I wanted to make this post before the Dharma proposal, I won’t be taking part of the Uniswap governance anymore.
I have nothing against Navad, Brendan, Chris, Hiturunk, Dharma or the Uniswap team, and I think governance of Uniswap is not broken, and keep working just fine.
But at the end of the day this project belongs to the Uniswap team, and judging by the few interactions I had with them… whatever I am trying to do is not being welcomed, and I couldn’t be more uncomfortable with that.
I wouldn’t want someone insisting on taking part of my project if I don’t like what they are doing either, so I think is best if that I take a step to the side.
I will keep working on my things and projects, some of them are Uniswap integrations… luckily for me I can interact with Uniswap without having to participate on this governance process hehe.
I’d be more worried if every single project which implements governance is filled with yes people and agree to absolutely everything the owners of the project want.
Having a wide range of different view points is a positive thing when it comes to governance imo.
At the end of the day, as UNI holders, I’d like to think we all want what’s best for UNI and UniSwap.
It’s sad that you feel this way, if the Uniswap team never intended to want to remove their control from them then why ever make the token other than to bribe people with a cash incentive to use the platform (If that was your intent Uniswap team congrats you’re doing the right thing). With that being said I too will be removing myself from this Governance Forum as I too feel in a similar situation where I am going against the teams wishes along with this forum seeming to have turned into a toxic wasteland with no substance and more and more of the same small few making fake accounts to overpower people with false non factual information.
Maybe not, it seems that only devs that go to ethereum dev conf are worthy of being in decentralized govervance. Has a dev myself i agree with your stance.
I think you’re a huge value add to the ecosystem and governance process. Not sure what tweet is being referred to, but hopefully you’d be willing to look past it to stick around.
I think you are a very valuable voice here! I would hate to see you go, but I definitely understand your frustration.
If @brendan_dharma’s theory is correct, and it is determined that Uniswap team is using vote delegations to continue to make decisions, bypassing user governance, then I’ll likely be right behind you.
Seems fairly strange to make a thread like this and not explain the reasoning behind it other than to make a vague statement about bad blood between you and the Uniswap team. Even stranger that other users chime in with unrelated vague comments on theories about supposed unscrupulous activities the team may be taking part in.
I’m referring to a few comments here that appear to be addressing information that’s not in this thread or the governance forum altogether, without presenting said information.
So far the thread has just been an expression of lack of faith in Uniswap governance with no exposition for why the statements are being made. It creates an environment of uncertainty and unease that we’re all aware is often used strategically. I’d like people to provide exposition for what they’re stating.
@Agusx1211 stated ‘whatever I am trying to do is not being welcomed’, but from reading his activity on the forum, I’m unable to understand what it is that he’s trying to do (as he doesn’t appear to have proposed anything in the past), nor am I able to see where people supposedly had a problem with his activity.
@Uniguy772 made all kinds of claims about the intentions of the Uniswap team, the validity of governance, the state of the forum, and people sockpuppeting and spreading ‘false non factual information’ - but provided no examples. Its the first I’m hearing of any of this.
You provided at least some exposition about what all of this might be about, so thank you.
But I feel statements expressing lack of faith in governance using reference to a theory that had been made on a completely different platform, without presenting the theory in reference (prior to my post), is fairly unhelpful hearsay.
@Bullrun you are right, I am referring to some discussion that’s not on the forum and I didn’t properly referenced it.
I want to clear a couple of things:
I don’t think governance or Uniswap are broken, not at all, this post is more intended to “announce” the fact that I don’t want to be a delegate anymore, so people can change delegates before any more voting happens.
I don’t have bad blood with the Uniswap team, but I don’t feel confortable with the way Hayden was tweeting yesterday, to be more specific, there were some tweets about some opinions being worth less, and cutting out untalented developers from the conversation.
I am not saying that Hayden shouldn’t say those things, but those comments make me feel not welcomed on the governance, and I prefer to not take part of something if I am not welcomed.
I don’t think Uniswap, Dharma or Chris are involved on “unscrupulous” activities, I think everyone has some strong opinions on the matter and in the heat of the argument personal attacks are being made.
I don’t think this toxicity comes from a single party, pro-dharma & anti-dharma, both are saying nasty things in order to push their proposals.
It’s a pity. I find your input to the discussions quite valuable and deliberate.
There are not many posts on the forum with a high signal to noise ratio, and yours are. Were…
Well, good luck with future endeavors, and welcome back if you change your mind.
: (
