Uniswap is plenty friendly. And apps like Dharma are more than happy to send users to other AMMs whenever it suits them.
3 Likes
The airdrop is supposed to be shared with people who have supported the exchange, I think Dharma has been a great contributor to Uniswap, the dharma users should be included in the airdrop.
4 Likes
If you tried using Uniswap and failed for any of those reasons, you’d have gotten your airdrop. Everyone who used Uniswap, even if all they had was a single failed transaction, got the 400 UNI. So that’s not a valid reason to extend the drops.
1 Like
I use Dharma wallet in my iPhone to do swapping since Metamask doesn’t available yet at that time. I would support this proposal to enable airdropping UNI for Dharma.
1 Like
I’ve swung back and forth on this proposal a little.
I take the argument that some of these aggregators are their own product, and Uniswap is simply used as infrastructure to facilitate the trade. I think there is a good case that users of these protocols are not users of Uniswap in the same sense as someone who interacts directly with the app. I’m thinking, for instance, of Kyber users.
That said, for apps like Dharma who were explicit that their users were interacting with Uniswap, I think the case is much clearer. Dharma themselves marketed this Uniswap integration as little more than a convenient, user-friendly front end, built directly into their wallet. I think these users are Uniswap users.
Certainly, arbitrage bots with hundreds or thousands of addresses should not benefit from a secondary distribution.
I would propose that if there is a secondary distribution to include this edge case, then it should be done on a per protocol basis where governance decides whether it would be in the spirit of the distribution to extend it to the users of each service, app or protocol.
10 Likes
Would this also include Zapper users? I wholeheartedly agree with this proposal and would love to see users added!
1 Like
I want to also draw everyone’s attention to contract deployers.
Contract deployers for 1inch and Paraswap etc. were contributors to Uniswap as they provided channels for people to access Uniswap. These contract deployers should also be rewarded, by allowing them to claim the tokens and send them to contract deploying account. Thank you.
3 Likes
I strongly believe dharma users deserve UNI - after all Uniswap benefited the volume from Dharma users. I know several of my non techie buddies chose to use dharma for its simplicity
3 Likes
There are several My Ether Wallet (MEW) users affected, too. The app routed transactions through a proxy contract.
The extra annoying part is that since MEW doesn’t support WalletConnect, the only way to access uniswap if you are a MEW user was through the in-app swap function, which went to that proxy even if your transaction was 100% uniswap.
1 Like
This makes sense to approve. I support it.
It would be screwing over a huge user base, and if not supported I would expect Dharma and others to never use Uniswap again.
2 Likes
I think the key considerations for including users of apps like Dharma are probably:
-
App must have directly integrated with Uniswap i.e. aggregators, bots should be excluded. This must be verified in terms of smart contact implementation - individual trade transactions should be linked directly to the exact wallet that was transacting
-
Must have been explicit about it (like in the case of Dharma)
We can have a period of whitelisting whereby the teams from affected apps can come forward to put their case for the community to vote on, and thereafter conduct the retroactive airdrop
8 Likes
There is nothing wrong in giving the airdrop to Dharma users , they should be rewarded if they have used the the Uniswap ,but there is a catch.
In Dharma you can’t import your wallet , most of the wallets are created by Dharma so there will be many people who already traded in Uniswap and used Dharma for reason of gas fee. A huge mistake Uniswap team did was not considering the multiple addresses of same users and rewarding them , any person who uses say 10-50 addresses to trade in Uniswap already have got disproportionate amount of rewards and In future they will try to do so more as I think team didn’t think of sybil attack , as there is no way to measure sybil attack and hoping the percentage of dubplicate addresses with same users to be low, I congratulate Uniswap for giving every small traders the reward.
Once Dharma can make sure the users are first time users and not traded in Uniswap and getting rewards two times ,rewards to Dharma should be released and rest of them should be added to treasury for any future use.
Yes but every new project sending airdrop of any kind should try to find ways to uniquely identify users and disincentivies Sybil rewards.
2 Likes
Firstly, no one knew that “users” were going to be airdroped tokens by uniswap. So people claiming UNI on multiple addresses is not a bad thing as they didn’t do that solely to get UNI tokens in the first place.
If they knew or heck if I knew, I would have traded through 100 different addresses before September 1st.
And when it comes to Dharma, it’s not as same as trading through just another Eth address. On metamask, with one seed phrase, you can create multiple eth addresses. On Dharma, you need to set up an email and password and once you delete the Dharma app from your phone, recovery of your smart wallet is through support. So, it’s not the same. I doubt if any single person would be able to claim twice from Dharma. @coolcryptomaniac
6 Likes
Wow, OK — this discussion is spiraling in a variety of directions.
Let me try to focus things here:
In contradiction to what I said above, though, I have heard several anecdotes in private discussions indicating that expanding the UNI distribution to the “maximally inclusive / non-discretionary” options I listed above may abusively advantage arbitrageurs. Allegedly, an oft-used infrastructural setup for such users is to have a single proxy contract with a large number of (circa 1000s) EOAs attached, and, unfortunately, the clever design suggested previously by @AgentSmith could succumb to this if it purely lived at the protocol layer.
This isn’t to say that the initial allocation was maximally sybil-resistant or “fair” – but, in a sense, we’re better-positioned to not repeat or exacerbate drawbacks in a “programmatically-objective” distribution strategy now that we have governance.
My revised proposal then would be as follows — establish clear “inclusion criteria” for wallets, interfaces, and aggregators whose users have been excluded from the distribution, collect a list of addresses from said wallets, and then use that list to create the initial merkle root for the allocation.
The goal here will be to keep the allocation minimally surgical.
In more detail:
Inclusion Criteria
We define “projects” as being any entity whose users were excluded from the retroactive UNI allocation due to the proxy contract issue identified above.
In order to be eligible for inclusion in this distribution, a “project” must meet the following criteria:
-
Prior to September 1st, they exposed a publicly-available user interface either on web or in an integrated mobile application that allowed users to make trades on Uniswap in some capacity. We include DEX aggregators in this definition — UNI holders ultimately get their paycheck from market takers, not makers. Aggregators are fundamentally in the interest of Uniswap’s success.
-
It must be clearly verifiable that said interface / application was available to users prior to September 1st (e.g. if this is not immediately obvious that this is the case, the burden of proof is on the project for demonstrating, for instance, that an interface can be loaded on Wayback Machine, etc.)
-
It must be clearly verifiable that said interface / application at the time hooked into a proxy contract calling into Uniswap. Again — if this is not immediately obvious or verifiable, the burden of proof is on the project to demonstrate this.
-
Finally, the project should provide a list of addresses of affected users. It must be clearly verifiable that those addresses are associated with the proxy contract system previously identified to be associated with the project. Once again, if this is not immediately obvious, the burden of proof lays with the project.
All provided addresses will be verified against historical Uniswap v1 and v2 calls to exclude any addresses that were not in the call-chain of a Uniswap transaction (successful or failed). Open-source code to verify that this is indeed the case will be published for independent review. All addresses will be verified for not having been in the initial retroactive UNI allocation.
Discussion Period
We set aside the following 24 hours for discussion & debate of the above criteria. Once the 24 hours elapse, we move into the Application Period
Application Period
A thread will be posted in the governance forum where projects will be asked to submit short, public applications on behalf of their users. This will be a handful of questions we will post into a template in the thread’s OP. We will reserve 48 hours for submission and inline discussion / debate.
Submission
Once a set of projects is decided upon, said projects will be asked to submit a list of affected user addresses in a public thread.
Those addresses will be verified against the aforementioned criteria using publicly available code we will publish.
We will then compile a merkle root for the distribution, deploy a merkle drop contract referencing that root, and will initiate a governance proposal to grant approval to said contract, with triggering scheduled for October 17th, 2020.
To correct some misconceptions that appear to be circulating above — this allocation will be no more dilutive than the normal state of affairs; it will come out of the community treasury in which UNI is continuously vesting. Moreover, our intention is to be as surgical as possible — our hope is to limit the expanded allocation to the single-digit thousands. We are open to employing a methodology akin to the one previously suggested by @AgentSmith (i.e. users must claim their distribution on-chain prior to October 17th, so only a strictly claim'd amount is transferred to the merkle drop contracgt), though the end-result numbers may militate towards this approach being overkill.
35 Likes
Notably, UNI tokens were also distributed to foodponzis creators like PASTA, SUSHI, FARM, etc. It’s disturbing that the UNI tokens were distributed to these ponzis instead of users who had actually used their capital to provide liquidity to uniswap. It does not make sense to penalize users who had contributed liquidity to Uniswap by distributing their UNI allocation to the ponzi creators instead.
11 Likes
I think this is fair. Dharma promotes the fact that they use Uniswap and I think it’s one of the primary reasons people trust it.
This would also benefit smaller users which is worth going out of our way for.
If people are so worried about Dharma and other users not being dedicated enough a 2-4 year vesting period could be a good compromise.
5 Likes
It’s obvious, isn’t it? Uniswap is a DEX, market takers are what determine the revenue of the protocol. Even if someone uses an arbitrary aggregator or wallet, they’re still paying fees and interacting with the Uniswap contract by proxy – same as any other user.
This airdrop isn’t an act of charity, it is fixing an oversight in the token distribution and giving a subset of users what they are owed. It’s in the best interests of the protocol to do this as it is in line with the goal of having as fair of a distribution as possible.
10 Likes
How about people submit tx hashes where they used uniswap via something like dharma or 1inch exchange.
5 Likes
I support the Dharma airdrop — many traders/investors prefer to use Dharma instead of Uniswap for different reasons (such as speed, mobility, simplicity, subsidized gas).
Dharma has created an amazing product.
It would be a shame and waste to see its users “punished” for using Uniswap indirectly.
4 Likes
I whole heartedly agree. It was simply an oversight and would be honored to pass this proposal. Like mentioned before from other users , these scammer and Rug pullers were able to receive their UNI but those who are new to the space or just want to be secure with their money didn’t . Would be a shame if we didn’t agree that they also deserve in getting an airdrop. Looking forward to show that this community can come together and put their best foot forward!
3 Likes