So obviously, it is natural for a decent amount of people to think the worst case scenario for outcomes in certain events! I kinda happen to fall in that category from time to time. Graeme and Rabbidfly, you guys surely understand why some of us uni holders could be pretty worried, and fear the worst in this scenario… our token started off great, tons of air drops, alot of people like myself bought in investing a decent about 5 to 10k. The token went it $8 which was awesome. And then the wierd stuff started happening. Uni starts falling on its face literally, get se bad world news, bitmax gets introuble, people thinking uniswap could be next, and then volume completely dissappers. It’s been a rough month to say the least. Governace was alright there was some good talks and awesome ideas…getting the airdrop to darma and the other was spoken of, alot of us were for it as I understood. I hear alot of ideas about what to do to build uni more, what we could do to attract users, I personally was pushing for uni holders to earn rewards on their uni tokens(which by the way, no rewards or earning by owning a uni is probably the single biggest deterrent, and reason why alot of people just aren’t interested. Saying uni will never get back to $8, it’s a scam, so on so fourth… fml right. Good talk…
Proposal day was getting closer, and we were actually seeing the price increase a wee bit. For a sec hope was building. Then darmas proposal came in. I was hearing some stuff about what binance could possibly do(wasn’t good news), but now darma was in the spotlight for a conspiracy of whatever. And it was everywhere and if someone was thinking about buying they were glad they didn’t now for sure. So yet again shot in the other leg, we not attracting new customers, at least people that are buying I do think? Is this community going to consist of majority owners being airdropped their unis. So a how bunch of people used uniswap, gets free tokens. Sounds great, except it doesn’t look great, and smells like bulls**t, lol. Im not saying that you guys havnt made a decent arguements in this discussion, honestly I want to believe you. But truthfully, and unfortunately both sides in this argument are speaking only based on opinion, and speculation. Here we were talking about things we could change to prevent whales from doing whale things and it does look like out governace was just over ran buy a whale. When I got on to vote, I knew right away there was no way in hell to compete with that, and apparently I was right. Obviously any one holding uni can still vote if they choose to, but after this are we even going to have a say. It just doesn’t seem like it, and again bad talk about uni, price is sucky, and it’s all out there for everyone to see. I guess if everyone doesn’t sell and unis price does turn around and exceed expectations then I will tell you both you were right… but like I said, if it looks like poo it usually is.
This is my counter proposal for proposal #1, I know I should make a standalone post but I don’t have the power yet. I am looking for feedback:
-
Code a new contract that allows to update each parameter individually, deploy it with the exact parameters as the one we currently have
-
Pay a 3rd party to audit the contract
Then, we can move forward into two more proposals
-
Lower the min required to make a proposal
-
Lower the required quorum
That way we would have 0 riders, and people can better cast their votes and audited contracts are a must, I know changes are small, but the gov contract is super critical
These things are a priority over reducing proposal threshold and quorum threshold:
-
Ability to revoke delegated votes at any time (especially during a vote).
-
Ability to delegate/self-delegate at any time.
-
Ability to vote with LP tokens that represent their share of UNI.
Adding this functionality is paramount to fair and active governance. These need to take priority. Lowering required quorum before these issues are addressed just gives the largest holders even more power. Passing this current vote will damage the Uniswap reputation in a great way, along with the reputation of the organizations/people that are pushing this through (Dharma, Gauntlet, and Andre).
If Dharma, Gauntlet, and @AndreCronjeTech want to move this proposal forward in an ethical way, they should re-propose it after the governance design flaws are fixed.
Why is a lowered quorum needed? That just opens UNI up to the same problems. If anything the amounts should be raised to 5%
This is what I thought. If it passes it should be no problem to make another proposal and reach Quorum
The way this has been handled should get some publicity.
What part, how would it help the governance of Uniswap going forward? I can understand people being upset but making a move like that is kind of just asking to sink Uni and Uniswap into bad light surely much better to focus on trying to fix it if there is in fact anything to fix.
Again vote doesnt close for a few days we still dont know what the outcome could be this could potentially reach the 40M Quorum or it could still fall short by 1.5M votes in which case it wouldnt get through. Too early to call it really at this point as it could go either way
this is a done deal
may as well see the experiment through and learn from it
stagnation = death for most systems
I think this has been discussed already. 2 proposals in 1. You know I would profit from another Airdrop because I tested some services like 1inch and so on. That would be another 1200 UNI and voting power, just for me. The way this is done is somewhat arkward and I do not believe that they are doing it for their customers.
If all cars of a certain model are sold under certain conditions at a specific time…they are sold. Someone simply missed out. It is unfortunate for some, but lowering everything in one move … hmmm. No problem though. I am sure with these low requirements (if it passes), we will get this back on track. I have been alerted through this. If this gets some publicity others might be more aware too.
Plenty of articles out there already by simply googling Uniswap, the damage that had tried to be done to Dharma with no evidence proved to not bother more than the dharma vote. Even if 30M accounted for Dharma and co (Based on proof this figured actually ended up being less than 30M) there are currently still more than 9M Uni more voted by the people.
Anyway these are all numbers the important thing is improving the system going forward if it needs fixing but at the current rate it would look like the majority dont mind the idea of lowering the Proposal and Quorum levels which would sugguest that it’s a minority worried about this proposal rather than the majority even though it was attempted to be portrayed as the other way round.
My hope is just that people respect the vote if it passes or not but I feel like there will continue to be drag on the topic long past when this vote is over in 2 ish days time for weeks, months and years from now
What is the majority? Not sure you can extrapolate from these votes. The promise of money is hard to resist. An easy way to get someone’s attention and to manipulate.
I do not see a problem that needs to be fixed, when it comes to the quorum. Proposal is a different story. Not being able to remove delegation should be fixed or having a set time to delegate might be something to consider.
What’s the rush anyway?
I have been around people with lots of power, money and influence … so I am very familiar with their worldviews, mindsets and so on. They look you in the eyes and smile while lying. Something I started to despise and most of them act like their doing it for the good. Never do politics and I am happy not to be part of it anymore.
Not saying these guys are, but boy does it smell fishy. 
As mentioned by Rabbidfly it looks like it will probably likely go through id suspect either today or tomorrow but again who knows could stay at its current figure and not get the last 500+k it needs to reach the hurdle.
Yeah there is no rush with the process and I agree it shouldn’t be rushed never said it should be rushed.
If you claim there is no issue then what exactly did you mean by your original comment a lot would argue this has been handled the way the community voted with no issues while a few would argue it is been rigged by the big bad corporates in Dharma out to “cash grab” with very little evidence… the latter seems to be what is getting the attention online so I’m guessing there must be a few people on this forum in journalism, with high up connections or working directly for crypto news outlets who dont mind straight out bad mouthing another company with no evidence.
Luckily for them it’s unlikely the Uniswap team or Dharma would go after them or their companies for false reports and slander
I scanned most of the 300 transactions. (until i can create a query in dune analytics)
Unfortunately for the conspiracy theorists, many small wallets like this one are voting ‘aye’.
¯_(ツ)_/¯
the votes are in uint256 format, which is why the number looks big. it’s small. solidity doesn’t much like decimals (shrug). Votes in image is 1000.9
Well, well … calling others comsipary theorist always catches my attention. This is usually done by people that have no arguments and try to discredit other perspective. Why do you call others CT? Do you have any reason to discredit others. Why so offensive?
I suspect another pump and dump soon and I am going to dump this tokem. Another defi project gets overthrown by a centralized point of view.
The token will become useless and just another object of speculation. So be it. There are other good projects in the making,
As a relatively small UNI holder, I am glad this happened. This governance proposal has inspired me to delegate my votes to myself for whatever proposals come next (I didn’t realize the stakes would be so high so quickly) and to also become much more active in this community.
The fact is, not your keys, not your coins. Downside of using a middleman like Dharma. They should probably be more up-front about the downsides to letting them hold your keys. The customers should consider it a free lesson.
Crypto isn’t fair. Redistributing from the community treasury is theft, and this proposal is lube.
It’s hard to kill a Unicorn but it should be harder.
There a lots of people in the “real” world that would love to see all of these projects fail, because they have the potential to depower them. They have tons of money and therefore power. I have my doubts that the community will regain influence.
The moment the quorum has been reached I see no reason to hold on to UNI, but this is just my personal dystopian perspective and taken consequences. I would be happy if I get proven wrong.
I agree with the other user that remarked that this whole situation makes me question the merits of being a uni holder. Currently it’s only function is governance, and regardless of whether this passes or not - the discussions here and the votes are not representative. The large disparity between For and Against implies that we are not being heard as a community and are largely being controlled by large users (potentially with malicious intentions).
It’s quite worrying and doesn’t bode well for the future.
Just my two cents.
This is such an exploit of circumstances. Makes me sick. a situation where no one can react to a surprise proposal like this vote is horribly broken. Decentralized my ass, this is being rammed down our throats. Just the discrepancy between the outrage in this thread and the number of positive votes should tell you enough, this is tyrannical.
You guys are a vocal minority. I’m a UNI user who wants this to pass.
Funny thing here is the vocal minority (conspiracy theorists) here are just the same accounts that have been against this proposal from day one. univalent/dharma/gauntlet made their votes using “delegated tokens” and those votes matters too. dismissing those votes is just pathetic.