the team has thought of this before implementing the minimum thresholds. There are very many suggestions/proposals that seem to not be approved by the majority of the community, as proven by the lack of support on certain suggestions.

That’s not an opinion or comment towards a specific proposal. It’s a fact based on what I’m seeing right now. I’m not necessarily sure that’s a bad thing, it’s an interesting situation.

I personally as a community member would vote no on a proposal to reduce this number. I strongly believe the most important proposals will find their support.

4 Likes