If feasible, I propose adding a “claim” button to each excluded platform for active users to participate in a roll call. All possible methods of communication should be used to promote this. Then, use that list of addresses to check for TXs within the eligibility window and distribute UNI accordingly. I believe the tradeoff of inclusivity for equitability and efficiency is justified in this scenario.
This is a very, very interesting idea — so, from the proposal standpoint, we could say:
Deploy the merkle drop contract with the maximally inclusive subset of excluded users (i.e. approach #1)
Include logic in the merkle drop contract that basically forces a user to send a claim call to that merkle drop in advance of some deadline (e.g. 30 days from now)
Once the deadline passes, we only pull the amount of UNI necessary to satisfy claim’d users, and only those users can withdraw their UNI.
From an end-user standpoint, any affected wallets / implementations basically just give users the ability to claim their UNI now (with an X day lockup until the eventual point when the UNI can actually be withdrawn / traded). I quite like that.
It would be sad if dharma wallet user will not get those sweet airdrops … basically they used uniswap indirectly …dharma provided an easy interface … uniswap got more trading volume …it was win win for everyone … uniswap kindly find a way to reward dharma wallet users too
As much as I like Dharma, Uniswap, and contract layering in general, I do think there’s a strong opposition argument that could be made here.
If the intent is to reward active participants in Uniswap and give them a voice in future platform development, we should consider that maybe each abstraction diminishes a user’s knowledge and care for the inner workings of the contract call stack they ultimately execute.
Direct contract interaction is a rough gauge, but it does work reasonably well for targeting the people who are most committed to the platform. (And not to a higher abstraction.)
I don’t expect to see much opposition to this proposal. I just don’t think it’s actually a clear-cut issue.
I would disagree with the idea that using an aggregator diminishes care for the product.
That’s like saying that buying soda from a shop instead of straight from the manufacturer means you don’t care about the product, even though that soda may be a soda you purchase often and enjoy.
Using an aggregator doesn’t make you not care about Uniswap or disinterested in governance, it just means you were looking for a way to get the best price, and if you supported Uniswap through Dharma or Matcha or 1inch, I think it is fair to say that you deserve UNI for your patronage.
Yeah, I understand that opinion. I think a more apt analogy would be white-labeling, not distribution. (At least, that’s what I was trying to get at.) It’s obviously case-by-case. In Dharma’s case, I see a small unicorn icon on the trading UI and nothing to indicate uniswap pipes after tokens are selected. 🤷see what I mean?
Let me formalize this into a more verbose proposal w/ some associated data, I think this is the winner
This has the added benefit of really “enforcing” there being a user behind the allocation. If the address in the merkle root is, for instance, an intermediary contract with no ability to execute arbitrary transactions, well, then that’s definitely not a “user” in the traditional sense.
The only way an EOA or contract can claim the UNI is if they can actually send an arbitrary transaction — a capability typically reserved only for entities we’d generally conceptualize as “wallets”
One consideration with 1. and 2. is there are likely arbitrageurs / bots / relayers with thousands or tens of thousands of addresses that trade through custom smart contract proxies that would receive hundreds of thousands of UNI from this proposal.
Maximally inclusive sounds nice but I imagine will result in sending UNI to over >100,000 addresses (only <2% of which would be Dharma users)
its worth noting governance can always vote to allocate more UNI in the future, but can’t ever get back UNI it unnecessarily wasted.
In the case of Dharma I could agree that it would be more akin to whitelabeling, however with aggregators like 1inch and Matcha I believe the UI makes it clear enough that you are using Uniswap. Further, there are possibly many users who know that Dharma is using Uniswap, and use it for the free gas.
I do see you side of the argument, and respect your willingness to be the opposite voice here.
Maybe we have protocols or wallets that think their users would have been affected stake/send a certain amount of UNI and then allow them to add themselves to a list of wallets, and then have the wider community vote with their UNI if they want those wallet users to receive UNI. This process would allow for semi-decentralized approach to gathering and filtering out which wallets and their users should receive a second airdrop, without sending funds to thousands of bots and arbs as its not worthwhile for each bot or address to stake or send a large amount of UNI just to get 400 UNI in return.
I appreciate applications that help bring new users to DeFi and cryptocurrency. I do have a question though. I notice that on your page it says “zero gas fees”. How does this work? If in fact there are no gas fees being paid, I don’t think it would be fair to distribute the UNI tokens. At least not in the same amounts. At times Uniswap users are paying up to $50 dollars in gas fees. I don’t understand how Dharma users are able to avoid them. Could you please explain?
Absolutely NOT! These people are not paying gas fees like the rest of us, and many people that used Uniswap after 9/1 are not eligible, I disagree with this completely and it feels like users from those services are shilling this forum so fast. Disgusting that they want to ruin something so great like the UNI token so soon. I will vote NO and encourage others to do so, this is for UNISWAP users only.
You talk about a specific service like dharma in any case… theres many real human people that use uniswap through proxy contracts… for example I myself on 1inch exchange where gas fees are still paid, ive used 1inch exchange with uniswap many times, i have all the transaction hashes of the transaction clearly going through uniswap with 1inch exchange yet i am not able to claim the UNI yet. I do really hope this proposal passes through and ALL real human users that interacted with uniswap receive their deserved UNI tokens, this proposal isnt specific to dharma only… I hope this gets fixed as soon as possible, was super disappointed the moment i learned i wasnt able to claim the UNI tokens after having done Multiple Multiple transactions with 1inch through uniswap, specifically choosing unsiwap there many times for the better rate… This is a serious issue, defi community should work together and make sure all real human users of this service get recognized and can claim their tokens within a certain deadline at least…
All swaps in uniswap pay fees, there is no way to bypass that, Dharma subsidized some of gas when network congestion are low and that all.
Before Dharma I have too much troubles using metamask, and fail swaps, loosing partial transaction gas.
In top of that Dharma verifies tokens enabled on app, so enabled tokens to swap are relative safe to operate.
