URGENT discussion on current vote: "Reduce UNI Governance Proposal & Quorum Thresholds"

The UNI voting community that you claim to represent feels otherwise. 98% of the vote.



The 30m “YES” is DHARMA and GAUNTLET.
They have 30m votes, and they have used them to propose and vote.

Despite this seemingly overwhelming “community support” for “Yes”, the UNI community is actually voting NO. Like they should be if they care about fair governance!


Those 30m yes are two delegates, Dharma and Gauntlet… it’s not a coincidence they are pushing to lower the limit to 30m and they have a combined voting power of 30m…


@uni0 and @Pipo-Mandarina. I understand what you are asking for. I get the sentiment. Unfortunately you can’t “yes…but” the structure of a DAO governance vehicle. What would you propose? Undelegating Dharma and Gauntlet’s vote? DAOs, in principle, exist precisely to prevent that kind of manipulation. It appears that you have 2 issues that are far more important to discuss.

  1. The design and process of the voting mechanism.
  2. The choice of UNI voters to delegate to the twin evil empires

Honestly guys. You have lots of energy that is being misspent here. In order to justify your claims, you are trying to characterize the Dharma proposal as a disingenuous unethical cash grab. Do you have proof of that? Have you considered that Dharma has nothing more than the good will of their users to gain? Have you also considered that your mischaracterization is bordering on slander towards a great project that is servicing consumers with a much needed mobile product? (in full disclosure, i used them once or twice to try it out - i have nothing to gain from this proposal however).

I understand the psychology. You feel passionate about your position, and you will create whatever fictional narrative you can summon to justify your position. In this case, characterizing @nadav_dharma as an evil despot looking to make a getaway with a paltry few UNI tokens, is factually incorrect. He is a servant leader trying to build a community. He is extremely respectful, considers both sides, and always solicits the opinions of those who don’t agree in order to engage in productive dialog. You should talk to him directly, instead of making loud appeals to the UNI community to filibuster this vote.

Btw, the goal is singular. It is a proposal designed to “make the voting mechanism usable and coherent”. At some point in the future you will appreciate this, especially when much needed reforms are able to leverage the newly designed constraints.


I appreciate the points that you are raising. I agree with you and will vote NO.

Is there anywhere that we can look to confirm that the majority of the YES votes are coming from Dharma and Gauntlet?


You can check that Gauntlet and Dharma have 30m votes by going Here, or by running the queries yourself at the contract

We know that Gauntlet and Dharma are behind this proposal.

Gauntlet said that they voted yes

Dharma said that they voted yes

This is a clear takeover attempt.


Is committing slander without proof a value that ‘you’ support, or are you suggesting that you represent the sentiment of the entire Uniswap community? I sincerely hope it is the former.

Your tweet “If this isn’t a governance attack, then what is?”. Ummm, i dunno. Maybe someone is using initiative and trying to repair the voting mechanism. Must there be evil intent simply because you disagree or harbour fantastical narratives about an elaborately concocted attempt to overthrow UNI governance? The simplest answer is the most logical. @nadav_dharma is just trying to do the right thing. Maybe if you read his posts you’ll reconsider your position.


Slander requires a falsehood. I said nothing false.

I didn’t say “If this isn’t a governance attack, then what is it?”
I said “If this isn’t a governance attack, then what is?”

Meaning that this very clearly fits my understood definition of an attack on a decentralized governance system.

2 humans are attempting to create an environment where the community becomes completely irrelevant and they control the outcome of every vote.

That is a very clear attack on decentralization and if it’s not stopped, it will make a complete mockery of Uniswap’s governance going forward.


we are starting to sound like lawyers
i also despise semantics and cannot practice proper sophistry now

let’s agree to disagree - i think i’ve exhausted my argument and will leave it to you
enjoy the discussion, but please consider the possibility that your suspicions may be incorrect
(i’m not saying you are wrong - just that it is highly unlikely)
critical thinking is a must in any dialog - all sides must be considered thoughtfully


I am not casting any suspicions. I am only dealing in facts.

2 parties are very clearly working together to take governance power away from the community, with an immediate goal of using the community treasury to please the users/customers of 1 of said parties.

This is all fact. This is what we are talking about. It’s very clear what is happening. Now, the question is, can the users do anything about it?


It’s important to keep in mind that regardless of the impact of a potential airdrop- Uniswap is open source and fork-able. If the community doesn’t like it, they can clone it.

This creates an interesting dynamic where incentives are (hypothetically) aligned between large and small members.


We need some UNI whales to vote NO!

I would like to have the threshold be lowered for proposal creation to 3m. Someone should make this a separated/competing proposal to raise attention.

Is there a delegate that supports this view?


I have a doubt here,

Isn’t quorum the minimum required to vote for passing a proposal?, but not necessarily means you have the majority to pass all proposals.

Lowering the quorum from 4% (40 Million Uni) to 3% (30 Million UNI) only works on favor of the majority members when the other minorities abstain or neglect voting. In this case that means that if 97% of the other UNI holders don’t vote or don’t care about the governance

As of now I think Dharma has 15.5 Million UNI votes, and Gaunlet 13.7 Million UNI. Together they have majority power to pass a proposal at 4% or 3% Quorum regardless;

I guess is more a matter of the remaining (current supply) 156 Million UNI holders actively participating or not.

Am I interpreting how this works correctly?


No that isn’t right, you need 40m votes on “yes” to reach quorum, not 40m total, as per the UNI blog post.


Hi all,

I’m noticing a lot of posts flagged ‘against’ this proposal. Please, this is a discussion forum.
That being said, everyone is entitled to their opinion as long as it’s backed by arguments.

If more false reports happen, then I’ll see to discuss with the moderation team to have this punished. Enable everyone to speak their mind, this is an important proposal. And, don’t attack someone sharing their thoughts, provide arguments once again (counts for flags throughout the whole forum).


Paltry few UNI tokens??? You mean five milion UNI tokens? I second the voices that are against this proposal and I think they have good arguments against it which everybody ignored. Nobody (Dharma and Gauntlet) is willing to discuss any concessions, they just want to shove it down everybody´s throat. There is the reason why everybody thinks its despotic.


Hmmm, just to be clear: Dharma itself doesn’t get UNI from its proposal for retroactive distribution. It’s the users of multiple wallets (Dharma, Argent, etc.) who will receive the UNI, for trading on Uniswap via meta-transactions. I think this is in alignment with the goals of the initial distribution of token, and it’s not a play by Dharma to get tokens for itself. It’s also a very fair way of distributing tokens to more people, because we know that there is very likely one single address per real user.

Disclosure: I work at Dharma, but I do think this is true. Nadav and others involved are doing a lot of work on behalf of thousands of people in the community who did use Uniswap before the distribution.


Whether or not you support airdropping users who didn’t visit Uniswap at the expense of the Uniswap community treasury, isn’t actually the point @Buckerino is making here.

It’s the way you decided to pursue your goal that is the point.

Trying to fool users into thinking that it is a good idea to reduce the quorum threshold to the amount you yourself hold, with some smart sounding language and Python calculations is not okay.

This is clearly a takeover attempt. Simple as that. Your goal doesn’t even matter at this point, even if it is well-meaning.

If you want a handout from the community fund, maybe you should ask? Instead of stealing it?


But Dharma doesn’t really hold any UNI. It’s not a “bagholder”, as Decrypt argued. There are some investors, who are not invested in Dharma, who have delegated to Dharma for this proposal. But this delegation is revokable, and is just a vote of trust. If it looks like Dharma is doing anything that is misaligned with the UNI community’s best interests, that delegation will be removed, and Dharma will have absolutely no ability to propose or pass anything – regardless of whether the threshold decreases significantly.

I think there’s a more realistic concern about whether large exchanges may acquire enough UNI to affect proposals - for example, a large exchange like Binance. But I think the current proposal is conservative enough to avoid that scenario.

My argument for passing the proposal is that I think we should prove that UNI governance can work, in the same way that Compound governance has proven to work and be effective. Dharma played a large role in Compound’s governance so far, which has been positive in terms of showing that it is a decentralized protocol. I believe proving that the token can create effective governance should be a priority for the community, and to show that it isn’t just the UNI team, or elite investors, who control the protocol. Dharma is neither of those things, and retroactive distribution brings more people into the community of token holders. So I view it as a perfect opportunity to show how well decentralized governance can work.


Dharma’s entire voting pool is created by less than 50 addresses. This is provable, and easily available information over at Dune Analytics. It’s not a community effort, not even close. There are clearly special interests involved.

What do you have against exchanges exactly? Shouldn’t the argument be that no single outside entity should be able to overthrow governance? If so, you fit into this category yourself.

And also… Have you seen the release schedule? Binance will probably have over 30m uni quite soon, this change is extremely short-sighted and clearly only made to benefit yourself short-term.