This proposal has the sole objetive of giving full control of the governance to two current players that together hold >30m UNI in voting power, the “accessibility” argument is not valid since autonomous proposals exist.
Again a statement without evidence, where is your evidence that Dharma are using their tokens/delegated tokens to “gain full control” you play it across as if Dharma are trying to manipulate the vote against the interest of the community.
The proposer of this has very clearly said
Having followed these discussions from the beginning, Dharma has prepared a proposal that we think achieves the goal of making governance more accessible, while still ensuring that Uniswap governance is not subject to unilateral deleterious actors. We propose a threshold of 3m UNI for proposal submission, and 30m UNI as quorum.
This proposal is based off discussions in here where it appears to generally get strong support which would suggest it’s going in the interest of the community.
This is also unrelated to the Airdrop forum where we had our other discussion but it would potentially have an impact but the airdrop discussion should be kept completely separate from this in my opinion with both topics looked at on an individual basis based on order in this case being this 1st
I don’t think it’s a question of whether Dharma is a bad actor, but more that no single entity (other than team and vc’s maybe) should be able to reach quorum like this.
Ok, in that case where is yours (or anyone’s for that matter’s) evidence that a single entity has voted here and not that a single entity has collected delegation votes or for that matter multiple entities have voted so far?
My point is someone is yet to prove evidence of foul play otherwise the statement made above are all null and void and just look bad and even possibly like some other party is trying to manipulate this in their direction which is as bad.
Just a FYI I’m all about equality and getting the best result for everyone here and for that to work potential false information needs to be called out to allow facts to be seen I never carry out my actions with the intent to cause conflict or draw conversation away but to gain facts and information for others to vote on.
I think it is pretty self explanatory… It requires 10m votes to propose, We know that Gauntlet has voted to pass this proposal (they said so). 30m was Yeet’ed on the “yes” vote very quickly, funnily enough this proposal wants to reduce quorum to 30m votes.
Also their entire “analysis” tries to argue for a 30m quorum based off the fact that binance might have 25m available currently? This is a pretty weird argument. shouldn’t quorum be quite a bit higher than what we know a single entity (that isn’t team or vc’s) should have? why wasn’t 40m pretty decent in the first place?
EDIT: This whole proposal discussion revolves around reducing the amount of UNI’s required to submit a proposal. it doesn’t propose to reduce quorum, Gauntlet added that in there for seemingly no reason.
You don’t find this suspicious at all? I don’t know much about Gauntlet and Dharma but considering they might have some other proposals they want to push though, i don’t think it’s farfetched to think that “they” are trying to change the governance to suit their own interests…
Again you would have to look at separate proposals on an individual basis trying to make a decision for one proposal basis of many other proposals that could or couldn’t happen and or get passes/not passed is a bit silly. Each proposal is individual and should be considered on its own merits with its own vote when the time comes.
Yeah I do think it’s a tad suspicious that 30M landed instantly on yes but at the same time where you there to see if it was 30M in 1 go or was it built up over multiple votes or was it 30M which was not fully owned by Dharma but somewhat delegated to Dharma (Dharma maybe owned less and the 30M they got was also through delegation).
To fault the team for a single figure is a bit harsh isn’t it the team choose figures they thought were appropriate for Proposals and Quorum at the time. There have been many conversations on here about it both being too high, too low and just right this vote is giving people another figure and saying is this alright? I’m sure the team was well aware at some point in time someone was going to challenge their figure and vote to change it, someone had to choose a starting figure and it was always undoubtedly going to be contested.
In response to the Binance voting again no one knows whether Binance would work with or against the community interest one would hope they consider informing and asking the community before proposing something but again no proof behind whether they are for good or bad either way it’s unlikely the community would ever be able to overthrow a centralised body (maybe this is where it was a mistake to ever let centralised exchanges list the token something that can’t really be changed now unless possibly a proposal could be put through to forcer the teams hand to start contacting central exchanges to de-list the UNI token)
EDIT: all in all we just have to hope these whales/centralised bodies with tons of UNI are working in the community and token holders interest far from that there isn’t much we can really do as they hold the tokens and there’s no way of removing them from them unless they choose to sell which would still put an immense sell pressure on the token.
EDIT 2: as we speak I can see the votes for the proposal increasing suggesting it is more than Dharma for this proposal right now and backing up support for the proposal
I agree completely.
This vote should only be about reducing the amount of UNI’s required to submit a governance proposal. Bundling it in with a lowering of quorum is just weird. And frankly suspicious. Just my opinion.
Exactly is suspicious, mostly because a large sum of money is going to be soon controlled by the treasury. Lowering the quorum makes the job of someone trying to get control of that money a far lot easier.
At this point of the project I think it’s better to make proposals a hard thing to do
Yes the fact the Quorum isn’t mentioned here is a bit suspicious but maybe the person proposing felt they were in fact linked after the fact i’m sure the OP would be happy to clarify if they see this as to why quorum was also proposed for change last minute
Also if you take 30M off the agree (assuming that was Dharma’s 30M as some here claim) the vote would still be
Showing the majority of holders still are for the proposal by a pretty large margin
The analysis only focuses on what Gauntlet @Tarun thinks the quorum threshold should be. Not what the proposal threshold should be. On a proposal discussion that only mentions proposal threshold. This is clearly trying to steal this proposal to get something else through.
I am for reducing the proposal threshold and against reducing quorum threshold.
I am STRONGLY against voting on multiple changes like this. We should have fair voting on every issue. This is such a farce. @tarun care to comment?
I agree in terms of maybe voting on them separately would have been a good idea as it wasn’t mentioned in the original conversation and its a lesson for the next time but voting is already happening hard to go back and not even sure if there is a way for the Proposer to withdraw the proposal once its been made and people have started to vote on it but I get where you’re coming from 100%
I totally agree with this. We should first have a voting about lowering the threshold to submit proposal. Once it’s accepted, many parties will be able to submit competitive proposals and own visions about the quorum thresholds.
I’m not a big fan of the analysis made by tarum because as a starting point he considered Binance’s wallet balance, which in reality can easily double if they start some liquidity farming, trading competitions on UNI pairs or 0-fee incentives.
To me it seems more reasonable to analyse UNI’s supply curve and release schedules when we talk about quorum threshold. Right now only 12% of UNI are circulating, but in 4 years we will reach 100%, so the inflation will be big and we can even consider to actually vote for a higher quorum limits in the near future.
Anyway, I do agree that these must be 2 separate votings: first on limit to submit proposal, and later hopefully we can get many different proposals and analysis on quorum.
As @Uniguy772 says, there is probably not much we can do about it at this point. I have however started a discussion about it here. Chime in and lets make the community aware of this type of thing so we can better ourselves for the coming votes…
If we are worried about a centralised exchange taking control of the governance… we should increase the quorum, not decrease it
This was originally about proposals, the quorum stuff was thrown in and is where I understand Uni0 issue to be.
As uni0 said the Quorum question maybe should have been a separate proposal. Either way not much can be done now as even if another proposal is put in unless the original proposal is somehow cancelled or voted majority against it will take precedence.
Either way this is a lesson for next time and possibly even a proposal for votes to be kept as worded (if there were a way to do that). Regardless people are still voting for the proposal which would make me think they’re ok with both being changed or haven’t noticed the subtle entry but hey either way a lesson for future votes if thats what people want.
The problem is that by voting against this proposal, we will help Dharma to reach the 40M quorum they need. We cannot beat their 30M votes already because a total of 47M votes were delegated and governance portal says:
Only UNI votes that were self delegated or delegated to another address before block 11042288 are eligible for voting.
So at this point the best strategy is to do nothing and wait for it to fail. Hopefully Andre Cronje, the third whale in the list, reads us and won’t do anything at all (votes NO as dangerous as YES at this point)
This is not true, you need 40m votes on “yes” to reach quorum, not 40m total, as per the UNI blog post.
Voting against is the way to go.
Even if it’s just to send a message
Thanks for correcting me. I think I confused it with another project where a simple majority wins.
So voting NO is a good way to go.
I think it’s worth clarifying the rationale behind performing multiple parameter changes at once (which is certainly a better process in general) — both modifications require deploying a new GovernorAlpha contract. Voting interfaces, both frontends and integrating contracts like autonomous proposals, need to be pointed to the new contract, which takes coordinated effort!
Voting on two independent changes in one proposal undermines the integrity of the vote.
Each change made by governance has potentially huge ramifications, wrapping several proposals into one because it saves 5 dev hours is not the way to go.
Riding of this Unicorn should be condemned by the community. This kills the 'corn.
Vote against. Split it up!