How do we streamline the process of explaining and demonstrating the importance of DeFi Governance?
How can we show our friends and family how lucrative and important DeFi, LP, and Macro economics are?
How do we streamline the process of explaining and demonstrating the importance of DeFi Governance?
How can we show our friends and family how lucrative and important DeFi, LP, and Macro economics are?
Omg love airdrops who. Its like frwe money.
Omg love airdrops who. Its like frwe money.
This right here is why we need to flip the fee switch. Or small holders of uni, meani nft under 7 figures worth, will just leave for sushi swap and actually earn something on their token.
This right here is why we need to flip the fee switch. Or small holders of uni, meani nft under 7 figures worth, will just leave for sushi swap and actually earn something on their token.
I might be being a bit impatient but the problem seems like it could be to do with how we convince influential delegates and large-holders that incentivising as large a base of voters as possible would be beneficial to Uniswap, in their mind they may think the costs of large volumes of voters are that governance could become too complicated, delegation mitigates this but probably won't eliminate it, and maintaining a consensus or reconciling a schism takes a great deal of time and effort. Fewer stakeholders means less varied desires to satisfy to reach a consensus.
All human systems tend to form hierarchies which might lead some to believe we're just trying to delay something inevitable, and it's of no real consequence to them. To me, this is a reality of nature, especially when you consider how persuasive the Pareto principle is, but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive to at least have the best levels of engagements when compared to other DAOs. (not sure what kind of research there's been for this)
I might be being a bit impatient but the problem seems like it could be to do with how we convince influential delegates and large-holders that incentivising as large a base of voters as possible would be beneficial to Uniswap, in their mind they may think the costs of large volumes of voters are that governance could become too complicated, delegation mitigates this but probably won't eliminate it, and maintaining a consensus or reconciling a schism takes a great deal of time and effort. Fewer stakeholders means less varied desires to satisfy to reach a consensus.
All human systems tend to form hierarchies which might lead some to believe we're just trying to delay something inevitable, and it's of no real consequence to them. To me, this is a reality of nature, especially when you consider how persuasive the Pareto principle is, but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive to at least have the best levels of engagements when compared to other DAOs. (not sure what kind of research there's been for this)
A real concern I have, and something I think many others should also have, is that low equity users end up just being enticed to hang around and be used to harvest insights from, with poor, or no compensation, much like Apple might harvest insights from the people who develop a consumerist fandom for them and post on their forum. This place could risk turning into an endeavour of establishing petty hierarchies with an elitist culture.
I doubt many of us are ignorant to the platitudes that corporations come out with on social media and in their marketing, the best examples can be seen of the double standards held when they're forced to suppress mentions of the Chinese government's treatment of Uighurs if they have some large shareholders from China. Or like how Microsoft's is making a suspect entry into open-source, with their history of "Embrace, extend, extinguish". This culture could easily form if any sort of elitism takes hold, and low equity users engage with the DAO in a manner akin to a fandom rather than as stakeholders. I don't see any of that at this stage, but I haven't done much reading on what kind of backers the team have, and who the larger owners of Uni tokens are. When it does become clear to people, I hope they keep the above in mind.
To get delegates onboard it might be worth trying to keep track of how many people delegate to them, perhaps there's a steady churn of users withdrawing their stakes, these guys might be the best people to reach out to.
Uniswap Delegate Votes ΔT https://duneanalytics.com/embeds/10413/20686/OuoXAWxgiVjC1NiDFeUxE86DgmAhvcE3X0LVFjkz
Not sure what kind of approaches could be taken with large holders, or with delegates not seeing any churn.
Great discussion, I would love to hear a brief, long term outlook and general direction of UNI from one of the developers.
I would take this question a step further and ask why participating in governance is important. As a very small fish HODLing UNI, I'm spending time wondering whether it is time to sell.
I might be being a bit impatient but the problem seems like it could be to do with how we convince influential delegates and large-holders that incentivising as large a base of voters as possible would be beneficial to Uniswap, in their mind they may think the costs of large volumes of voters are that governance could become too complicated, delegation mitigates this but probably won't eliminate it, and maintaining a consensus or reconciling a schism takes a great deal of time and effort. Fewer stakeholders means less varied desires to satisfy to reach a consensus.
All human systems tend to form hierarchies which might lead some to believe we're just trying to delay something inevitable, and it's of no real consequence to them. To me, this is a reality of nature, especially when you consider how persuasive the Pareto principle is, but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive to at least have the best levels of engagements when compared to other DAOs. (not sure what kind of research there's been for this)
I might be being a bit impatient but the problem seems like it could be to do with how we convince influential delegates and large-holders that incentivising as large a base of voters as possible would be beneficial to Uniswap, in their mind they may think the costs of large volumes of voters are that governance could become too complicated, delegation mitigates this but probably won't eliminate it, and maintaining a consensus or reconciling a schism takes a great deal of time and effort. Fewer stakeholders means less varied desires to satisfy to reach a consensus.
All human systems tend to form hierarchies which might lead some to believe we're just trying to delay something inevitable, and it's of no real consequence to them. To me, this is a reality of nature, especially when you consider how persuasive the Pareto principle is, but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive to at least have the best levels of engagements when compared to other DAOs. (not sure what kind of research there's been for this)
A real concern I have, and something I think many others should also have, is that low equity users end up just being enticed to hang around and be used to harvest insights from, with poor, or no compensation, much like Apple might harvest insights from the people who develop a consumerist fandom for them and post on their forum. This place could risk turning into an endeavour of establishing petty hierarchies with an elitist culture.
I doubt many of us are ignorant to the platitudes that corporations come out with on social media and in their marketing, the best examples can be seen of the double standards held when they're forced to suppress mentions of the Chinese government's treatment of Uighurs if they have some large shareholders from China. Or like how Microsoft's is making a suspect entry into open-source, with their history of "Embrace, extend, extinguish". This culture could easily form if any sort of elitism takes hold, and low equity users engage with the DAO in a manner akin to a fandom rather than as stakeholders. I don't see any of that at this stage, but I haven't done much reading on what kind of backers the team have, and who the larger owners of Uni tokens are. When it does become clear to people, I hope they keep the above in mind.
To get delegates onboard it might be worth trying to keep track of how many people delegate to them, perhaps there's a steady churn of users withdrawing their stakes, these guys might be the best people to reach out to.
Uniswap Delegate Votes ΔT https://duneanalytics.com/embeds/10413/20686/OuoXAWxgiVjC1NiDFeUxE86DgmAhvcE3X0LVFjkz
Not sure what kind of approaches could be taken with large holders, or with delegates not seeing any churn.
Great discussion, I would love to hear a brief, long term outlook and general direction of UNI from one of the developers.
I would take this question a step further and ask why participating in governance is important. As a very small fish HODLing UNI, I'm spending time wondering whether it is time to sell.
