This proposal has put Dharma´s cards on the table. Their only goal is to reduce quorum so they could pass their cash grab proposal at OUR expense. Thankfully, their charade is hopefully at its end.
4 Likes
I agree,
Gauntlet and Dharma collectively have 30m votes, they are proposing a 30m quorum so that they can push through any proposal they like. (Dharma might feel strongly about one particular proposal)
We can only hope that people that haven’t voted yet see this as the attack on governance that it is and
VOTE NO!
6 Likes
Below, words of @strangechances .
"I would emphatically clarify three points about the UNI discussions regarding retroactive distribution and lowering thresholds. There’s a lot of misinformation surfacing in the forums and media, and misinformation is bad for governance. So let me share these assertions:
- Dharma itself does not get UNI from its proposal for retroactive distribution. It’s the users of multiple wallets (Dharma, Argent, etc.) who will receive the UNI, for trading on Uniswap via meta-transactions. This is in alignment with the goals of the initial UNI distribution.
- Dharma is not a UNI “bagholder”, and there is no chance of Dharma “controlling Uniswap”. This is something that was incorrectly argued by blockchain media company Decrypt. Some investors, who are not invested in Dharma, have delegated to Dharma, and this is a vote of trust.
- If the Uniswap Governance parameters remain the way they are (40m UNI), it’s unlikely that any decentralized UNI governance could happen this year. Either voter participation or share of delegation needs to increase significantly for it to be viable.
Further discussion: I believe UNI community should prioritize proving that decentralized can governance work. The retroactive distribution proposal is fair and lower risk than the initial distribution, since we know there is a 1:1 user:address relationship. It’s a great step.".
1 Like
We don’t know that, Dharma (and the other companies that are advocating for the second drop), could have created thousands of fake accounts in order to inflate their numbers in the face of their investors…
2 Likes
How? Because the deadline was September 1, 2020, at 12:00 UTC. How Dharma (and others) could create ‘thousands of fake accounts’? That don’t make sense.
Because they could have done it before the 1st of September, it’s not uncommon that some companies inflate their own numbers to better appeal to investors
1 Like
You can literally go look at each address proposed and see the transactions that took place…do some research will you.
I am not asking to be handed 40m USD, I think the burden of the proof relies on who is actually asking for something like that… using deceptive techniques, as shown multiple times
1 Like
It is not a good first proposal, I am excited as well to see the first proposal to go through but please let’s not make it one that says “let’s make proposals easier”. They would have put some thought in coming up with the numbers required to propose and pass, if these turn out to be not ideal, the community can vote on changed (ideally in individual proposals for proposal and pass desperately) at a later point in time when the current thresholds have proved to be not ideal.
Governance is currently broken. No one can even get to quorum.
1 Like
I agree and I think this is something people arent recognising, if Dharma, Gauntlet and co can’t get a proposal through as 3 of the major Uni holders how do others expect to ever get any proposal through?
Even with deligation they’re unlikely to ever hit the 40M quorum even if they somehow got ever Uni holder to delegate/vote without making this change.
In saying that I can see both sides of this with the current proposal and putting the vote through as 2 seperate proposals
I think once people realise this and come to their senses they will be kicking themselves for the way they voted imo but we will see.
That’s not to say there isnt another way, if anything I think this shows we need to all come together if anything and agree to something we all agree to whales and small holders before putting it to a vote to prevent the same thing from happening again.
Either way I will respect the vote whatever way it goes and hopefully this will strengthen us all to unite more for the greater good of governance.
EDIT: In saying that again removing 30M votes which has now been proven to be more than what is owned between Dharma, Gauntlet etc the current vote is still very much in favour with
656,919 For
643,922 Against
I think if anything it’s important to respect whichever side wins and not turn this forum into a battle field of one side vs the other and start to work together.
Moral of the story is we’re unlikely to hit the 40M Quorum to pass this at this point but we do need to see that this narrative of “oh well if Dharma’s votes were taken off more people are against this” because they’re just not true. Again more important to work together
1 Like
It is pretty sad that it seems that Unilavent haven’t actually delivered and voted when they were the ones proposing the change in the first place. There are more than enough delegates, but people are sitting on the fence and not voting.
1 Like
I feel like I dont have much to add so I will stop here myself but just to reiterate as reading through my own post it was long my stance is.
-
I plan on respecting the vote whatever way it goes.
-
We should use the outcome regardless to unite to something everyone can agree on using this forum as a discussion board to bounce ideas and views back and forth before going to vote again.
That’s my 2 cent on the topic anyway if it interests anyone
1 Like
Did anyone asked Univalent what do they think about this specific proposal? Is there any public discussion of it?
The draft proposal was posted here by @tarun and soon after that it was submitted onchain. With no discussion, and even with different thresholds.
Why would anyone support that?
1 Like
They were the ones working with Dharma initially to get it proposed. Dharma’s priority was the airdrop, whereas Unilavent wanted the quorum reduced, and proposal threshold reduced.
Can you please point us to the discussion of the current proposal and its threats between Dharma and Univalent?
I believe this is what @Joshuawakefield is referring to: https://twitter.com/NadavAHollander/status/1314720831751110656
Kolten nailed it. Don’t understand why Unilavent said this was their only priority and then seem to have ended up not even voting. I think they saw some of the bad press Dharma was getting and backed out. This wasn’t even Dharma’s proposal initially and they are the ones taking the heat for it.
Probably because Dharma tried to attack the governance and take the full control of it. Did anyone ask Univalent if they agree with the proposed limits? Why 3M votes to submit a proposal, how is it better than 10M since only few stakeholders can reach any of these 2 limits.
This proposal solves nothing, but gives the full control to Dharma.
1 Like
Unilavent were the ones who had initially come up with the numbers in the first place. Have you even done any research?
The current numbers obviously don’t work because they can get only get 32 million total yes/no votes.
No governance proposals will go through in 2020 if this doesn’t go through.
1 Like