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

Reduce UNI Governance Proposal & Quorum Thresholds

Is a proposal by Gauntlet @Tarun and Dharma. Currently up for vote. It stems from the community discussion:
Proposal: Reduce amount of UNIs required to submit governance proposal

the proposal by Gauntlet @Tarun and Dharma proposes not one, but two things:

  1. Lowers proposal threshold from 10M to 3M UNI

  2. Lowers quorum threshold from 40M to 30M UNI

These are two distinct changes with two VERY different consequences.


We, as a community, should be VERY wary of proposals including changes that are NOT core to the main proposal.

These are called “Riders”

And should not be welcomed into uniswap governance!



@uni0 can you please specify the proposals name in the title for archival purposes?

Changed, hope this is what you meant.


Yes, it is Dharma´s way of saying: We couldnt get you to give us free money so we will try to lower the quorum and pass it ourselves without you.



Hi Uni,

Personally, I agree these are two very different proposals. Therefore, I voted no on this proposal.
I’d recommend them to create two separate proposals for these and carefully describe the consequences were these proposals to be approved.

Then again, it’s up to the community (UNI holders) and we’ll see what’ll be decided.
Be interesting to see a discussion regarding this here on the forum.

Edit; before getting any comments regarding me expressing my opinion as a forum moderator: I do this voluntarily, I’m not part of the Uniswap team and this does not affect my moderation decisions :wink:


I haven’t voted yet still kinda unsure how to, but it’s seems that everyone is voting yes for it? When do I have to vote by?

1 Like

Depends where you are in the world. If you go to https://app.uniswap.org/#/vote/1 it should say below the title when voting ends for you

1 Like

If two separate changes are proposed to achieve a single goal, then splitting it accomplishes the opposite of your intent. We will have a lengthier process consuming a greater proportion of the community’s time. Instead of having a focused conversation around the goal, you are asking us to spend unnecessary effort understanding the context across two separate proposals that are intentionally linked.

If this was your intent all along, then i’ll introduce you to another term.

It is called ‘filbustering’.

1 Like

These two changes do NOT achieve a single goal.
Letting people propose easier is NOT the same as reaching quorum easier.

Gauntlet and Dharma collectively have 30m votes, they are proposing a 30m quorum so that they can push through any proposal they like. (Dharma might feel strongly about one particular proposal)

We can only hope that people that haven’t voted yet see this as the attack on governance that it is and



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

1 Like

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.