I support this 100%. Uniswap has shown that it wants a fair distribution with UNI tokens going to EVERY user. Even ones that had FAILED transactions.
I don’t think they wanted to leave out Dharma users and besides usage through proxy contracts should be encouraged as it simplifies the UX.
I’m with this, not because I stand to gain uni tokens, but because Dharma and other dapps/wallets are trying to make things easier for users, and bring in new users. Some ppl only ever knew Uniswap through Dharma. It’s fair that they are included imo.
so i will probably be skinned alive for saying this, but.
I dont think proxy contract users should get the reward.
If you are not technical enough to use Uniswap on your own, without having to rely on a 3rd party, you are not the type of person to make educated decisions on complex protocol governance.
Using Dharma is convenient, that’s what all tech is about. Making users enable to use product in a simple form.
If everyone has to setup nodes and write code then crypto would never been here.
So here Dharma did was a good thing.
@Dharma_HQ has triggered two timelocks:
After this update even the guys who are saying that people with no tech knowledge to use uniswap have no right for $UNI will start trading on $Dharma app.
I don’t like this selfishness. Considering many crap like food tokens scam that have disappeared in exit scams have received the airdrop. Also same users have received tokens to different wallets. This not crypto and this is not why many people are in, the rule should be the same for everyone. I will be really disappointed if a solution can’t be found because of selfish users like yourself!
absolutely not. This is up to governance to vote on. Wait 30 days for governance to vest with community and then we’ll look at it.
This is nonsense.
There’s no evidence the support is overwhelmingly positive.
And these forums are painfully easy to sybil attack.
Hello, plese do not forget MEW Users. I have swaped many times by Uniswap integrated in the MyEtherWallet. I belive that we have the right to be also included in the airdrop. Afterall, we are also Uniswap users. Regards.
tis a good thing that a democratized issue can marginalize the loud unsavoury opinions of the minority - who enjoy the sound of their own opinion echoing endlessly into the vacuum
i do find it remarkable that in a time such as this when fiscal constraint tightens the purse - you can only think of launching a narrative that denies the community a small insignificant portion of the available pool - a community, no less, that contributes to your purse by using Uniswap, albeit through unconventional pathways
Because using metamask and the uniswap web app requires such expert technical skills? If you follow this line of reasoning, the airdrop should only have been given to users who called the smart contract interface directly (not via the web app).
you raise valid points, I concur. And I have no better suggestion on how to divine the will of the ethereal “community” apart from the very forum upon which we debate. I will support the decision of a token-holder vote on the matter. I wish no-one financial misfortune due to the fickle hand of fate, and you are right that there’s plenty to go 'round.
Have to disagree in a big way here. There are tons of different ways that people “missed” the airdrop - I have a buddy who created his wallet two hours after the snapshot, and he missed out, too. I can’t in good conscience vote to dilute the shares of everyone who supported UNI just because certain wallet users were left out.
tldr: If you used an aggregator to skip out on paying the fees that the rest of us were subject to, you shouldn’t be rewarded with a retroactive payout. You took a risk to try and save some bucks, and the consequences were not being included in this drop.
Yeah, kind of shady marketing tbh to post that there. This is a big no from me.
I support this proposal 100%. There is clearly a way to work with the Proxy Contract systems (Dharma, 1Inch, etc.) to gather the list of users that are entitled to the airdrop.
As for those pointing out that “x other person used Uniswap starting on Sept 2. and they didn’t get any UNI, why should you”, I would just loop back to purpose of the airdrop and the UNI protocol in general. It is to reward those who have supported Uniswap and DeFi over the long run. Users of services like Dharma and 1Inch certainly fall into that category - they’ve provided liquidity, fees, etc. to Uniswap and contributed massively to its growth. It is absolutely justified to reward those users in the exact same way that direct Uniswap users were rewarded.
As @litocoen said, “Uniswap has shown that it wants a fair distribution with UNI tokens going to EVERY user. Even ones that had FAILED transactions. I don’t think they wanted to leave out Dharma users and besides usage through proxy contracts should be encouraged as it simplifies the UX.”
This is a great idea - ParJar from Parachute Token have built a great integration that gave people their first exposure to Uniswap (now including pooling in their app too).
I know they were gutted that their users ended up missing out from something nobody could have called or expected.
I’m sure they will be keen to set it right as well!
Strongly support.
I would only support such a proposal if it addressed the following 2 concerns, and offered a real compromise to everyone:
It is easy to request an airdrop for UNI tokens now that we see the success of the coin. A future airdrop of coins is unfair to those who immediately sold their 400 UNIs, as it was unknown whether or not the coin would gain traction. If those users had known, they probably would have held their coins at least a little longer. So the beneficiaries of this proposal have the advantage of knowing future value, in a sense. A compromise would be that, on the date of any distribution, the amount of coins distributed would be in relation to the current market price vs. the initial price. Let’s say the average initial price was $2.50, if UNI is trading at $7.50 on that date, only a third of coins should be distributed, as an example.
It is in the interest of UNI coinholders to have users use the Uniswap platform directly. If a third party wants to access it, there is definitely a benefit to everyone too, as these synergies do help the ecosystem, and I see that argument too. Perhaps the third party app should reward its user with its own native token to some degree as well as requesting UNI. I cannot request this native token because I don’t use the 3rd party apps. In this way, the amount of UNI in a potential distribution should be, as an example, quartered from the amount given to actual users.
So, a compromise counterproposal would be: 100 UNI, only to users who make a valid claim (TBD how), divided by (the market price of UNI on the day of distribution / $2.50). The claimants could also request the native token of the platform they traded on as well, and it would be up to the platform if it wanted to distribute ownership interests, or not. These numbers are just guidelines at this time, but, I feel like this is a real compromise that I would vote approval on.
It is noted that the growing trend for mobile applications has been proportionally increasing, thus making it more accessible to all Dharma users and others as mentioned above. Reaching an exponential number of people to connect in a simple way and directly with the Uniswap platform. We cannot help but see an increase in mobile devices and through this a mass adoption for DEX
I am a little concerned that the suggested proposal will still cause some takers to lose out on their $UNI. For example, if you traded using a non-public (custom built) smart contract which did not have a claim functionality, then you will be missing out. Are there any efforts to also include these custom-built contracts in the proposals? thanks!
I’d like to add that Dharma is what led me and may other users to Uniswap directly.
Dharma and Nadav are the reason I know what Uniswap does. They introduced me to the platform and I regularly swapped coins via the platform, as a result. I’m shocked my ETH address does not qualify for the 400 UNI. Would love to see this proposal go through.