Proposal: Forse Analytics for Uniswap Revitalization and Growth Program (Onchain)
Vote: Against
Rationale: The proposal expressly stated:
and
and
In other words, it was clearly proposed that the DAO should decide whether to proceed with the proposal, and if so, it would be the DAO that would decide on which 3 blockchains the dashboards would be made.
In the temp check submitted to a vote, the DAO decided to proceed with the proposal and chose 3 blockchains: Base supported by 1,665,046.46 UNU, Arbitrum with 10,438,561.17 UNI and third Scroll with 1,171,901.87 UNI, followed closely by Blast with 1,171,615.9 UNI. In other words, the third place was very hard fought and the difference was very close, but the DAO chose Scroll over Blast.
Contrary to this, in the onchain voting, the proponent included Base, Arbitrum and Blast, i.e. the fourth blockchain chosen by the DAO, and not the third. When asked why this was the case, he expressly replied:
The proposal then stated that the 3 blockchains would be chosen by the Uniswap DAO, but we are faced with an onchain proposal that includes 3 blockchains, one of them chosen by the proponent contrary to what the DAO decided.
In principle, and without this being important for our analysis, it should be noted that the TVL of the blockchains today are not those reported in the proposal of Blast $838.46m and Scroll $601.14m, but that today Scroll with $771.92m has more TVL than Blast with $766.41m, so that taking the criteria of the proponent to decide by TVL, Scroll should have been chosen. Source: DefiLllama.
But beyond that, we understand that what has happened is very serious and dangerous, the DAO chose Scroll in third place, so the onchain vote should have included Scroll, the proposer by choosing Blast using his own criteria, did not respect and violated what was decided by the DAO.
We know that the consequences of this are not serious in themselves, since a dashboard will be made analysing Blast instead of Scroll, but we understand that the impact of the vote or the importance of what is being voted in this specific case is secondary, the issue here is that the DAO’s decision has been violated and not respected, which could set a very serious and dangerous precedent in other votes with greater impact.
Consequently, we vote against and request the proposer to cancel this onchain vote and submit a new one that respects the DAO’s decision.