Proposal: Reduce amount of UNIs required to submit governance proposal

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

Please show the link where Univalent proposed these numbers 3M and 30M thresholds.

Shameless self post:

Where andrecronje now supports it with his personal address
(Address source:

1 Like

I must say, I am in favor of reducing the number of required votes to make a proposal, but I am not in favor of reducing the quorum.

This should’ve been handled using two different proposals.


“in here” and “generally gets strong support” … You are literally talking about a handful of people; not the thousands that use uniswap or probably don’t even know what’s going on in these forums because they don’t advertise it on the front page like they do token prices or market caps…

    I just noticed this proposal; as I have been checking about once a week. Not a huge bag holder, but am a long term uniswap user. If anything the fact that you want to LOWER this amount right off the bat before the 60 day first vesting period is over, shows to me at least, a power grab. If anything I thought the current proposal limit was too low as well as quorum. 

   This literally being the biggest AMM dex in ethereum history, it has been doing quite well without the extreme changes other defi instruments have been going through with governance. Additionally, with how easy it is to delegate votes here as opposed to other governance structures I've seen I actually see the original requirements quite low especially after the over 2 million uni tokens they are distributing a week currently. Again reading the (quite few) comments here when compared to the actual users of uniswap on a day to day basis (thousands) you cannot accurately state there is any sort of "wide consensus" with the uniswap community whatsoever.

   If anything they should post about big votes like this on the front page like they do uniswap scrolling market cap. Then and only then would people even know this is going on alot of my friends thought voting wasn't even allowed till after the  60 day initial eth-stablecoin was over.

P.S.- sorry for my longwindedness but I really liked using uni, and unfortunately I don’t see this not turning into a quick dictatorship with such low thresholds, so i voted against this proposal.

So how are my favourite crypto-anarchists? :slight_smile:

TLDR: <vote yes and don’t reply that this post was too long>

Looks like the voting system is working exactly as intended, which is also having the expected impact on the dominant narratives here.

Camp #1: Crypto-anarchist ideologues tapping the “decentralized governance” drum, and using a value-based justification that is focused around anti-establishment norms. I like these guys. They stick to their beliefs at least.

Camp #2: Dharma and Gauntlet based conspiracy that chooses to vilify these entities with elaborate accusations of attempting to ‘overthrow’ Uniswap. Despite having no evidence, they have gathered support from other crypto-natives that enjoy fictionalizing their thoughts to fit their internal view of the world. When the only possible explanation you can come up with is absent of evidence, you have lost all objectivity. When you consider Cronje’s ‘yes’ vote and support from the Uniswap founder, you have to wonder how far this camp is willing to go with their moral campaign.

Camp #3: There is a contingent here that fears Uniswap Governance may be rendered ineffective, due to the voting constraints that were prematurely designed into the contract without understanding the impact. The narrative here is focused on making ‘governance’ work, by whatever means necessary.

Camp #4: The silent majority who frankly don’t care. This is a well studied phenomenon in politics, and with anonymity, the problem may be worse for us because you can’t even vote-signal here. There is no lawn to place your party’s candidate sign.

The conspiracy camp is the loudest because Kahneman (nobel prize in behavioural economics) taught us through his cognitive heuristics, that a negative narrative is 4x more impactful than the equivalent positive narrative. The fear stoking has a predictable chemical impact on the brain, and we fall prey to it because, well, we are human and risk-averse. However, the brittleness of the argument is apparent in the outcome of the vote thusfar, especially when you consider that a lot of small wallets are voting ‘yes’.

The idealogues seem to be led by Hiturunk. The dedicated pursuit of a specific moral philosophy is commendable. However, to gain a stronger presence they need to make this ideology count with votes, and that is proving to be an insurmountable challenge for now. I personally don’t agree with their viewpoint but i respect aspects of it. ‘Plutocracies’ are used euphemistically to represent their existential fear that big money will just come in and control everything. Well, we have created a governance structure that incentivizes that behaviour, but for now, we can’t assume that plutocracy is evil until we understand the intentions of those wealthy players. Assuming that ‘establishments’ are all evil, which is central to anarchist belief systems, is naive and will always marginalize your opinion.

Camp 3 is boring. All that chatter about governance structures is tedious, technical, and doesn’t help me get emotionally engaged in the argument.

Camp 4 is what will kill us unless things change quickly, and continue changing as this space evolves underneath us. The moment we seek balance, we become complacent, and we’ll lose whatever edge we’ve managed to establish in this market. Successfull endeavours survive because of their ability to roll with the punches, not find better gloves, a weaker partner, or bribing the ref. This is the essence of systems science and self-organized criticality (Bak). I’m not suggesting we need to fabricate the interests and passions of this camp, but we definitely need to accomodate the silent uncaring apathetic element to our system. Do a poll to prove this. Send out a question to every UNI holder and ask them if they understand what governance means.

Whatever governance structure we pick, it needs to ‘nudge’ the system in the direction we want to go. NOT establish an ideological end-state. Roadmaps that focus incessantly on the future at the expense of the present, FAIL miserably. This is why i am in Favour of this proposal, because at least it represents change. It represents movement. We have something to learn from it, and i’m more interesting in learning than in making sure we don’t get it wrong.


Wrong. The fact is that this proposal changes nothing as per the initial idea of reducing the amount of UNIs required to submit the governance proposal.

With the current threshold of 10M only 3 delegates can submit a proposal. With the new threshold of 3M votes it’s much different - 5 delegates will be able to submit a proposal. Out of almost 90,000 token holders. So more decentralised, very win.

The fact is that Dharma & co don’t give a shit about community governance, they don’t want 90K holders to speak, they want to push the dangerous lower quorum proposal, so they can grab the money from the table.

Shame. Shame. Shame.

1 Like

Voting says defeated so does that mean they wasted our proposal and its not going through plus there aren’t going to be able to pull some shit like that again ?

Only if we increase the amount required to pass a quorum.

I see that you have a problem the way it went. What do you try to achieve by calling others conspiracy theorist? Did you know that science is full of theories until proven wrong or right? Heck life is full of assumptions and theories. You are using it in a very inflating way. What are you trying to achieve with these allegations? My feeling about it is, that you are trying to divide.

By the way…I am happy that the team did their homework with these initial settings. Personally, I see no reason for any rush. My best guess is, that many people are here because they like the project, and they took part in it without any tokens. This is a new situation, and we will find a way to make more out of it … more than personal profit. I am mainly altruistic and somewhat emotionally attached to the project, not profit from a token. It seems you have a different motivation. Anyway, lowering the required amount of UNI for proposals might be good, but I see no reason to rush anything.

1 Like

What about simply putting a cap on the amount of votes one entity can use. Like 1000 votes per either you have 1000 or ya don’t.

then nothing would ever pass

it’s kinda like looking at roadkill and wondering when it will eventually cross the road

Not sure why it says defeated…there is still 12 hours left…

Whatever side you are on, this is fucking really weird and dodgy. This whole thing has been a complete mess.

Can confirm the proposal failed. Confusion is due to variations between actual block time (Defeated) and Uniswap’s estimated block time.

Thank God It did fail I was confusha there for a sec. And I’m on the uni side… that proposal was junk, and I definitely had no idea we could of had that coming. I thought it was open discussion on what the uni swap community would propose, that one was slipped in the rear!! Like I’ll vote yes right now for drama to not be able to propose anything yes since they just wasted our time, and or cap on amount of votes, I mean how many votes would the average person actually have anyways or be willing to spend.

Lol, nice comparison. But really, how would nothing ever pass? Maybe I worded what I said wrong, but if we put a cap on votes wouldn’t that, level the playing field for everyone in uniswap? Darma would no longer have 15 million votes, no one would, maybe we would have to change the Amount of votes needed And the quorum so that it worked with what ever we decide to cap it off at, but I’m not seeing how something like that wouldnt be possible, or how nothing would pass if we decided to do something like this. Unless we proposed it and the propsal failed of course would raise almost confirmed suspicion if there was any.

I vote yes.:wink: This is very important for the long term governance impact.