Retroactive Airdrop Excludes Proxy Contract Users (e.g. Dharma, Matcha, etc.)

[fin2thepeople]

I assume dharma & co users will want to have a proposal for quadratic voting in place before this this is decided.

Quadradic will works kinda like this:
If you have 10 gov token = 10 votes
whale has 1000 gov token but only = 100 votes
superwhale 1.000.000gov only = 10.000 votes

Dharma & Co give a user experience to retail. So retail should be heard in this (and further) matters. Opinions of someone who is 100x richer must not be 100x cleverer.

Therefore I urge everyone interested in this matter to push the discussions and implementation of quadratic voting.

edit: typo

[Abhimanyu121]

I used 1inch exchange to make my swaps and I am not sure if the project owner will post in the application thread, so can I Simply put out my transaction hashes that shows that I interacted with Uniswap via delegated call?

[CryptoAssasin]

Mooniswap / 1inch Users who provided Liq - Which mostly fed through Uniswap should not be penalized for doing it. All provided adoption and tremendous amount of money into the digital asset space.
Lets see if this is acceptable -

Once done - Binance and the rest will list 1INCH / MOONI tokens as well for sure which will make back the Airdrop distribution anyway.

[Herbalizah]

I think it is not more than fair to reward the Dharma users. It sole purpose is to interact with the the uniswapmarket and provide a buyers sellers market gor uniswap. It’s like another walletadress.

[ryanc414]

For UNI bagholders who are against this proposal for totally understandable, rational self-interest in not diluting the value of UNI, here’s something to consider:

What do you think will happen if this proposal gets denied - how likely is it that Dharma and other third party platforms will continue to direct their user’s volumes to uniswap, after being told by the uniswap community that their users don’t matter? Sure there are some token pairs that can only be traded on uniswap but for many of the more liquid pairs there’s nothing to stop platforms from directing trading volume to another DEX instead.

Uniswap is a fantastic protocol and money lego, but its true value comes from the integrations with other money legos in the ethereum ecosystem. Ensuring that the users and developers of these third party platforms feel like a valued part of the uniswap community would be a rational investment in the future of uniswap and its token.

[gioman]

24h have gone. Any update on the submission? Did the application period started?

[Dramatic-Interest-37]

Application is here:
https://gov.uniswap.org/t/application-for-retroactive-proxy-contract-airdrop-for-projects-apps/3221

[CutieSwap]

I support this proposal.

Im going to tell you my experience, i wanted to use Uniswap back in April of this year, i used it 2 times but transactions failed, something happened everytime i had no idea, so i used 1inch.exchange as a way to use Uniswap and in that way all transactions went throught. So they are both allies. A lot of activity was facilitated this way and a lot of users used Uniswap this way.

Thanks for creating all of this, its exciting!

[Magnihusk]

I find it funny DEX aggregators think they can make threats as if someone would use an aggregator that ignored uniswap

[Walkiry]

@CutieSwap

Uniswap back in April of this year, i used it 2 times but transactions failed

If you used Uniswap even once, even if the transaction failed, you got your 400 UNI drop. So, no.

[t11s]

Just a thought, but what if we gave out 300 tokens to these users instead of 400. I think it’s reasonable as users who use Uniswap thru a proxy are still supporters of Uniswap, but are not necessarily as committed or ready to be involved with governance. I think this would be a fair compromise, as it still allows these users to get $UNI but still rewarding direct users of Uniswap who are more likely to be involved in governance.

[projectuwb]

What is the difference between interacting with Uniswap direct vs going through a services like Matcha, Paraswap or Dharma? Do the users that interacted with Uniswap through proxies not pay the same fees and supported Uniswap? I think proxy services make it much easier for newbies to get into this space and this should not be penalised. But this is just my opinion. On another note @nadav_dharma it looks like there is a fair few projects that replied to the retroactive airdrop application. When is the cut off to have the proposal drafted?

[Tim]

i dont know what you are doing? this is not governance. it need offical proposal in29 days?
I swapped trough instadapp and didnt get any uni.
Dont vote here just make a proposal later when you have 1000 uni

[nadav_dharma]

Approximate cutoff is tonight

[nadav_dharma]

To my knowledge, no. It appears there is an individual proxy contract per-user, in which case users would not have been omitted.

More context.

Instadapp (Instadapp)

[Tim]

Thanks so much for providing this link. I did tried it already but it said the dsa didnt had any uni to claim altough i traded before 1 sept. i ll try it again . Thanks!
Edit: i just checked… still no claimable uni on my dsa adress… Well i shouldn’t complain. i lok forward to your proposal to vote on!

[t0m]

Aggregators should also be taken into account!
i used MEW and always choose uniswap. So on purpose because I want uniswap!

[t0m]

@Walkiry

Ich werde definitiv nein zu diesem Vorschlag stimmen. Wenn Sie einen Proxy-Dienst jeglicher Art verwenden, haben Sie dies getan, weil Sie zusätzlich zur Verwendung von Uniswap einen weiteren Vorteil erhalten haben (oder dachten, dass Sie dies erhalten). Im Fall von 1 Zoll können Sie beispielsweise Ihren Trade nach dem „besten“ Geschäft auf der Grundlage verschiedener Liquiditätspools aufteilen und neu verteilen. Die Ansprüche gelten für die Personen, die Uniswap direkt verwendet und unterstützt haben, nicht über einen anderen Proxy, der Uniswap lediglich als Backend verwendet hat. Sie versuchen, wie das Sprichwort sagt, Ihren Kuchen zu haben und ihn auch zu essen.

i used MEW and always choose uniswap. So on purpose because I want uniswap!

[dontforgetkyber]

Don’t forget Kyber and Bancor!
EOAs whose transactions have been routed through Uniswap from the Kyber etc proxies need to be included for being market takers!!

[Jay-Prime]

After some internal and talks with our community of users, we quickly realized that DeFi Saver users are for the most part in a similar boat as Dharma users.

As mentioned earlier, the architecture that transactions made via DeFi Saver follow in terms of Uniswap interactions is: Tx Sender -> User’s DSProxy -> DFS UniswapWrapper <> Uniswap. However, due to our Automation services the Tx Sender can be either the User’s actual account, or an Automation bot account.

We believe the fairest approach in terms of DeFi Saver users would be for Users’ DSProxy accounts to be included, instead of Tx Sender accounts, since many DeFi Saver users exclusively use our Automation services for their leveraging and de-leveraging trades on their MakerDAO and Compound positions, in which case the Tx Sender is not User’s Account, but rather one of our Automation bot accounts (very similar to Dharma where they sign and send transactions for their users, if I understand correctly). For example, 71% of DeFi Saver transactions that include token swaps in August have been initiated by Automation bots.

This approach would make sure that the receipients of the UNI aidrop are the actual accounts whose funds were being swapped and not our team owned Automation bot accounts (of which we have at least 10 currently active and many more that were previously used) that were merely signing and sending these transactions, on behalf of actual user accounts. As all DeFi Saver features revolve around the DSProxy architecture, all funds involved in all trades made via Uniswap were indeed originating from Users’ DSProxies, which hold either their MakerDAO CDPs/Vaults or their Compound portfolios.

Additionally, we would like to highlight that we already have an interface available for User accounts to withdraw any tokens (e.g. UNI in this case) from their User DSProxies, meaning this approach would not be creating an issue for anyone.

We are open on feedback and discussion on this, of course.