This is part of the risk people assume when downloading and using the software needed to make these transactions. While this may be a dilemma it is one between the user and the interface they used to interact with the Uniswap contract and not Uniswap’s obligation to correct. There should always be forethought and research done on how those proxy contracts can benefit and harm someone and it is the creator of those contracts duty to inform it’s users of those limits. UNI allocation was decided based on a large amount of data and those proxy contracts should of known there can be downsides to their design, otherwise everyone would be using the same security in smart contracts.
1 Like
What the 400 UNI airdrop for 251k addresses has done is that it has effectively bought loyalty of users and I’m not saying that in a bad way. We are all early users and were all rewarded.
My rough guess is that there will be less than 25k addresses which will qualify for airdrop to proxy users and Nadav even said it will be in single digit thousands- less than 10k.
If not, these users will feel left out. And if these users are given 400 UNI each, then this will be a nice gesture that composability is welcome and is rewarded. In future, this will motivate more projects to build on top of and side by side of each other.
I understand the concerns of some users and at the base, the reason must be that these new airdrop receivers will sell and that each is getting $2500-$3000. But in my opinion, this wouldn’t be such a terrible thing as UNI is in heavy demand and this will be just a small price to pay for a broader distribution and a more wider community with more positive sentiment and loyalty towards the project.
@haydenadams I would love to hear your thoughts on this proposal. I know you said on twitter that its upto uniswap governance to decide how to use treasury but we’d all love to know what you think about this 
14 Likes
Depends, If these services where using DEX and profiting from doing so, accessing the service through a dif interface?
I think they should not get any UNI. That is the cost you pay. No ill intentions. using product with different brand…
2 Likes
Why are these 3rd party services not giving the rewards they got to their users? They were the ones interacting with the smart contract. I will vote NO and will keep encouraging others to do the same. I will protect the value of UNI tokens and all the supporters of Uniswap, no exceptions, no more.
4 Likes
I’m not sure you fully understand the transaction flow in this case, so let me please provide an example.
In case of DeFi Saver specifically there were thousands of users who interacted with Uniswap through a UniswapWrapper contract.
That contract got 400 UNI airdropped to it - not (X thousands * 400) UNI.
Well that’s one of the risks of not using Uniswap directly.
2 Likes
I think it’s unfair to call this “risk”. Nobody knew that any event such as this airdrop is likely or even possible and there was no risk to take or not take.
UNI was airdropped even to accounts that had failed transactions - so potentially accounts that made 0 volume. On the other hand, DeFi Saver users made millions of volume for Uniswap. Which of these would be more worthy of a UNI airdrop?
I definitely agree that it’s hard to draw the line and find an ideal solution fair towards everyone, but I have to say I disagree with where you’re putting the line right now.
5 Likes
The symbiotic relationships between these “money lego” dapps cannot be understated.
It is important that interoperability and connectivity is encouraged wherever possible for the mutual benefit of all participants. Users should never be punished for helping grow the space by adopting dapps that are beneficial to them as their experience encourages their participation and ultimately their stake in the entire network.
If the purpose of the 400 UNI is to reward participants, then a user that accessed uniswap, and paid their uniswap exchange fee, regardless of method, should IMO receive their UNI. I don’t see any material difference in connecting directly vs connecting via an aggregator. Both users have identical impact on revenue.
Aggregators/dapps providing access to uniswap is a mutually beneficial arrangement, creating a hierarchy of users I believe would be a counter productive president to set.
6 Likes
When the airdrop scramble initially happened people were selling as low as $1-$2 at the time and it was an uncertain risk what UNI’s price was going to be. Litigating the “fairness” of the whole process will be endless and this proposal just creates a precedent for perpetual litigation. I’ll be voting nay on any such proposals that want to expand snapshot criteria.
7 Likes
Thank you for the thoughtful post, Nadav!
I generally agree with your assessment and the effort to be as surgical as possible as a means of maximizing equity for legitimate users and capital efficiency for the community treasury.
In that spirit, I describe in point 3 (below) how elements of my previous suggestion can benefit users when integrated with your revised proposal.
I believe these elements will materially benefit overall UX and allocation outcomes, which I aim to demonstrate.
I also believe it will address concerns you and @haydenadams have expressed.
For clarity, I’ll recap my understanding of your proposal along with my suggested amendment in a rough OKR format & procedural outline.
Objective:
Identify, verify, & make whole all excluded, legitimate users eligible for UNI in the most equitable, frictionless, transparent, and capital efficient manner possible.
Note: “legitimate users” is defined here as individual users utilizing projects that incorporate Uniswap for personal trading and are not engaged in arbitrage or other use cases involving enmassed EOAs.
Key results:
-
Legitimate users are identified & included in finalized Merkle root (by extension, arbitrageurs, bots, and relayers are identified & maximally excluded)
-
Code & identified addresses are independently verifiable by users
-
Legitimate, excluded users recieve UNI as though omission never occurred.
Amended process proposal:
-
Identify projects via Nadav’s aforementioned Inclusion Criteria
-
Selected projects generate lists of affected users which will be verified against historical Uniswap v1 & v2 calls as well as UNI claims list to verify eligibility. This serves as preliminary Merkle root.
-
Users are able to independently verify their address has been included in preliminary Merkle root via a search bar similar to initial Uniswap claim UI and/or a CAPTCHA enabled form where addresses may be submitted and verification of inclusion is provided on submission.
If the user’s address has been omitted, the user is additionally able to add it to a pending list via form logic for consideration and will be required to provide proof that they are not an arbitrager with 10+ wallets, while also meeting initial eligibility requirements. It is unlikely that projects with KYC would experience additional omissions but in the interest of benefitting users and mitigating future contention, I think this should be included.
I believe user verification is an important feature in this process because it:
-
Provides users trustless/transparent assurance of inclusion & a dispute resolution process in the event of another unintended omission while eliminating the external locus of control they may otherwise feel.
-
Provides projects a secondary dataset to verify against. Lists generated by projects may still be vulnerable to inefficient inclusion, just as my previously suggested claim design is, but a combination of project lists and user verification should create a highly surgical (i.e. efficient & effective) dataset of EOAs.
In the event the end-result numbers exceed the projected goal of single digit thousands, user-generated verification could prove to be a viable solution to satisfy projects’ burden of proof.
This can also create metrics such as % of user verified EOAs to objectively confirm achievement of key results, which subsequently confirm achievement of our objective.
-
Merkle root is compiled using finalized list after completion of the vetting process described in 3
-
Deploy Merkle drop contract referencing that root.
-
Initiate governance proposal to grant
approval -
Potentially overkill option to optimize for capital efficiency:
Include claim function in addition to aforementioned verification process for Merkle drop contract and refund unclaimed UNI to community treasury after x claim period.
This will add friction and be inherently more exclusive and labor intensive, but will have redundant verification that only active users will recieve drop.
Thank you for your consideration and I hope my perspective positively influences the outcomes of all involved.
16 Likes
Why was Dharma not consider for the UNI airdrop?
At a time when gas fees were through the roof, dharma helped so many users interact with the Uniswap proxy contract and give you guys business too. The gas fees was partially borne by dharma and a higher slippage.
Uniswap HQ , please consider Dharma HQ for the airdrop.
3 Likes
Like many of the others described here, I used the proxy of the dharma provider on my mobile phone to make transactions on uniswap when i’m on the road, driving a car and at work, it would be great if the uniswap team considers the possibility of the dharma team initiative about air allocation as well users like me, tnks
Andrew
2 Likes
People opposed to this don’t want less than 10k addresses to be rewarded for supporting Uniswap. Meanwhile, not many complaints about the 12k addresses that never had a successful transaction and were rewarded.
It will be a greedy start to Uniswap governance if this is rejected.
6 Likes
Though I’m supportive of the spirit behind this suggestion, I fear that allowing arbitrary submission of addresses by any means (i.e. “dispute resolution”) is ultimately game-able, one way or another, and will add needless controversy to the vote for the proposal.
Sybil-resistance is not so simple to build into an application and it’s not so simple to prove that someone is not an arbitrageur.
Moreover, I would argue that folks who fall into the “edge-case” category of not having a project that will vouch for them in this process most likely developed their own proxy contracts to take actions on Uniswap. It seems a bit unlikely to me that those users wouldn’t have already had the technical acumen to use Uniswap directly and, in turn, gotten a UNI payout elsewhere. I would be surprised if there are more than 10 people in the world whose first and only interaction with Uniswap was through Solidity code.
5 Likes
The Application Period has started and projects are welcome to submit applications to be included in this proposal in this thread
7 Likes
All valid points and I trust all projects will do their due diligence to ensure all users are made whole. Thanks again for your time and consideration 
3 Likes
Completely agree with the proposal. Dharma must have introduced numerous newbies to the Uniswap world minus the complexities of Metamask. Dharma users and other similar projects rightfully should have had the airdrop in the first place. It is disappointing that scams and rug pulls got allocation of the initial UNI but not legitimate users that actually provided liquidity and paid fees by trading on Uniswap using the Dharma wallets. It will be a very disappointing end if Dharma and similar project users are not given the opportunity to be part of this early adoption grant.
8 Likes
I can understand your perspective, not sure if you are a user, but if you used Dharma you will know that they are as transparent as glass. Yes agreed the ‘No gas’ looks a bit gimmicky which I think can be improved on, all the fee are as transparent as they get. They list the slippage and clearly state that they will take the remainder from the slippage. Mainstream users will mostly prefer this over having to see and adjust various metrics in metamask to be able to get their trades through especially in this exploding gas market. So I would suggest you give Dharma a chance before being critical.
4 Likes
Sounds sensible. I have asked the Parachute token guys to have a read to make sure their ParJar Uniswap users are included.
They have had a great in telegram bot which people have been using for a while now so it’s a real shame all those users missing out.
5 Likes
How about KNC token holders? There aren’t that many of us, and UNI and KNC are in the same business and Kyber calls on UNI reserves for liquidity.
Plus, UNI may be putting Kyber out of business pretty soon. Give us a parachute amirite?
2 Likes