Retroactive Airdrop Excludes Proxy Contract Users (e.g. Dharma, Matcha, etc.)

From the UNI blog post:

Uniswap owes its success to the thousands of community members that have joined its journey over the past two years. These early community members will naturally serve as responsible stewards of Uniswap.

Using Dharma to unknowingly trade Uniswap was not joining the Uniswap journey. Those who used Dharma used Dharma, not Uniswap.

  • They were not early Uniswap community members.
  • They were not on the Uniswap journey.
  • They are Dharma users.

To the Dharma folks: perhaps create your own DHARMA token and airdrop to your users.

16 Likes

Okay, and that’s a fair opinion and reading of what constitutes a “user” in the case and I think an entirely valid way of defining what a “user” counts for. This would mean that a user as defined by the announcement would require someone to not just incidentally or unknowningly interact with Uniswap without their knowledge but had at least some knowledge if not intent to participate in the process. That’s a perfectly valid way of defining the boundaries. The nexus of control both in the transacting of the transaction in question as well as the target contract in the end would be require at least knowledge of the initiating person/code designed by a person.

However I just want to note that just because someone is a DHARMA user does not make it mutually exclusive that they may have used Uniswap in some manner as well. It makes no sense to say "they are Dharma users, they can’t also be Uniswap users, just not in the transactions in question where they interacted with Dharma without having intended to do so with Uniswap. I don’t know if that’s what you had meant but I’d simply like to, for the sake of avoiding further ambiguities, at least point that out that we’re talking about these on a transactional, per-use level, not labeling someone in a binary. As long as we’re good with that then I think that’s a perfectly fine definition that the community should at least have a crack at discussing and voting on down the line.

2 Likes

Then they would have already gotten the airdrop, correct? If you used Uniswap before the deadline, even tried and FAILED to make a trade, then you were eligible and can claim any unclaimed funds.

I think it’s rather cut-and-dry. I speak as someone who didn’t receive an airdrop.

Also, as a sidenote, I use Uniswap on my phone all the time through metamask, and it seamlessly works. Perhaps not using it is a choice?

1 Like

Dharma is the perfect access point to interact with the protocol, wouldn’t change it for anything else.

I think we deserve the UNI :slight_smile: thank you team

Damn I Love Uniswap and Dharma!

1 Like

Guys, that’s our chance! Leshner (@rleshner) has voted for the Dharma proposal! Mark @gauntletnetwork on his post and ask them to rethink about their vote! Something like this: @gauntletnetwork please, rethink about your vote!

I have a couple of thoughts on this:

  1. For those arguing about whether someone can be considered a Uniswap user if they only used it in an abstracted way – Uniswap is a protocol. app .uniswap .org is just a frontend, and Uniswap themselves could have used a proxy to orchestrate certain actions if they had chosen to.

  2. Uniswap LPs have benefited from the volume of activity through proxy interactions like Argent, Dharma etc. And in general, these apps have helped Uniswap to grow and succeed as much as any other interaction.

  3. A new 5 million UNI drop would mean increasing the circulating supply by ~2%. A minimal potential impact to existing holders.

  4. By nature of their focus on simplicity, Dharma and Argent are often someone’s first foray into crypto. Many know nothing about airdrops, or the incredible ecosystem out there. The original UNI airdrop was quite miraculous for many people. Possibly life changing in some cases.

We have an opportunity to deepen the interest and commitment of thousands of people, both in Uniswap and in crypto.

This seems worth it to me for the sake of bringing forward a 2% increase in circulating supply.

I presume those voting against think they are being principled.

But to me seem to want to deny something amazing to others that they themselves benefited from.

4 Likes

I don’t think you quite understand what 2% inflation overnight would do to market orderbooks. It will absolutely tank the token because of existing users front-running it like we a seeing now, and because of the possibility of a second airdrop, and lastly because of the 2% inflation hitting market almost instantly.

Dont try to play this off as a small thing. It’s not.
I have voted NO

8 Likes

We love uni swap and we love Dharma

2 Likes

Whether short term volatility matters depends on your time horizon. Yes there would be some temporary price impact.

And if you are patient it will settle down after a few days to a week or two.

So for the sake of a couple of weeks, I do feel No voters are being quite selfish in this.

I’m personally unaffected, I should say. I just find it fascinating how people who were gifted something can suddenly refuse to allow others equally deserving to receive the same gift.

5 Likes

I’ll vote & support this proposal

3 Likes

You bring up some really interesting ideas in your post, I agree with much of it and I will come back and read it again after I’ve had some time to marinate on it.

However this last part about it being a litigious issue I don’t agree with. The creators intentionally and willingly handed this over to the community, and I agree completely that it is up to us now to respectfully dissect how it was rolled out and set up fair reward systems going forward.

We are all the judge and the jury now when it comes to determining verbiage and sorting out the last decisions the original creators made.

2 Likes

Agreed, we’re all in this together now and the users who took advantage of Uniswap by proxy were as much contributors to the system as those of us who used it directly.

It is a shame that so many people cannot see the forest for the trees. Thinking about the price impact on UNI as an asset is selfish in the face of this amazing gift we’ve been collectively given.

The more I think about the nuance of this and read existing literature on reward distribution, I’ve changed my opinion on this matter:

https://gov.uniswap.org/t/retroactive-airdrop-excludes-proxy-contract-users-e-g-dharma-matcha-etc/1222/274?u=heyjonbray

6 Likes

Duplicate airdrops are a problem. How many Uniswap users chose to go to Dharma later in order to save gas fees? Why give them twice the UNI? I see imminent freeloading. Why not reward twice Uniswap v1 and Uniswap v2 users? Retroactively giving away free stuff is less desirable when you are losing some of that free stuff. I can’t see how this benefits me, so I will reject this.

2 Likes

The more I think about it, I think that while it is frustrating for people who used a proxy, that is one of the risks when using a proxy. I handle multiple accounts for family members who don’t have the time to invest in crypto. When the UNI airdrop happened I could have taken all their UNI, transferred it to my address and they would have been none the wiser. Granted, I informed them of the windfall, let them know that not selling at airdrop price was an extreme risk, and let them decide. At the end of the day I did all of the work managing assets and making trades on their accounts to provide them with a benefit (profit in this case). I could have by all rights taken the UNI as I was the only one interacting the the actual system.

This is one of the risks of using a broker over handling your money directly, you are delegating some resource to a third-party (time, money, making certain decisions for you) in order to make it easier for you.

The inherent risk remains that the proxy is the one really involved with the core system, and therefore have set themselves up in a position to act as a wall.

Clearly, anyone who uses a proxy for anything is gaining something, otherwise they wouldn’t be using a proxy. When the proxy then receives a benefit from the third party they’re mediating business with for you gets access to a reward, you’re not entitled to it.

Again, that is the inherent risk of using a proxy service that has existed and will exist as long as proxies do.

3 Likes

I totally agree with all your points, but it’s sad to see your decision based on how “this benefits me” over the community that you’re now a part of.

Just looking at the overview of this entire forum, how many more posts there are about money and how few there are with novel ideas about governance systems is reflective that we brought so much of the negative into this new system.

We’re so young as a community, and already we’ve brought the snakes into the garden.

3 Likes

Like I told you before, DeFi is a space of bare capitalism. You seem to agree now.

2 Likes

I’ve always agreed that DeFi is purist capitalism.
When it comes to the system or community in charge of the allocation of resources that are a byproduct of gains from that capital, I believe there is much more nuance.

2 Likes

This is the most logical post in the thread. You don’t deserve a reward because someone or something that you used to perform a task for you interacted with a system.

4 Likes

twitter / NadavAHollander/status/1322283182205489153

Why did the vote say extra hours even though there was only 1??? I was at work and my investment group and I were going to meet later because we saw 8 hours left on clock.

Lost faith in this system. . . I thought this was fool proof (DEFI???) My colleges and I put a very large sum on here, and missed the vote. I feel like it was sabotage? I don’t want to say how many votes we control but we would of put the vote very close to pass at that point.

4 Likes

I cant post link but its pinned on dharma twitter page. . .