A large portion of people are abstaining from voting because there is literal no difference between voting “against” and doing nothing. Except having to pay gas fees when voting for no reason.
3 Likes
I would vote no, but missed delegation period, like me, I believe there is a silent majority of small UNI holders that did not have the responsibility to check the delegation period and now are out of voting in this proposal.
Decentralized governance is all new to most users and we all have to learn our responsibilities as UNI holders, maybe this will serve as a lesson, and next proposal will have more small UNI holders voting.
1 Like
“Every vote matters.” That mentality is an issue.
It actually doesn’t matter though…
“4% of UNI supply required to vote ’yes’ to reach quorum”
It is exactly the same thing to not vote vs. voting “against.”
Sure, unless as you said people are abstaining from voting because they feel it will not move the needle. Then it does matter, because the more that vote, the more it will instill confidence that their position may be heard (as the numbers grow).
Yes but every vote cost 1 dollar, spending a dollar just to send a message with no real impact may not be something that many people are interested in doing
1 Like
I would add a rider where 3rd parties profiting off of Uniswap protocol, should add to the community treasury. In Dharma’s case, since they charge surge fees etc to the users, Dharma should be asked to pay a surcharge to use the service.
1 Like
That’s impossible to enforce
A pleasure to see, that this one has been defeated and I have been proven wrong.
2 Likes
Not sure, this could be a UI bug, Uniswap voting page indicates this vote will run till 18:00 UTC
Not sure either, but I am happy to see it! This was a quick and dirty move, that caught a few off-guard. Glad, we have some watch dogs. 
1 Like
welcome to governance hell
this may actually be worse than the alternative you seem to revile
hypothesis: Uniswap will be incapable of passing quorum on any governance matter due to voter apathy
test: Propose a UNI airdrop of 400 tokens
another thing to consider is that you have lost the goodwill of 39 Million votes
thirty-nine-million
39,000,000
someone wake me up when the next proposal is birthed from the womb of mediocrity
Can confirm it failed. Due to variations between actual block time (Defeated) and Uniswap’s estimated block time.
1 Like
I did not lose the good will of 39 million votes - it is the opposite for my taste. It seems you have a hard time with the outcome. If you have a problem with this, no one is forcing you to be part of this.
There are other projects…very similar to this. I am sure we will find a way, but thanks for your concern.
3 Likes
Fantastic! Thanks for sharing!
We should absolutely discuss Dharma’s proposal for them to get Uni tokens, seems to me as if they deserve them just like any other Uniswap users. Though probably this thread isn’t the place to discuss it.
Just personally didn’t think this was the best way to go about it. The proposal didn’t make it clear that they wanted to airdrop 400 tokens to their users, only that they thought lowering the requirements was good for the project)
Edit: I meant Thread not Forum.
1 Like
I am glad that this proposal will not prosper
4 Likes
@nadav_dharma has been pretty clear about the connection between both proposals on twitter and here
however, he’s been mischaracterized here by certain community members who insist on drinking from a glass half-empty of hyperbole
so what now team Uniswap?
Here is what i propose:
- rewrite the governance contract - not tweak it
Proposals
- allow autonomous proposals like Compound
https://defirate.com/compound-autonomous-proposals/#:~:text=Compound%20–%20the%20leading%20US%20lending,to%20create%20a%20Governance%20Proposal.&text=Autonomous%20Proposals%20are%20a%20new,to%20submit%20a%20governance%20draft.
Process of vote
- make voting results hidden so that we don’t dissolve the process into a daytime soap-opera on these forums
Quorum threshold
- Quorum as a static number does not make sense
- Make quorum threshold a product of delegated votes
Long-term fairness between short-term and long-term interests
- implement ‘tenure voting’ which is currently being tested at the LTSE (eric reis innovation)
https://ltse.com/team/
How it works?
- to properly balance the interests of long-term vs short-term token holders, you create a system that slowly moves power away from a plutocracy and into the hands of those who have an interest in the long-term health of Uniswap
- so for example, holding 1000 tokens after 1 year might increase to 1.5x in voting power
- if you don’t like the direction Uniswap is taking you can walk with your feet and sell your UNI (bye)
Ok, so there’s a quick stab at ideas from the seat of my pants.
Stay focused on core of main proposal
1 Like
Penguin party is working on autonomous proposals.
The governance contract is fine and worked as intended. Twice as many UNI are delegated now 75~ million vs when this defeated proposal was rushed in at 45~ million. This is a huge success and the new activity can be attributed to the negative reaction to the lowering quorum proposal.
I am in support of raising the quorum in the future as more UNI become delegated.
4 Likes