To be fair most flags I’ve seen are legit, admins can see who report things anyway so i’m sure if someone is abusing the flagging system they can warn and on repeated re-offence terminate the offending accounts
This is something we need to keep in mind with every decision we make now that it’s in our hands. We’re in the position to build a better system than we have today with the help of partners and contributors like Dharma.
We’re role models for the industry. No pressure
For anyone interested in this proposal.
There is a vote running on shapshot until 27th of September o0
sorry I think I’ve messed this up. I don’t know what I pressed
Totally agree with you. Uniswap gave those token to users who supported Uniswap, directly. Anyone who use other apps because fees are cheaper do not deserve the free tokens. There are times when we have to paid $50.00 in gass fees, but we still use uniswap.
If this makes it to voting I will be voting no. You guys claim support for Uniswap, yet you guys do not use it for your transactions. Why don’t you guys demand your provider to give you the 400 UNI? Seems only fair. You guys consciously decided NOT to use uniswap for your transactions and chosing Dharma, Matcha etc… because it was covinient for you. Well it is only fair that UNI tokens are only given to those who used uniswap. You guys want free to tokens? Ask Dharma, Matcha etc for their own token…
Will also vote no on this. The other service hooked up to Uniswap because it benefited their service. I get they want free money but these users used another service. That service can create a token and reward their users, but certainly Uniswap users wouldn’t expect a free meal if that happened. Don’t see why it works the other way around.
Would disagree under the ground that
These people were all still under the terms of using the service before September 1, 2020, at 12:00 am UTC
These people provided the same participation to the Uniswap Network as users of the Uniswap network before the predefined above date and time
These people are not the same as others begging for tokens after the predefined date as set by the team who are most certainly not eligible as they were past the “cut off date/time”
I think this should be the one and only exception to the rule for the Airdrop as it will only be provided to those again within the predefined set time again anyone on this after the predefined time is considered “cut off” thus not intentionally hurting Uniswap and its Governance Token (Not money token)
What happens if 1inch release a token and reward their past users? Do you think it’s fair that you would get rewarded with tokens from both Uniswap and 1inch? You used 1inch service and 1inch service used Uniswap. Why don’t you ask them to create a token and distribute it to users? And while you are at it ask them how can they distribute the token to Uniswap seeders since they were using Uniswap liquidity? Doesn’t work both ways this free lunch does it?
Not the same as Uniswap is not or does not claim to be a DEX aggregator 1inch is a DEX aggregator for DEX’s
Also if you see it as a free lunch and not an opportunity to improve the Uniswap platform and govern then you’re clearly looking at the tokens use very wrongly its purpose wasnt to “Pay peoples salaries” or “refund peoples fees” it was to allow people to govern over the Uniswap platform to help keep it in community control unfortunately though a load of people saw it as a quick money grab and have sold where the is a risk a CEX has then grabbed it up for cheap giving CEX’s more control to make a damaging and lasting change to the Uniswap Platform
Anyone that used 1inch and did not simultaneously use Uniswap on another address we are talking about a tiny fraction of traders. Big overlap with users using DEX aggregators and Uniswap independently. Don’t buy it for a second that the large majority of these users haven’t already received 400 UNI on another address.
25mm of the tokens went straight to Binance @Uniguy772. Think you’re a bit naive. Other users that didn’t use Uniswap previously and want to participate in the governance can also buy it from the market or get it from liquidity mining.
Plenty of people had multiple addresses that’s beyond the question. If someone happened to have multiple addresses (and I know plenty of people did for their own reasons) that had traded on Uniswap before the screenshot was taken they are still valid and these people were lucky either way is out of Uniswaps control Uniswap minted 15% of the total supply and sent them to a smart contract for the airdrop and named all the applicable addresses. These tokens are gone now and locked away forever if not all claimed by the original valid recipients as outlined in a locked post by Noah.
People who didnt meet the airdrop requirement need to move on and stop moaning the opportunity has passed.
As mentioned before Dharma are the only exception I believe should be allowed to this and tokens for that would come out of the Community Governance Fund I believe.
Either way that’s not begging
Buying is someone deciding they want to have an interest in the platform and potentially vote which is good
Providing in liquidity pools is helping Uniswap and allowing people to be AMM’s, the heart of what Uniswap is about a community driven exchange.
Either way neither are the same as begging and these people would be rewarded for their later actions not related to the original airdrop.
Would read https://uniswap.org/blog/uni/ to see where the above two categories come from to be honest as these are laid out as far as I’m aware on their original UNI blog post
Never said 1. or 2. was begging. I just don’t agree that users that use a third party service and indirectly use uniswap in the process deserve an airdrop.
Would still disagree for my original posts reasons.
These people arent asking to be included from outside the dates of the original airdrop they are being treated the exact same as anyone else who got the airdrop and still technically used Uniswap.
Again not a free lunch I believe that to be a very bad attitude to label this airdrop as it was/still is about Governance not about “free lunches” while I can understand it did help a lot of people and for some related to a whole years salary the focus on this forum anyway in my opinion should be about the governance aspect not free lunches/monetary aspect.
Still strongly believe in the saying "There’s no such thing as a free lunch"
I’d at least want to look at this on a case by case basis. Definitely no for DEX aggregators.
edit: i had never used dharma before but having checked out their uniswap tutorial I would have no objection their users receiving a retrospective airdrop. I don’t like that everything gets clumped together though.
Dharma now have 15m+ UNI delegated to them, so we will see this proposal to vote upon, personally I’m against it.
how can you be against getting airdrop
active community members - the same as you
I personally have used dharma on my mobile,
because I was often on the road
driving your car and at the workplace
it would be fair to reward members of dharma and similar app
and of course it’s worth split these proposals with the DEX aggregators in different votes
thanks to Nadav and other builders for defending the interests of your users, good luck and success in your difficult business
and haters will always be, this is a state of a “black soul” in the first place
Agree with you in part… I stand for Dharma to be an exception to the rule and anyone still within the original rules i.e.
Didnt already claim UNI with a wallet address also on the original list
Transacted before the cut off of 1st September @12
should be given tokens. Other than this there shouldn’t be any more airdrops and discussion on airdrops on this Governance forums should be stopped as it’s just getting annoying seeing the same people getting give out to by admins making multiple fake accounts to re-post the same crap than accept reality