I agree that the proposal lacks critical detail, but plan to signal “Yes” for the Snapshot vote, as I am directionally aligned with the initiative and stated goals of the proposal. Eager to see it mature, with critical details filled in, before supporting a formal governance vote.
5 Likes
Thank you, this is the reaction we were hoping for. Looking forward to working out critical details, would love for your input.
Thanks for your feedback. Here is what we can say at this point in time:
- Our plan is to send the grant to a 501(c)(4) with an independent, well-informed board who will make ultimate financial decisions. We have received some level of interest/commitment from several qualified individuals who will be made public if this passes the snapshot.
- A project roadmap is important to us as well, but instead of organizing all the details ourselves we wanted to first incorporate more input from the community. That is what this snapshot period was meant to foster, and we have been taking careful note of common concerns and suggestions. The roadmap will be better defined in the next governance step.
- Ultimately we anticipate other DeFi protocols will join our efforts. However there is a significant first-mover advantage if Uniswap doesn’t wait–it would establish Uniswap as a thought leader and the most forward-thinking DeFi platform in an otherwise very competitive space.
3 Likes
Look, I do think the idea itself is a great one and I also do agree that the idea of going big has its merit, but we are just not there yet. Allocating such a huge sum of UNI could have far reaching consequences. The market for UNI is relatively still illiquid and throwing such huge sums at it would have a profound impact on the price. All of a sudden, we could find ourselves seeing that the “lobby allocation” would cost far more than we had anticipated. What good is it to plow through 30M worth of tokens to devalue the rest of them by a huge magnitude? Then, the impact would be truly more than 30M, it would be counted in billions and I do not think the token is ready to handle such things…not at the current market valuation at least. The opportunity cost is too huge to consider. If UNI has a market cap 10x the current size and is more liquid, we can talk about allocating 1M-1,5M of UNI for lobbying. Until then, a significantly smaller amount will have to do. Sorry
4 Likes
I agree with what’s been said by Robert and Ken above. I’m directionally aligned with the idea, but want to see the details of what I’m actually supporting if I vote Yes to this. That being said, the governance process is kind of unclear here. My understanding is that temperature checks are for “directional alignment” and then the consensus check is for a more specific proposal.
I guess my main takeaway is: I’d like to see a much more details proposal. Depending on the details, I could vote Yes or No.
I’m voting Yes in the snapshot in hopes of seeing that more detailed proposal.
7 Likes
I’m against this proposal. I’m against lobbying in general, money as speech. That’s playing the game of the crooks who set these rules to take everything productive in society away from the common person.
Funds would be much better utilized providing financial support to projects/initiatives that make Uniswap (and DeFi) unbreakable, decentralized, and out of the reach of any nation’s government.
If we have lobbyists we join the crooks who created this role to buy political representatives and leverage their wealth over the rights of the collective citizenry. Thus, we would only be supporting their corrupt systems of governance. Also, this would become a massive effort to regulate Uniswap according to one nation or another’s whims, nations with corrupt governments at that!
5 Likes
This whole Temperature Check is just bullshit.
You state this " The Snap Poll will be live for 2 days, from May 27th until May 29th at 7:00 PM EST. If the poll passes with a minimum of 25,000 UNI in support, this proposal will move forward to the consensus check phase."
Then you use all your delegated votes to support the snapshot vote immediately.
This is a pure money grab, pure and simple. Vote NO.
9 Likes
So whats important to know is that running BTC nodes could have required a money transmitter license in 2013ish but thanks to some really great lawyers, it remained free p2p.
With that said, this proposal is highly misguided and is a result of massive wealth creation in crypto of which these people are trying to grab a piece. You start small in life, prove out your worth and then go from there. Anyone asking for $30 million USD on the first shot is very likely “not in it for the tech” to put it lightly.
Its kinda like one of those $30 million USD ICOs in 2017 that all failed. Look at the best DeFi products, they all started small and grew.
Also, this Harvard group is run by students, likely none of which have practiced law and are generally unexperienced. Just bc they have Harvard in the name u should not be impressed. CoinCenter has done a great job to date and has not asked for anything close to this and its actually absurd and should be a giant red flag.
Academics are generally out of touch with society that are slaves to their institutions. The spirit of the proposal is right but it has so many red flags - this should not be the group to lead us to ultimate freedom. This kind of $ should be spent on dev power, not lawyers. Give $1 MM to CoinCenter and lets see what they do - no need to get academics involved.
On a side note - this Harvard org stated they would make a proposal for the fee switch a few months ago and they never did it. Never provided justification. And now a bunch of students ask for $30 mill … lol
Additionally, A16Z has way too much power when it comes to Uniswap and crypto in general. hey have fiduciary duty to their shareholders and not the protocols, data integrity/privacy, etc. They will dump on you - see Dfinity and Coinbase IPO as examples.
Leshner is the purest ally we have in the Uni community. Follow him to freedom.
6 Likes
This is right on. Kinda dissapointed to see Hayden so excited about this.
Also remember Hayden is only 26 and was not involved in BTC 2013 when they tried to require money transmission to run BTC nodes.
Use CoinCenter to do this quietly, not a bunch of kids w $30 million.
2 Likes
It sounds like you’re hoping to move forward with this proposal even though the community has decisively said no, while the large delegated amount of token governance you have available to vote yes is enough to overrule the rest.
I’m in favor of having lobbyists promote defi and crypto to congress, I am not in favor of one group coming in, steamrolling the community, and then making off with the money.
It seems like this proposal would be much better as small, incremental chunks, each one having a direct goal and timeframe, rather than getting a handout to create an ungoverned checkbook where the community no longer has any say over how it’s funds are utilized.
But, unfortunately, I’m a little fish, no, I’m plankton, and my vote has been overpowered by a large self-interest group looking to make off with UNI funds.
6 Likes
While agreed with the sentiment of the proposal. Apart from more specificity, this shouldn’t be an issue that Uniswap should tackle alone (and probably not just within the Ethereum ecosystem too). This might be better if it was a DeFi issue via a DAO whose treasury solely exists for global political defense.
1 Like
I agree that the approach to advocacy should be decentralized. This is Defi. Not through centralized intermediaries whose brand may have long term negative connotations. If the “best lobbyists” are individuals who previous lobbied for government bailouts or wars, I don’t want them. For short term purchased “clarity”, it could be detrimental in the long term.
4 Likes
Dont worry about it too much right now, the proposal is dead in the water with its current format. It needs a major overhaul
Hello
Don’t Deny Defi
#Defi #Blockchain just on the starting line in terms of mass adoption, Its normal when Banks / Govs didn’t ensure their position.
#Defi will be here 4eva and anyone can use it, even ( a group of people in a room ) which we would call something higher than a bunch of people sitting in a room.
This is the beautiful part of life.
Options love Irony
Meta 4’s work & make cents
#Better4all
Hi all, I am the founder of HODLpac - a community-governed political action committee created in 2020 to help elect candidates for the US congress that support the cryptoeconomy - and a team member at Boardroom - a startup building DAO management and governance tools for open organizations.
I am very happy to see this proposal by Harvard Blockchain and Fintech Club for two reasons:
-
As @Miller, @stat57, and others have pointed out in above comments, there are many regulatory attack vectors that threaten DeFi - from tax policy to securities laws to illicit finance regulations. On top of that, DeFi’s borderless nature means that these threats are multiplied by the many jurisdictions/nation states it touches. To ignore these threats would be a grave mistake. Organizations like Coin Center, the Blockchain Association, Chamber of Digital of Commerce, and more have done a good job representing crypto and DeFi’s interests but pressure is building and more resources are needed to bolster our defenses.
-
I am a decentralized governance maximalist that believes wholeheartedly in the potential for communities like UNI’s here to pioneer a new form of human/economic organization via DAOs. I’m convinced - as I think many others here are - that we are all taking part in the early days of a historical and society-changing experiment. However, for this experiment to succeed in creating new forms of institutions, we will need to find ways to interface with legacy ones like governments (importantly, while maintaining our principles).
I support this proposal in broad strokes but would like to see some of the feedback given here incorporated in its next iteration. Specifically:
-
This type of political/policy grants committee should be administered in a way that reflects our values; namely, with accountability, community participation, and transparency. Tools like Boardroom, Tally, and others have been created to help facilitate community involvement and open governance. An organization like this one should leverage those tools, board members should be voted on and serve for limited terms, and community input should be incorporated as much as possible.
-
The proposal is correct that experts in this area are expensive, but the UNI/$ amount asked for here is quite high. As stated above, I believe that it is a worthy cause to commit funds to. However, this proposal should change the funding structure - and follow the lead of the several community grants committees that have sprouted up across the DeFI ecosystem - to unlock funding in stages based on community approval and performance goals.
-
We should quickly make simultaneous governance proposals in other major DeFi DAOs to, as @DCInvestor says, make this into a true public good on behalf of the industry as a whole. UNI is a leader in the space but there are others.
The goal for the organization/committee that comes out of this proposal should be to become a meta-DAO on behalf of the DeFi community to fund initiatives that will benefit us all. A new age trade association. Again, if we are true believers in what we are building then we should lean into the tools that we’ve been developing.
I look forward to watching this proposal evolve and would love to help in anyway I can. For those who are skeptical, I hope you will consider supporting this good-faith initiative if feedback is incorporated.
4 Likes
For what it’s worth, we had a mostly-completed fee switch proposal ready to go when v3 was announced and launched. We decided to wait and see how migration would work and the volume amounts before going forward with it. As L2 solutions get added to further mitigate transaction fees we think in the future it will be good timing to bring it out again. Feel free to offer suggestions as well.
And RE: trust-- ideally the proposal is written in a way that you (or anyone else) doesn’t need to trust us at all, just that they like the proposal itself. We will not be taking custody of any funds through this proposal.
Consensus check and more detail now available here: Consensus Check - UNI should fund a political defense organization for decentralized finance
Are you guys for real? Look at at the background of these “lawyers”. World economic forum, planned parenthood.
This is a trojan horse you’re opening up to if you accept this lot to “fight” for Uni. You’ll find that the goal of WEF, Central banks to regulate DeFi will be a real thing.
5 Likes
Wish I managed to get here in time to vote.
