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 UNIcan 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.
"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.