Hey everybody — this is Nadav from Dharma.
Since August, our business has been razor-focused on providing a mainstream-friendly experience for trading in Uniswap. We have successfully onboarded over 2,500 new users onto Uniswap in the span of just a month who otherwise would have likely floundered with the clunkiness of Metamask, gas fees, etc. This has been really great for our business, and we’re basically doubling down all of our energies on making Uniswap something anyone with a US bank account and zero crypto knowledge can use instantly.
Unfortunately, the way the retroactive airdrop was architected seemed to make a slight oversight in the snapshotting process — only addresses which directly called the Uniswap contracts were considered to be users. Our system (as well as many other more consumer-oriented systems) interact with Uniswap through a proxy contract. As a result, approximately 2,000 users who used Uniswap through Dharma are ineligible to claim UNI rewards.
This is not an issue isolated to Dharma due to an esoteric design choice — proxy contracts are very commonly used by interfaces that interact with Uniswap. Notably, DEX aggregators such as Matcha and Paraswap have confirmed they are also affected, and we believe others are quite likely to be affected as well.
From our discussions with the Uniswap team, it seems highly unlikely that the intention of the retroactive airdrop was to exclude users who did not directly call Uniswap. In all likelihood, this was an innocent oversight.
As such, we’re considering submitting a proposal (perhaps the first!) to Uniswap governance to expand the UNI retroactive airdrop to those who used Uniswap through proxy contracts before Sept. 1st. Our team is very experienced with submitting proposals to the Compound governance module and we feel quite confident we could do this securely and quickly.
That being said, we first wanted to gauge interest and reactions from the Uniswap community.
I will note to the community that this vote sets a cultural precedent as to how the protocol treats not only its direct users but also developers who take entrepreneurial bets building on Uniswap. The status quo has unfortunately punished our users and eroded our reputation with them — future builders will heed the signal and precedent set by how the Uniswap community addresses this.
Interested to hear feedback and thoughts; technical discussion around how best to structure this proposal highly encouraged!
Nadav
Edit: Really happy to see what appears to be an overwhelmingly positive response to the high-level proposal. I would like to shift the discussion to more specific, technical matters related to how we can implement this proposal — please skip down to this message to add color to the specifics
Edit 2: The latest proposal can be found down here. We intend to discuss is it for the next 24 hours before proceeding [9/17/20 10:05PM MT]
button to indicate support instead of commenting, if you’re not adding anything of substance to the conversation. this helps keep the thread clear and informative