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

The current argument surely isn’t about literally extending the airdrop to those who weren’t Uniswap users prior to September 1 but the difference in the announcement blog post between:

"15% of UNI 150,000,000 UNI can immediately be claimed by historical liquidity providers, users, and SOCKS redeemers/holders based on a snapshot ending September 1, 2020, at 12:00 am UTC.

and

"400 UNI are claimable by each address that has ever called the Uniswap v1 or v2 contracts. This includes ~12,000 addresses that have only ever submitted failed transactions — love you guys.

The fact seems clear that many users did not call directly either contract, and while the first statement in the blog post says users can claim UNI, the second only says addresses that directly called the contracts. In that sense, people feel entitled because, frankly, the announcement’s language entitles them. The ambiguity exists because the second paragraph only seems to expand the definition of those able to claim to include those addresses who did not literally successfully use Uniswap but only had attempted to do so as well as affirming that “users” definitely includes “addresses that have directly interacted with the contracts”, it doesn’t exclude any who ordinarily may have thought of themselves as users or have actually in some way used Uniswap via an indirect mean, knowingly or not knowingly. It also doesn’t include them.

The tokens entitle governance, and this creates a situation where we have seen people use - as in in some way interact, ultimately, with the Uniswap contracts, complete swaps or attempt to complete swaps or provide liquidity or attempt to provide liquidity, but because of some distinction made later that they at the time certainly can’t be aware of mattering, be left out of the process. Yes, it’s about entitlement, but that’s because who is and who isn’t entitled in the promise made here is unclear and a binary choice. Whether they want to use the tokens for governance or just dump them or whatever, none of that matters here. It’s a matter of interpreting ambiguities in the language in what was already promised.

It doesn’t help that immediately after the graphic in the blog the paragraph states:

With 15% of tokens already available to be claimed by historical users and liquidity providers, the governance treasury will retain 43% [430,000,000 UNI] of UNI supply to distribute on an ongoing basis through contributor grants, community initiatives, liquidity mining , and other programs.

So once again, “users”. The decision really needs to be about what these terms mean and are supposed to mean. Instead of all the policy discussion we should really entirely focus on the ambiguity here in the language - unless there’s another document somewhere that more definitively defines who is and isn’t entitled as intended, in which case I would really appreciate it to be linked. Cheers.

edit: Just refining the ultimate question can be boiled down to:

Does a “user” include addresses (by extension really those who had control of the addresses) that ultimately had their assets interact with the Uniswap contracts, and:

a) Have done so without knowing to have done so, or
b) Have done so with the understanding that they have done so, or
c) Have done so thinking that they have actually chosen to do so

and because of various reasons (technical ability, platform confusion or obfuscation, etc) have only, as it turns out, interacted through a proxy.

BTW This is why these things get written up by lawyers so because this is definitively something that should have been made clear ahead of time.

3 Likes

This is ridiculous. Uniswap chose to airdrop the uni token as they saw fit. It was to ACTUAL people who logged into and used their website and program. Not to third party dex aggregators looking for the best prices for people and then taking their fee… I don’t even know why there’s a discussion about this. Those people weren’t using uniswap they were using an aggregators who did the work of finding the best prices for them which is totally different than even using uniswap.

1 Like

There’s a discussion to this because apparently people keep assigning meaning and intent to the devs without any evidence showing that it was the actual intent. You did the same here. I don’t know how you can call this ridiculous when not only does it affect actual people, but also the blog from the devs say things that are clearly interpreted in ways that many found unsatisfactory.

This is ridiculous. Uniswap chose to airdrop the uni token as they saw fit.

Unless you can get an actual statement stating that the tokens were dropped as they see fit and that is it - not partially, not just what’s conveinent, but in thact this is the outer limit, then I don’t know how you can justify that. Are you Uniswap? How do you know if the choice is a final one that is inclusive of exactly the intended? And if they said “users” multiple times and yet, dropped the tokens to “those who they saw fit”, that’s a phrase that isn’t even in the original post, so where are you gleaming their intent from? People make mistakes, code have bugs, best laid plans of mice and men, etc. But how do we know that if the text doesn’t say that?

It was to ACTUAL people who logged into and used their website and program.

Again, this doesn’t even represent a huge portion of the people who actually did get the tokens. Are you suggesting some sort of rollback in case? I primarily used contracts and eth calls to interact with the swap. Does not using the front end mean that I didn’t use Uniswap? Is Uniswap just the front end? There’s no way this assertion can at all be true unless you want to take away people’s tokens afterwards. How would this even make sense?

I don’t even know why there’s a discussion about this.

Because there’s an ambiguity and for some reason people keep calling it ridiculous while asserting things backed not by the text of the announcement which people have relied on, but rather, just their opinions and instincts. I was under the imrpession that governance requires knowledge and evidence, not just. I’m happy to see any evidence to the contrary except I haven’t seen much of anything,.

Those people weren’t using uniswap they were using an aggregators who did the work of finding the best prices for them which is totally different than even using uniswap.

And that was my whole point in the end. There are at least three groups of people who “used” in the commonly understood dictionary sense with Uniswap contracts (and one group that didn’t but were counted anyway as they intended to use but failed due to the blockchain). What is “use”, and in what context does it count for “use” in this case? The factual matter is that for the addresses listed in teh Git repo of the lists, all thoe addresses/contracts were interacting and swapping with UNI. Some may have known that they were doiing it indirectly, some may not. Either hway, we’re not mind-readers, And I think it would be appropriate to back up any assertions with hard evidence that is literallya part of the record or otherwise it goes offt he rails really fast. The problem is very simple, but it’s absolutely not ridiculous unless schadenfreude is your thing,.

Don’t minimize any of this. We have votes because your definition of "using " and mine are almost necessarily different and we both got airdropped anyway. Usuaslly we have a court to try to fix the difference, and we don’t have an in depejndent judiciary in a decentralized way. I’m happy to address any objections but I personally go with the original text announcement first, that is more ort less the public founding document, since that’s all we got to start with. Unless a dev can come out to state exactly what they had intended to do, that must be where we start. What’s ridiculous about that except somehow this didn’t get defined beforehand and cause a lot less trouble and disussion.

edit: Straightening up train of thought, been a long day

1 Like

You seem to be the opinion that uniswap owes you something when the fact of the matter is they don’t owe you anything so I’m not continue with your circular arguments they did what they did and it’s done there’s literally no legality to your arguments although you pose them as if your some lawyer.

2 Likes

tl:dr Many people feel uniswap owes them something because what appears to be a promise was made, in the open, but instead weren’t able to participate because apparently there’s no well-defined boundaries of “user” in that document, with no indication that it’s an omission, deliberate, mistake, or anything. We need to clear this up at least, whether we distribute the tokens or not, because that’s basically the essence of governance. This affects literally thousands of addresses. The defi ecosystem is heavy on credibility of individual actors and projects and so, how would people feel about those who paritcipated in, however directly but still factually, in Uniswap’s success yet are excluded because of a failure to properly define the parameters?

Longer more in depth points:

BTW, I am a lawyer by training and background but I’m speaking on my personal behalf as a member of the community. I’m not interpreting or giving advice as to the laws of any jurisdiction and should not be construed as doing so. However, governance represents essentially the setting out, creation, and application of legalistic standards within a community. If your participation in the community is to say “let’s turn this into a CEX” then, you’re welcome to be here but it seems to be the wrong venue for such an argument, but by arguing that “what’s done is done” and that the dev’s actions to the current moment is immutable and final and can be determined as such (by who, you?) then why even engage in governance? “What’s done is done” means you never go back to fix things if what’s done was done badly. I’m not talking about it in legal terms, but general, every day terms. We’re also not talking about illegality - we’re making the laws here, but there are matters of equity outside of the law that still apply, as in, community trust, unequal treatment, not fulfilling promises, making ambiguous promises. You surely have experienced some sort of situation where it’s not a legal wrong but nevertheless, a wrongful act to your detriment that you feel that someone broke a promise or did something untoward that you feel aggrieved about. Setting laws and codes and definitions, in the small community here, is a way to avoid that.

The fact that we have vigorous debate and discussion is undoubtedly a good thing because you can’t govern without discussion and sometimes even vigorous ones. Do you think the one-party rubber stamp “people’s congress” in China does any debate or defining ambiguities? My grandfather was on that and no, they didn’t, and we’re hopefully trying to avoid that, and the first step is to set out boundaries as to the basic terms being used. I don’t know if the devs owe me any more tokens, I frankly don’t know if they owe anyone any tokens. It is only a mere possibility, and only if the community decides on what is a user and what isn’t a user. You’ve stated earlier that you consider users to be those who used the front end but that’s obviously not even supported by how the tokens were distributed. I’m suggesting that we acknowledge the baseline parameters here:

  • “Usage (noun)” - this is a pretty simple one. I realize that not everybody’s first language, including my own, defines this with the same nuance as and sometimes lack thereof in English, buit the devs have in some ways done that for us. The usage of uniswap means to interact with, via the front end or directly via the contracts, to complete, or prior to September 1, 2020, to attempt to complete some sort of a swap or liquidity add/removal act, by a user’s actions, at the very least. The devs don’t use the word usage itself I believe but because “use” can be a verb and a noun in English, this should also refer to any time “use” is used as a noun. And to use something, it’s a sentence that at least requires a subject, and in this case an object as well.

  • “User” - this is less simple. Firstly, since linking natural persons to addresess or contracts is self-defeating in this sense, a user is a contract or wallet, with the understanding that someone has control over it, that interacted with the uniswap contracts successfully in making swaps, adding/removing liquidity, or before September 1, have attempted to do so. Because you can’t swap nothing for nothing, I think this should include an actual transfer of tokens/eth in the formulation. If you’re not a user by the 1st of September, the current, outlined rules say that you’re not included in the users that are eligible. That doesn’t mean that in the future you don’t count as a user, just for the current purpose.

Because that’s where we are, the question left is “who, in their capacity in controlling funds/tokens in usage, constitute a user”. Since we are only talking about cases where third party intermediaries of some sort acted as a middleman/proxy/front-end/etc really there are only a few potential options. And the options really are:

  • Some sort of strict liability - you didn’t even know that Uniswap was a possibility and certainly made no conscious effort to choose it but the result is that the transaction was done with Uniswap got back to your wallet without you knowing through which means that was achieved.

  • (Possibly, still working this out) - some sort of at least in criminal and civil contexts in the US, a “recklessness standard” equivalent, as in you didn’t intentionally choose to use Uniswap and but are aware of its possibility and was ambivalent about using it, and indeed in the transaction it was used and all was well and the transaction was completed.

  • Some sort of knowingly standard , as in you knew that uniswap was a choice and some part of the decision making process involved in you knowingly selecting a service that had Uniswap as an option, without selecting Uniswap itself over other services (for a Dex aggregator). The transaction happened and was completed through Uniswap.

  • Some sort of purposeful standard, where you went to some third party service, saw Uniswap, chose it specifically, and it was completed.

While this really should have been worked out by the devs (as they determined that failed transactions also count), I guess it’s left to us.

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.

4 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.