*ChicagoDAO is partnering with Protocol Guild to bring this proposal to the Uniswap community! ChicagoDAO is a student group at the University of Chicago focused on pioneering a new model for decentralized organizations and building a community on the foundation of research, education, and development.
Find us on Twitter at @ChicagoDAO_io!*
—---------------------------------------------------------------
Authors: Trent (PG Member), Tim (PG Member)
This is a proposal for the Uniswap community to support important Ethereum Public Goods through the Protocol Guild: a vested split contract which goes to 110 core protocol contributors.
We propose that 500k UNI (~$2.5mm @ $5.19 UNI) be allocated to support the ongoing work of these core contributors in the initial Protocol Guild Pilot.
Participating in the 1 year Pilot allows guild members to engage with Uniswap in a way that is values- and incentive-aligned. Simultaneously, it will allow them to continue the important work of scaling our shared infrastructure and making it as resilient as possible for the applications on top of it.
Here’s a longer exploration of the project rationale.
If we believe what we are building is important, then we should structure the incentives to attract more smart people to work on it. After all - “Ethereum is an unprecedented arena for playing cooperative games”; we should try to manifest the novel possibilities made possible by this arena. (Griffith, 2019)
The Protocol Guild aims to address the challenges mentioned above with a simple tool: a weighted split contract that includes vesting. Members will solicit sponsorships in the form of tokens from applications & protocols that build on Ethereum, which gives core contributors exposure to success at the application layer:
To date, the membership includes over 110 Ethereum protocol contributors, including researchers, client maintainers, upgrade coordinators, and more, all self-curated (member list here). This is a broad-based ecosystem effort: members come from 22 different teams and 9 organizations. Only 30% of members are directly employed by the EF. The membership is continuously curated and there are quarterly updates to the split contract.
The Guild contracts will act as an autonomous value routing mechanism, operated independently from any existing institution, purpose-built for incentivizing long-term core protocol work. At no point does PG take custody of funds on behalf of members, it is all handled trustlessly.
Since starting the project in Nov 2021, we’ve built norms around member onboarding, refined the splitting and vesting mechanisms, and have created extensive documentation on how PG operates. At this point, we’re ready to test the mechanism’s efficacy with a 1 year / $10-20mm Pilot. We want to make sure the mechanism operates smoothly before graduating to a larger round with longer vesting periods. We are currently outreaching to 5-10 prominent Ethereum-based projects to get commitments for this important first milestone. We want to ensure there is a healthy diversity of contributing protocols both in terms of USD value as well as domain (eg. DeFi, staking, etc). The first commitment is from Lido to contribute 2,000,000 LDO, and the vote (forum post) to contribute 200k ENS will conclude in the next few days.
The funds for the Pilot would be vested directly to Guild members over one year: see the Pilot vesting contract here. Note that funds would not replace salaries for core contributors, and each recipient would be making an independent decision about how to use their tokens once vested.
We are inviting the Uniswap community to be part of this inaugural Pilot in the form of a 500k UNI transfer to the Protocol Guild’s vesting contract. We think this is an appropriate amount which balances between the current size of the treasury ($1.2b as of May 16, 2022), the number of beneficiaries, and the scope and intent of the Pilot.
There are a few reasons why supporting the Protocol Guild benefits the Uniswap community:
*ChicagoDAO is partnering with Protocol Guild to bring this proposal to the Uniswap community! ChicagoDAO is a student group at the University of Chicago focused on pioneering a new model for decentralized organizations and building a community on the foundation of research, education, and development.
Find us on Twitter at @ChicagoDAO_io!*
—---------------------------------------------------------------
Authors: Trent (PG Member), Tim (PG Member)
This is a proposal for the Uniswap community to support important Ethereum Public Goods through the Protocol Guild: a vested split contract which goes to 110 core protocol contributors.
We propose that 500k UNI (~$2.5mm @ $5.19 UNI) be allocated to support the ongoing work of these core contributors in the initial Protocol Guild Pilot.
Participating in the 1 year Pilot allows guild members to engage with Uniswap in a way that is values- and incentive-aligned. Simultaneously, it will allow them to continue the important work of scaling our shared infrastructure and making it as resilient as possible for the applications on top of it.
Here’s a longer exploration of the project rationale.
If we believe what we are building is important, then we should structure the incentives to attract more smart people to work on it. After all - “Ethereum is an unprecedented arena for playing cooperative games”; we should try to manifest the novel possibilities made possible by this arena. (Griffith, 2019)
The Protocol Guild aims to address the challenges mentioned above with a simple tool: a weighted split contract that includes vesting. Members will solicit sponsorships in the form of tokens from applications & protocols that build on Ethereum, which gives core contributors exposure to success at the application layer:
To date, the membership includes over 110 Ethereum protocol contributors, including researchers, client maintainers, upgrade coordinators, and more, all self-curated (member list here). This is a broad-based ecosystem effort: members come from 22 different teams and 9 organizations. Only 30% of members are directly employed by the EF. The membership is continuously curated and there are quarterly updates to the split contract.
The Guild contracts will act as an autonomous value routing mechanism, operated independently from any existing institution, purpose-built for incentivizing long-term core protocol work. At no point does PG take custody of funds on behalf of members, it is all handled trustlessly.
Since starting the project in Nov 2021, we’ve built norms around member onboarding, refined the splitting and vesting mechanisms, and have created extensive documentation on how PG operates. At this point, we’re ready to test the mechanism’s efficacy with a 1 year / $10-20mm Pilot. We want to make sure the mechanism operates smoothly before graduating to a larger round with longer vesting periods. We are currently outreaching to 5-10 prominent Ethereum-based projects to get commitments for this important first milestone. We want to ensure there is a healthy diversity of contributing protocols both in terms of USD value as well as domain (eg. DeFi, staking, etc). The first commitment is from Lido to contribute 2,000,000 LDO, and the vote (forum post) to contribute 200k ENS will conclude in the next few days.
The funds for the Pilot would be vested directly to Guild members over one year: see the Pilot vesting contract here. Note that funds would not replace salaries for core contributors, and each recipient would be making an independent decision about how to use their tokens once vested.
We are inviting the Uniswap community to be part of this inaugural Pilot in the form of a 500k UNI transfer to the Protocol Guild’s vesting contract. We think this is an appropriate amount which balances between the current size of the treasury ($1.2b as of May 16, 2022), the number of beneficiaries, and the scope and intent of the Pilot.
There are a few reasons why supporting the Protocol Guild benefits the Uniswap community:
@nadav_dharma please do this again for your users.
Now uniswap should also agree that they did a mistake by not airdropping first.
As we can see with all cloudflare issue.
More power to the Dev's now. #DHARMA do it for USERS.
@nadav_dharma please do this again for your users.
Now uniswap should also agree that they did a mistake by not airdropping first.
As we can see with all cloudflare issue.
More power to the Dev's now. #DHARMA do it for USERS.
Better ask them to give you their reservations, they have enough.
[ "0x1f9840a85d5aF5bf1D1762F925BDADdC4201F9841" ] (UNI)[ 0 ][ "approve(0x9648380814AB1a967C0E70aCf3f85D6E65A4EBd2,uint256)" ][0x0000000000000000000000006a9929D29b7488517D383358a847c95a5D1d6d76000000000000000000000000000000000000000000042b42f28d278eee000000] (address: 0x6a9929D29b7488517D383358a847c95a5D1d6d76 (phase one merkle dropper, amount: 5.04M UNI)Better ask them to give you their reservations, they have enough.
[ "0x1f9840a85d5aF5bf1D1762F925BDADdC4201F9841" ] (UNI)[ 0 ][ "approve(0x9648380814AB1a967C0E70aCf3f85D6E65A4EBd2,uint256)" ][0x0000000000000000000000006a9929D29b7488517D383358a847c95a5D1d6d76000000000000000000000000000000000000000000042b42f28d278eee000000] (address: 0x6a9929D29b7488517D383358a847c95a5D1d6d76 (phase one merkle dropper, amount: 5.04M UNI)
phase 2 of proposal when start ?
aru31 you should start a thread on this topic.
I believe the proposal should be put forward again. But other members of the community need to take the lead, as Dharma have already committed not to re-propose the vote.
aru31 you should start a thread on this topic.
I believe the proposal should be put forward again. But other members of the community need to take the lead, as Dharma have already committed not to re-propose the vote.
This circumstance with the faulty timer display on such a marginal outcome, with so many votes not cast and now with confirmation that the premature termination definitely prevented votes from being cast, is reason enough for another vote.
The vote close goes by block number, which was mined earlier than expected. The time on the voting proposal should be programmed to update based on current block though.
i support.. new users deserve UNI too.. if UNI liquidity mining continue or another mechanism.. if i understand UNI vision, all users need to participate in governance. But no another not consensual airdrop
Being someone who received his fair share of uni. Someone who supported YES TO THIS VOTE. I have nothing to gain from it. But the value is there by giving these people the chance to receive what they deserve. To all of you who make your snobby comments who act like you own uni lol the whole 3% of you that exist in this community. Maybe you should go climb a tree. Clearly this project isn't for you.
I think this is hilarious to see how greedy you people are the 3% of you. Who actually think this is going to be a negative impact on this project. REMEMBER THERE'S ONLY 3 % I can't wait to see what the votes look like when the 3 stooges wanna put out a proposal. Hahaha. PASS PHASE ONE AND PHASE TWO. LAST BUT NOT LEAST GET THE THREE STOOGES OUT TOO!!!!
Because it isn't a secret ballot and voting too early if you control a large number of votes could "reveal your hand" to the opposition, who could then rally support to vote against your position. That's why some larger UNI holders / delegates were relying on voting at almost the last minute.
Good that it didn't pass, now please move on to some real proposals that will benefit the protocol. Thanks.
A hilarious response you made me chuckle :slight_smile:
Why did the vote say extra hours even though there was only 1??? I was at work and my investment group and I were going to meet later because we saw 8 hours left on clock.
Lost faith in this system. . . I thought this was fool proof (DEFI???) My colleges and I put a very large sum on here, and missed the vote. I feel like it was sabotage? I don’t want to say how many votes we control but we would of put the vote very close to pass at that point.
Why did the vote say extra hours even though there was only 1??? I was at work and my investment group and I were going to meet later because we saw 8 hours left on clock.
Lost faith in this system. . . I thought this was fool proof (DEFI???) My colleges and I put a very large sum on here, and missed the vote. I feel like it was sabotage? I don’t want to say how many votes we control but we would of put the vote very close to pass at that point.
Check twitter dharma page its pinned there.
phase 2 of proposal when start ?
aru31 you should start a thread on this topic.
I believe the proposal should be put forward again. But other members of the community need to take the lead, as Dharma have already committed not to re-propose the vote.
aru31 you should start a thread on this topic.
I believe the proposal should be put forward again. But other members of the community need to take the lead, as Dharma have already committed not to re-propose the vote.
This circumstance with the faulty timer display on such a marginal outcome, with so many votes not cast and now with confirmation that the premature termination definitely prevented votes from being cast, is reason enough for another vote.
The vote close goes by block number, which was mined earlier than expected. The time on the voting proposal should be programmed to update based on current block though.
i support.. new users deserve UNI too.. if UNI liquidity mining continue or another mechanism.. if i understand UNI vision, all users need to participate in governance. But no another not consensual airdrop
Being someone who received his fair share of uni. Someone who supported YES TO THIS VOTE. I have nothing to gain from it. But the value is there by giving these people the chance to receive what they deserve. To all of you who make your snobby comments who act like you own uni lol the whole 3% of you that exist in this community. Maybe you should go climb a tree. Clearly this project isn't for you.
I think this is hilarious to see how greedy you people are the 3% of you. Who actually think this is going to be a negative impact on this project. REMEMBER THERE'S ONLY 3 % I can't wait to see what the votes look like when the 3 stooges wanna put out a proposal. Hahaha. PASS PHASE ONE AND PHASE TWO. LAST BUT NOT LEAST GET THE THREE STOOGES OUT TOO!!!!
Because it isn't a secret ballot and voting too early if you control a large number of votes could "reveal your hand" to the opposition, who could then rally support to vote against your position. That's why some larger UNI holders / delegates were relying on voting at almost the last minute.
Good that it didn't pass, now please move on to some real proposals that will benefit the protocol. Thanks.
A hilarious response you made me chuckle :slight_smile:
Why did the vote say extra hours even though there was only 1??? I was at work and my investment group and I were going to meet later because we saw 8 hours left on clock.
Lost faith in this system. . . I thought this was fool proof (DEFI???) My colleges and I put a very large sum on here, and missed the vote. I feel like it was sabotage? I don’t want to say how many votes we control but we would of put the vote very close to pass at that point.
Why did the vote say extra hours even though there was only 1??? I was at work and my investment group and I were going to meet later because we saw 8 hours left on clock.
Lost faith in this system. . . I thought this was fool proof (DEFI???) My colleges and I put a very large sum on here, and missed the vote. I feel like it was sabotage? I don’t want to say how many votes we control but we would of put the vote very close to pass at that point.
Check twitter dharma page its pinned there.
Guys I really understand there are users wich deserve a UNI airdrop but what about users like me new to UNI which as well never receive UNI airdrop but still invest and support it?
To be fair, that's not the traditional definition for what a quorum is.
The end result was 96.7% for, 3.3% against, if that isn't a consensus I don't know what is.
Gauntlet, In their attempt to be political said they were positive towards the proposal but abstaining due to a desire to avoid qualitative votes and the fact that quorum could be reached without them.
The end result was 96.7% for, 3.3% against, if that isn't a consensus I don't know what is.
Gauntlet, In their attempt to be political said they were positive towards the proposal but abstaining due to a desire to avoid qualitative votes and the fact that quorum could be reached without them.
In my opinion it is not responsible for a delegate that composes 18.36% of the vote share to abstain regardless of how they would choose to vote, they have directly blocked quorum and I would hope in the future the Uniswap community will remember the duplicitous manner in which they conducted themselves.
Your whole premise is filled with illogicalities. For example if something by definition is unanimous as you say, how would it not reach the quorum?
Nah I think very little inertia exists with the “sitting pretties.”
Proposal wasteland.
Wow governance (lack of) killed the ethereum star.
Incredible to ignore early adopters.
From page turner to turn the page.
Heavy hitters sitting out votes. Brutal.
If there are delegates who had intended to vote, they should come forward. If they don't, I think the vote should stand and (crucially) the display error should be fixed before the next (unrelated) proposal. I would note the commitment made from Dharma to incorporate Uniswap governance voting into their app if the proposal were to pass. This would have provided another avenue to vote, and maybe one with the time remaining displayed correctly! Uniswap should be eager to promote a diverse multitude of UIs to offset the failure of any one.
Can I just say as a retrospective: to see a proposal once again get overwhelming support but fail by virtue of not reaching quorum is disheartening. Personally I am disinclined to continue to participate in Uniswap governance and I have little faith in the process as it stands. My causes for concern:
If there are delegates who had intended to vote, they should come forward. If they don't, I think the vote should stand and (crucially) the display error should be fixed before the next (unrelated) proposal. I would note the commitment made from Dharma to incorporate Uniswap governance voting into their app if the proposal were to pass. This would have provided another avenue to vote, and maybe one with the time remaining displayed correctly! Uniswap should be eager to promote a diverse multitude of UIs to offset the failure of any one.
Can I just say as a retrospective: to see a proposal once again get overwhelming support but fail by virtue of not reaching quorum is disheartening. Personally I am disinclined to continue to participate in Uniswap governance and I have little faith in the process as it stands. My causes for concern:
A huge amount of effort went into this proposal from both sides of the debate, over the course of many weeks. Thank you to Dharma for putting forward the proposal and to all the projects that submitted their list of unique users, you fought for the interests of your users admirably. Thanks also go to those who took the time to oppose the proposal with thoughtful discussion.
The irony and structure of the first proposal (Reducing Quorum Threshold) convinced me to vote against this one, also after asking several people in discord it seems that they believe; not voting is the same as voting against, which is not true.
(In Favor) - (Against) = 40m In order to pass.
Home run hitter spelling it out for the rest of us. Bats clean up for a reason. Governance here can’t field a starting 9.
God I hope they stop hindering uniswap with more proposals so we can actually move on and get some good things going for uni
Agree - voter suppression either way is not a desirable result. Although I am personally FOR the proposal, if this suppressed AGAINST voters, this is equally bad. Regardless of how one might argue that "code is law" and it should've been up to the voters to read the smart contract themselves, it should be reasonable to expect that the official Uniswap frontend provides correct information.
Regardless of the result that timer was very misleading indeed. I hope new proposals would have a block timer link in their description preferably on the first paragraph.
Sorry Dharma, you tried very hard. Just wanna say they are the reason I have come to like Uniswap so much. It's unfortunate some of the community doesn't see you guys the same way.
if the previous user get again phase 2 uni airdrop then it will be injustice with the new user.
I am in favour of this and will vote yes
Either:
Users that use Uniswap via aggregators/proxies are considered equal to any other user, charged a fee for their trade and their volume is counted towards the platforms overall volume, in which case they should have been included in the airdrop and not including them was an oversight.
Or:
Either:
Users that use Uniswap via aggregators/proxies are considered equal to any other user, charged a fee for their trade and their volume is counted towards the platforms overall volume, in which case they should have been included in the airdrop and not including them was an oversight.
Or:
They are not considered users, in which case they should not be included in the airdrop, their Uniswap fees should be refunded and their volume excluded from metrics as they are not considered users of the platform.
Guys I really understand there are users wich deserve a UNI airdrop but what about users like me new to UNI which as well never receive UNI airdrop but still invest and support it?
To be fair, that's not the traditional definition for what a quorum is.
The end result was 96.7% for, 3.3% against, if that isn't a consensus I don't know what is.
Gauntlet, In their attempt to be political said they were positive towards the proposal but abstaining due to a desire to avoid qualitative votes and the fact that quorum could be reached without them.
The end result was 96.7% for, 3.3% against, if that isn't a consensus I don't know what is.
Gauntlet, In their attempt to be political said they were positive towards the proposal but abstaining due to a desire to avoid qualitative votes and the fact that quorum could be reached without them.
In my opinion it is not responsible for a delegate that composes 18.36% of the vote share to abstain regardless of how they would choose to vote, they have directly blocked quorum and I would hope in the future the Uniswap community will remember the duplicitous manner in which they conducted themselves.
Your whole premise is filled with illogicalities. For example if something by definition is unanimous as you say, how would it not reach the quorum?
Nah I think very little inertia exists with the “sitting pretties.”
Proposal wasteland.
Wow governance (lack of) killed the ethereum star.
Incredible to ignore early adopters.
From page turner to turn the page.
Heavy hitters sitting out votes. Brutal.
If there are delegates who had intended to vote, they should come forward. If they don't, I think the vote should stand and (crucially) the display error should be fixed before the next (unrelated) proposal. I would note the commitment made from Dharma to incorporate Uniswap governance voting into their app if the proposal were to pass. This would have provided another avenue to vote, and maybe one with the time remaining displayed correctly! Uniswap should be eager to promote a diverse multitude of UIs to offset the failure of any one.
Can I just say as a retrospective: to see a proposal once again get overwhelming support but fail by virtue of not reaching quorum is disheartening. Personally I am disinclined to continue to participate in Uniswap governance and I have little faith in the process as it stands. My causes for concern:
If there are delegates who had intended to vote, they should come forward. If they don't, I think the vote should stand and (crucially) the display error should be fixed before the next (unrelated) proposal. I would note the commitment made from Dharma to incorporate Uniswap governance voting into their app if the proposal were to pass. This would have provided another avenue to vote, and maybe one with the time remaining displayed correctly! Uniswap should be eager to promote a diverse multitude of UIs to offset the failure of any one.
Can I just say as a retrospective: to see a proposal once again get overwhelming support but fail by virtue of not reaching quorum is disheartening. Personally I am disinclined to continue to participate in Uniswap governance and I have little faith in the process as it stands. My causes for concern:
A huge amount of effort went into this proposal from both sides of the debate, over the course of many weeks. Thank you to Dharma for putting forward the proposal and to all the projects that submitted their list of unique users, you fought for the interests of your users admirably. Thanks also go to those who took the time to oppose the proposal with thoughtful discussion.
The irony and structure of the first proposal (Reducing Quorum Threshold) convinced me to vote against this one, also after asking several people in discord it seems that they believe; not voting is the same as voting against, which is not true.
(In Favor) - (Against) = 40m In order to pass.
Home run hitter spelling it out for the rest of us. Bats clean up for a reason. Governance here can’t field a starting 9.
God I hope they stop hindering uniswap with more proposals so we can actually move on and get some good things going for uni
Agree - voter suppression either way is not a desirable result. Although I am personally FOR the proposal, if this suppressed AGAINST voters, this is equally bad. Regardless of how one might argue that "code is law" and it should've been up to the voters to read the smart contract themselves, it should be reasonable to expect that the official Uniswap frontend provides correct information.
Regardless of the result that timer was very misleading indeed. I hope new proposals would have a block timer link in their description preferably on the first paragraph.
Sorry Dharma, you tried very hard. Just wanna say they are the reason I have come to like Uniswap so much. It's unfortunate some of the community doesn't see you guys the same way.
if the previous user get again phase 2 uni airdrop then it will be injustice with the new user.
I am in favour of this and will vote yes
Either:
Users that use Uniswap via aggregators/proxies are considered equal to any other user, charged a fee for their trade and their volume is counted towards the platforms overall volume, in which case they should have been included in the airdrop and not including them was an oversight.
Or:
Either:
Users that use Uniswap via aggregators/proxies are considered equal to any other user, charged a fee for their trade and their volume is counted towards the platforms overall volume, in which case they should have been included in the airdrop and not including them was an oversight.
Or:
They are not considered users, in which case they should not be included in the airdrop, their Uniswap fees should be refunded and their volume excluded from metrics as they are not considered users of the platform.
if they don't i will. its not only dharma affected by this
The reason is explained on the Github account: https://github.com/dharmaprotocol/excluded-uni-airdrop-users/tree/master/projects/Monolith
19 adresses of Monolith user (mine isn't in this one), wasn't in the ParaSwap adresses, for a not well known reason (anyway, 19 adresses that you could check by yourself to find the transaction)
The reason is explained on the Github account: https://github.com/dharmaprotocol/excluded-uni-airdrop-users/tree/master/projects/Monolith
19 adresses of Monolith user (mine isn't in this one), wasn't in the ParaSwap adresses, for a not well known reason (anyway, 19 adresses that you could check by yourself to find the transaction)
On the Monolith case, all adresses could have been in phase one, due to the nature of their integration. But as ParaSwap is a DEX, they have been relayed to the phase 2 I think. And instead of changing the ParaSwap list to exclude Monolith adresses and put them in phase 1, it has been choose to exclude from Monolith list the ParaSwap adresses.
Notice how you've not made any sense? You call 5 weeks on a proposal a rush? Dharma is taking its time and delivering as they have promised. If you don't like it, vote against it and leave. Quit crap talking the proposal.
Paraswap has been excluded from Phase 1, while Monolith (which uses Paraswap) seems to be in. Is there a reason for this?
The voting ended about 8 hours earlier than stated on the official voting page at https://app.uniswap.org. This same issue caused Proposal #1 to be defeated by a slim margin. This is a significant procedural error that calls into question the validity of the result IMO.
Proof: https://twitter.com/RootPhish/status/1322298930793730049
The voting ended about 8 hours earlier than stated on the official voting page at https://app.uniswap.org. This same issue caused Proposal #1 to be defeated by a slim margin. This is a significant procedural error that calls into question the validity of the result IMO.
Proof: https://twitter.com/RootPhish/status/1322298930793730049
For all we know, there could have been large accounts which could have been waiting till the last minute to vote at 8:53 CET, but the vote actually ended at 00:53 CET. In any election, if some voters did not get the opportunity to vote because the official literature misstated the time that the polls closed, the election would be declared invalid.
For this reason, Dharma should be released from its commitment not to re-propose phase #1 of the retroactive airdrop.
I think that if you're voting power is still delegated to Dharma in uniswap app, you should probably not have to change something about this. If you vote on your own, you will need to vote again.
(by the way, I didn't vote the previous proposal but it wasn't the same purpose)
I posted my take on Twitter a few days ago but have tried to sum up my position as best I can in a video.
I hope this adds something to the discussion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZi7T4pev3c&feature=youtu.be
Before the initial airdrop I think most of Uniswap users looked at UniSwap like a tool, not like a community, the community has been made by the airdrop and the UNI token creation.
This proposal concern users with a transaction BEFORE there was any community (before the 1st september, as did the initial airdrop).
Before the initial airdrop I think most of Uniswap users looked at UniSwap like a tool, not like a community, the community has been made by the airdrop and the UNI token creation.
This proposal concern users with a transaction BEFORE there was any community (before the 1st september, as did the initial airdrop).
Indeed 1 Dharma user isn't 1 Uniswap user, and this will not be change by this proposal. As I said I'm a MEW user (without Uniswap transaction before 1st september on this one, so no reward on my MEW address) and a Monolith user (with one transaction on this side), so I don't know exactly how works Dharma, but the rules of the airdrop as I understand it are stricts enough to keep this another airdrop in the spirit of the initial airdrop:
Before 1st september, people was using UniSwap because they needed to exchange some token without centralization... (yield farming, DeFi, ...), I used it with Monolith cause they encourage their TKN token to avoid fees using their cards, and Uniswap was conveniently here (and back at these time I wasn't a big user of Metamask). I wouldn't trust someone telling that using Uniswap before 1st september was the act of joining a community (especially counting the failed transactions).
If Dharma valid transactions in this proposal look like my Monolith transaction ( https://etherscan.io/tx/0x4fbbedb9308aad2c9fe67f420fb2ef23289d68de94d6d861f6351e4a3282e9ac ), it's doesn't look against the initial airdrop spirit. (and if I quote TokenBrice from Monolith project on another thread of this proposal ( https://gov.uniswap.org/t/application-for-retroactive-proxy-contract-airdrop-for-projects-apps/3221/11?u=darkcenobyte ) about how much end-user could profit from this proposal "The current estimation is around 200"). So yeah with ParaSwap and for Dharma/... there is much more end-user concerned by this... But it look fair enough to be supported, even if some deserve it maybe more than other... Because I think it's better to handle this once for all than doing a proposal for each plateform later during months (and as the UNI amount required to be able to do a proposal isn't small, it's more fair for small project to be in this proposal than alone for making it's own proposal).
It's the second proposal on vote, and I'm not sure who is on the greedy side, some are against because this could make the price lower and prefer keeping the "initial community" closed, after some weeks only... Some probably want it just because 400 UNI free money and they will sell it as soon they claim it. But there is wide more profiles than those 2 extremism, and I guess this could be benefict for the community to make it grow (it's not because I support this proposal that I will sell my soul to Dharma or MEW or Monolith... And I could vote against their future proposals if I disagree with...)
What would be the worst case? Dharma telling SOME of their customers "hey you got 400 UNI thanks to us, go claim them"? Even in this situation every users will not sell them directly after. I guess most of them will sell a part, and keep the other one to become part of the community and vote...
I will be voting in favour of phase 1 and against phase 2.
I don't believe there's a significant number of people who've used dex aggregators but never interacted with uniswap directly.
I will be voting in favour of phase 1 and against phase 2.
I don't believe there's a significant number of people who've used dex aggregators but never interacted with uniswap directly.
I've used kyberswap on a few occasions in the past however on these occasions eth2dai has provided the liquidity for the trade, not uniswap. I did nothing differently to people who would be entitled to the airdrop in phase 2, however wouldn't be entitled to receive any tokens.
On other occasions I've used both dex.ag and 1inchexchange, however after seeing that 100% of the trade would go through uniswap anyway, I've decided to make the trade directly through uniswap.
Let me get this straight. You think Dharma, with their reliance on the Uniswap protocol, missed out on the first airdrop? I'm fairly sure they have plenty of UNI, and yet they seem to want to dilute the value of it. That seems contrary to greedy to me. They will not be the receivers, theirs users will be.
I had handed over my last vote to Dharma Delegate and since then there has been no change in Delegate! From what you told me it seems that now you will not have to vote again.
Maybe Dharma wasn't the more explicit proxy through Uniswap, but some was more. I used directly Uniswap post-1st septembre (3rd september actually), and believed I had already used it before... So after looking through my apps (MEW, Monolith, ...) I discovered that I was in the Monolith (so going through ParaSwap) adresses.
I choose Uniswap, cause Uniswap looked more trustable than others... On my apps, it was more displayed than only a logo, and Dharma isn't even the more respresentative of the phase 1 list.
Maybe Dharma wasn't the more explicit proxy through Uniswap, but some was more. I used directly Uniswap post-1st septembre (3rd september actually), and believed I had already used it before... So after looking through my apps (MEW, Monolith, ...) I discovered that I was in the Monolith (so going through ParaSwap) adresses.
I choose Uniswap, cause Uniswap looked more trustable than others... On my apps, it was more displayed than only a logo, and Dharma isn't even the more respresentative of the phase 1 list.
So I delegate my ~41 UNI (40 that I bought + 1 I claimed from UNI pool rewards) to Dharma, cause I support this proposal, and I will do the same for the phase 2.
I will not convince you, because everyone seems stuck on their positions here, but everything I can say is that voting is governing, go against if you want, or support the proposal if you want.
At the end, if this proposal is accepted, some Dharma/MEW/... users will have the choice to claim, to sell, to hold, ... their UNI, like had the first UNI holders.
I think it's about fairness, at the initial drop some had able to claim the drop on multiples adresses, was it fair? no, but it couldn't be avoided. Here, for many users this could be more fair if this approval is accepted.
Maybe some will say "life is unfair", yes it could be, more or less, but when you living under a dictatorship government, you don't vote, it seems unfair. Here we can vote, even if we don't have the same weight in the vote, so I don't think I would vote to make things more unfair even for the small weight I represent.
Who has voted for Dharma last time, does he need to vote again for Phase1?
if they don't i will. its not only dharma affected by this
The reason is explained on the Github account: https://github.com/dharmaprotocol/excluded-uni-airdrop-users/tree/master/projects/Monolith
19 adresses of Monolith user (mine isn't in this one), wasn't in the ParaSwap adresses, for a not well known reason (anyway, 19 adresses that you could check by yourself to find the transaction)
The reason is explained on the Github account: https://github.com/dharmaprotocol/excluded-uni-airdrop-users/tree/master/projects/Monolith
19 adresses of Monolith user (mine isn't in this one), wasn't in the ParaSwap adresses, for a not well known reason (anyway, 19 adresses that you could check by yourself to find the transaction)
On the Monolith case, all adresses could have been in phase one, due to the nature of their integration. But as ParaSwap is a DEX, they have been relayed to the phase 2 I think. And instead of changing the ParaSwap list to exclude Monolith adresses and put them in phase 1, it has been choose to exclude from Monolith list the ParaSwap adresses.
Notice how you've not made any sense? You call 5 weeks on a proposal a rush? Dharma is taking its time and delivering as they have promised. If you don't like it, vote against it and leave. Quit crap talking the proposal.
Paraswap has been excluded from Phase 1, while Monolith (which uses Paraswap) seems to be in. Is there a reason for this?
The voting ended about 8 hours earlier than stated on the official voting page at https://app.uniswap.org. This same issue caused Proposal #1 to be defeated by a slim margin. This is a significant procedural error that calls into question the validity of the result IMO.
Proof: https://twitter.com/RootPhish/status/1322298930793730049
The voting ended about 8 hours earlier than stated on the official voting page at https://app.uniswap.org. This same issue caused Proposal #1 to be defeated by a slim margin. This is a significant procedural error that calls into question the validity of the result IMO.
Proof: https://twitter.com/RootPhish/status/1322298930793730049
For all we know, there could have been large accounts which could have been waiting till the last minute to vote at 8:53 CET, but the vote actually ended at 00:53 CET. In any election, if some voters did not get the opportunity to vote because the official literature misstated the time that the polls closed, the election would be declared invalid.
For this reason, Dharma should be released from its commitment not to re-propose phase #1 of the retroactive airdrop.
I think that if you're voting power is still delegated to Dharma in uniswap app, you should probably not have to change something about this. If you vote on your own, you will need to vote again.
(by the way, I didn't vote the previous proposal but it wasn't the same purpose)
I posted my take on Twitter a few days ago but have tried to sum up my position as best I can in a video.
I hope this adds something to the discussion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZi7T4pev3c&feature=youtu.be
Before the initial airdrop I think most of Uniswap users looked at UniSwap like a tool, not like a community, the community has been made by the airdrop and the UNI token creation.
This proposal concern users with a transaction BEFORE there was any community (before the 1st september, as did the initial airdrop).
Before the initial airdrop I think most of Uniswap users looked at UniSwap like a tool, not like a community, the community has been made by the airdrop and the UNI token creation.
This proposal concern users with a transaction BEFORE there was any community (before the 1st september, as did the initial airdrop).
Indeed 1 Dharma user isn't 1 Uniswap user, and this will not be change by this proposal. As I said I'm a MEW user (without Uniswap transaction before 1st september on this one, so no reward on my MEW address) and a Monolith user (with one transaction on this side), so I don't know exactly how works Dharma, but the rules of the airdrop as I understand it are stricts enough to keep this another airdrop in the spirit of the initial airdrop:
Before 1st september, people was using UniSwap because they needed to exchange some token without centralization... (yield farming, DeFi, ...), I used it with Monolith cause they encourage their TKN token to avoid fees using their cards, and Uniswap was conveniently here (and back at these time I wasn't a big user of Metamask). I wouldn't trust someone telling that using Uniswap before 1st september was the act of joining a community (especially counting the failed transactions).
If Dharma valid transactions in this proposal look like my Monolith transaction ( https://etherscan.io/tx/0x4fbbedb9308aad2c9fe67f420fb2ef23289d68de94d6d861f6351e4a3282e9ac ), it's doesn't look against the initial airdrop spirit. (and if I quote TokenBrice from Monolith project on another thread of this proposal ( https://gov.uniswap.org/t/application-for-retroactive-proxy-contract-airdrop-for-projects-apps/3221/11?u=darkcenobyte ) about how much end-user could profit from this proposal "The current estimation is around 200"). So yeah with ParaSwap and for Dharma/... there is much more end-user concerned by this... But it look fair enough to be supported, even if some deserve it maybe more than other... Because I think it's better to handle this once for all than doing a proposal for each plateform later during months (and as the UNI amount required to be able to do a proposal isn't small, it's more fair for small project to be in this proposal than alone for making it's own proposal).
It's the second proposal on vote, and I'm not sure who is on the greedy side, some are against because this could make the price lower and prefer keeping the "initial community" closed, after some weeks only... Some probably want it just because 400 UNI free money and they will sell it as soon they claim it. But there is wide more profiles than those 2 extremism, and I guess this could be benefict for the community to make it grow (it's not because I support this proposal that I will sell my soul to Dharma or MEW or Monolith... And I could vote against their future proposals if I disagree with...)
What would be the worst case? Dharma telling SOME of their customers "hey you got 400 UNI thanks to us, go claim them"? Even in this situation every users will not sell them directly after. I guess most of them will sell a part, and keep the other one to become part of the community and vote...
I will be voting in favour of phase 1 and against phase 2.
I don't believe there's a significant number of people who've used dex aggregators but never interacted with uniswap directly.
I will be voting in favour of phase 1 and against phase 2.
I don't believe there's a significant number of people who've used dex aggregators but never interacted with uniswap directly.
I've used kyberswap on a few occasions in the past however on these occasions eth2dai has provided the liquidity for the trade, not uniswap. I did nothing differently to people who would be entitled to the airdrop in phase 2, however wouldn't be entitled to receive any tokens.
On other occasions I've used both dex.ag and 1inchexchange, however after seeing that 100% of the trade would go through uniswap anyway, I've decided to make the trade directly through uniswap.
Let me get this straight. You think Dharma, with their reliance on the Uniswap protocol, missed out on the first airdrop? I'm fairly sure they have plenty of UNI, and yet they seem to want to dilute the value of it. That seems contrary to greedy to me. They will not be the receivers, theirs users will be.
I had handed over my last vote to Dharma Delegate and since then there has been no change in Delegate! From what you told me it seems that now you will not have to vote again.
Maybe Dharma wasn't the more explicit proxy through Uniswap, but some was more. I used directly Uniswap post-1st septembre (3rd september actually), and believed I had already used it before... So after looking through my apps (MEW, Monolith, ...) I discovered that I was in the Monolith (so going through ParaSwap) adresses.
I choose Uniswap, cause Uniswap looked more trustable than others... On my apps, it was more displayed than only a logo, and Dharma isn't even the more respresentative of the phase 1 list.
Maybe Dharma wasn't the more explicit proxy through Uniswap, but some was more. I used directly Uniswap post-1st septembre (3rd september actually), and believed I had already used it before... So after looking through my apps (MEW, Monolith, ...) I discovered that I was in the Monolith (so going through ParaSwap) adresses.
I choose Uniswap, cause Uniswap looked more trustable than others... On my apps, it was more displayed than only a logo, and Dharma isn't even the more respresentative of the phase 1 list.
So I delegate my ~41 UNI (40 that I bought + 1 I claimed from UNI pool rewards) to Dharma, cause I support this proposal, and I will do the same for the phase 2.
I will not convince you, because everyone seems stuck on their positions here, but everything I can say is that voting is governing, go against if you want, or support the proposal if you want.
At the end, if this proposal is accepted, some Dharma/MEW/... users will have the choice to claim, to sell, to hold, ... their UNI, like had the first UNI holders.
I think it's about fairness, at the initial drop some had able to claim the drop on multiples adresses, was it fair? no, but it couldn't be avoided. Here, for many users this could be more fair if this approval is accepted.
Maybe some will say "life is unfair", yes it could be, more or less, but when you living under a dictatorship government, you don't vote, it seems unfair. Here we can vote, even if we don't have the same weight in the vote, so I don't think I would vote to make things more unfair even for the small weight I represent.
Who has voted for Dharma last time, does he need to vote again for Phase1?
Vote for Dharma.
12k user might be added to uni community in one way or other.
Dev's that build on uni feel encouraged and work towards a greater good.
Stop this nonsense
Go and VOTE.
No one is stopping you from doing that.
Vote for Dharma.
12k user might be added to uni community in one way or other.
Dev's that build on uni feel encouraged and work towards a greater good.
Stop this nonsense
Go and VOTE.
No one is stopping you from doing that.
You're right, I'm blinded by the excessive amount of branding on the uniswap app itself, such a huge difference.....
sorry to say, i dont think you understand what dilution means.
it's as if you have read nothing from the entire thread above. I urge you to please scroll up and read a little (i know its long and some people don't have time) but everything you have asked or implied has been discussed earlier.
TL;DR
it's as if you have read nothing from the entire thread above. I urge you to please scroll up and read a little (i know its long and some people don't have time) but everything you have asked or implied has been discussed earlier.
TL;DR
I'm indifferent to the eventual solution btw just fyi
I came across uniswap after the deadlines... can we do an airdrop for new users? My point is where does this stop?
Also if the first proposal which wasn't as controversial didn't pass, how will this? Is dharma submitted this proposal to appease it's users so even if it fails, they can say they tried their best.
I personally used Dharma because I am on my phone most of the time. I feel they deserve UNI but we have people who doesn't even hold 100k UNI but they are making a lot of noise. Let your vote speak for you.
Metamask didn't have swap before 1st September.
By the way, idk for Dharma, but apps like MEW or Monolith, the user could read exactly "Uniswap" or better, can CHOOSE to use Uniswap and not something else, and we talk about decentralization technology. So, there should be no reason to discriminate users using Uniswap directly from the website, or directly from a third app on their smartphone.
Metamask didn't have swap before 1st September.
By the way, idk for Dharma, but apps like MEW or Monolith, the user could read exactly "Uniswap" or better, can CHOOSE to use Uniswap and not something else, and we talk about decentralization technology. So, there should be no reason to discriminate users using Uniswap directly from the website, or directly from a third app on their smartphone.
And in someway these apps have help Uniswap to become popular, I heard about it on apps, before using it directly myself (but post-1st september, like the 3rd or 4th), so I continue to find unfair in the way I choose to use it BEFORE the 1st september, and didn't be rewarded because I didn't use a centralized point, but used some proxy through third apps.
It's not replay the game, it's just be more into it, it's not because you reward people with it, that people will run and selling it, maybe some will keep their UNI and participate into governance, or use it as liquidity/...
So yeah, you can choose to vote against this, but I think we should vote, it's not changing the rule of the game by letting the vote decide, the vote define the rules.
You're right, I'm blinded by the excessive amount of branding on the uniswap app itself, such a huge difference.....
sorry to say, i dont think you understand what dilution means.
it's as if you have read nothing from the entire thread above. I urge you to please scroll up and read a little (i know its long and some people don't have time) but everything you have asked or implied has been discussed earlier.
TL;DR
it's as if you have read nothing from the entire thread above. I urge you to please scroll up and read a little (i know its long and some people don't have time) but everything you have asked or implied has been discussed earlier.
TL;DR
I'm indifferent to the eventual solution btw just fyi
I came across uniswap after the deadlines... can we do an airdrop for new users? My point is where does this stop?
Also if the first proposal which wasn't as controversial didn't pass, how will this? Is dharma submitted this proposal to appease it's users so even if it fails, they can say they tried their best.
I personally used Dharma because I am on my phone most of the time. I feel they deserve UNI but we have people who doesn't even hold 100k UNI but they are making a lot of noise. Let your vote speak for you.
Metamask didn't have swap before 1st September.
By the way, idk for Dharma, but apps like MEW or Monolith, the user could read exactly "Uniswap" or better, can CHOOSE to use Uniswap and not something else, and we talk about decentralization technology. So, there should be no reason to discriminate users using Uniswap directly from the website, or directly from a third app on their smartphone.
Metamask didn't have swap before 1st September.
By the way, idk for Dharma, but apps like MEW or Monolith, the user could read exactly "Uniswap" or better, can CHOOSE to use Uniswap and not something else, and we talk about decentralization technology. So, there should be no reason to discriminate users using Uniswap directly from the website, or directly from a third app on their smartphone.
And in someway these apps have help Uniswap to become popular, I heard about it on apps, before using it directly myself (but post-1st september, like the 3rd or 4th), so I continue to find unfair in the way I choose to use it BEFORE the 1st september, and didn't be rewarded because I didn't use a centralized point, but used some proxy through third apps.
It's not replay the game, it's just be more into it, it's not because you reward people with it, that people will run and selling it, maybe some will keep their UNI and participate into governance, or use it as liquidity/...
So yeah, you can choose to vote against this, but I think we should vote, it's not changing the rule of the game by letting the vote decide, the vote define the rules.
Wait, is this whole proposal currently tied up entirely over Dharma? It seems that the controversy has landed squarely on their participation and not any of the others for the past week or two. If that's the case then why can't the issues be separated out? There are clearly specific, particular issues the community has with 'Dharma's participation that isn't really apparent for the other services.
yes
Given the switch up on grouping and cohorts, Matcha should be submitted with the first cohort as it is a customer-facing application. Per the grouping criteria, Matcha provides no API integration for programatic usage thus falling squarely into an 'application integration' criteria. (e.g. No trading bots can be used on Matcha)
yes
Given the switch up on grouping and cohorts, Matcha should be submitted with the first cohort as it is a customer-facing application. Per the grouping criteria, Matcha provides no API integration for programatic usage thus falling squarely into an 'application integration' criteria. (e.g. No trading bots can be used on Matcha)
We can provide a breakdown for Matcha users specifically. Can you confirm @0age
yesss
@jumnhy on the Argent side we checked the uniqueness of our list vs the original Uniswap drop. We did start working with Kyber to have a unified list but then the proposals were split, so Kyber would have to remove all duplicates from their list if this proposal is approved. We could definitely have users in common with Dharma or others too but @0age is correct, these duplicates would be removed when building the airdrop Merkle root.
In favor of locked liquidity tokens
There has been a lot of discussion about how Dharma's retroactive airdrop proposal is not dilutive because it would come out of treasury tokens that unlock on the 18th. TLDR, it is a lot more nuanced than that. First, lets look at what the tokens in the community treasury are meant for: " The governance treasury will retain 43% [430,000,000 UNI] of UNI supply to distribute on an ongoing basis through contributor grants, community initiatives, liquidity mining , and other programs." Lets start with liquidity mining. Though liquidity mining is dilutive in nature as users sell UNI to capture the yield, this dilution is predictable and distributed over time. Additionally, as I mention above in this thread (message 170/179) we can remove some of that sell pressure by introducing a UNI/ETH rewards pool, something I think should be a priority before any retroactive airdrop proposals. Further more, at current UNI coming to market per day, it is highly unlikely that all of the Y1 community treasury will come to market in the first year. Now looking at grants, again by looking at amount of money going towards grants from other projects such as ANT or GNO, there is no way the full Y1 community treasury will be distributed throughout the year, additionally grant holders are directly incentivized to hold onto excess UNI over expenses as their work should lead to a material impact on the UNI price if grants are distributed correctly. Even more importantly than that, and why it is so important to turn on the fee switch is that by holding onto the UNI, they will earn a portion of Uniswap's revenues that will likely cover expenses and lead to less sell pressure. IMO both of these distributions lead to less dilution and directly benefit UNI holders as it either brings in more Uniswap users leading to higher trading fees through farming and improves overall infrastructure through R&D with grants.
Now changing the focus to the retroactive airdrop proposal, we already have an example of how recipients interact with their airdropped UNI from the initial airdrop. 
There has been a lot of discussion about how Dharma's retroactive airdrop proposal is not dilutive because it would come out of treasury tokens that unlock on the 18th. TLDR, it is a lot more nuanced than that. First, lets look at what the tokens in the community treasury are meant for: " The governance treasury will retain 43% [430,000,000 UNI] of UNI supply to distribute on an ongoing basis through contributor grants, community initiatives, liquidity mining , and other programs." Lets start with liquidity mining. Though liquidity mining is dilutive in nature as users sell UNI to capture the yield, this dilution is predictable and distributed over time. Additionally, as I mention above in this thread (message 170/179) we can remove some of that sell pressure by introducing a UNI/ETH rewards pool, something I think should be a priority before any retroactive airdrop proposals. Further more, at current UNI coming to market per day, it is highly unlikely that all of the Y1 community treasury will come to market in the first year. Now looking at grants, again by looking at amount of money going towards grants from other projects such as ANT or GNO, there is no way the full Y1 community treasury will be distributed throughout the year, additionally grant holders are directly incentivized to hold onto excess UNI over expenses as their work should lead to a material impact on the UNI price if grants are distributed correctly. Even more importantly than that, and why it is so important to turn on the fee switch is that by holding onto the UNI, they will earn a portion of Uniswap's revenues that will likely cover expenses and lead to less sell pressure. IMO both of these distributions lead to less dilution and directly benefit UNI holders as it either brings in more Uniswap users leading to higher trading fees through farming and improves overall infrastructure through R&D with grants.
Now changing the focus to the retroactive airdrop proposal, we already have an example of how recipients interact with their airdropped UNI from the initial airdrop.
We saw a huge amount of 400 UNI offers across DEX's and centralized exchanges after the initial airdrop, and expect the same thing with any retroactive airdrop. This is not to argue for or against the retroactive airdrop proposal, we have our own opinions and will vote in any retroactive proposals. However, it is to say that arguing that a retroactive airdrop is not dilutive is not nuanced, and comparing yield farming and grants vs the airdrop lead to two very different types of dilution, and different benefits for Uniswap and UNI token holders. Happy to discuss more!
Below, words of @strangechances . "I would emphatically clarify three points about the UNI discussions regarding retroactive distribution and lowering thresholds. There's a lot of misinformation surfacing in the forums and media, and misinformation is bad for governance. So let me share these assertions:
Is it possible for me to claim? My swap was through kyber network.
0xdadbc2ea2ff7a97de0a32021284dc3873170624704b721bd67241f854ed8742e
Since the proposal is being pushed back for a decrease in quorum, it should also be pushed back to after a vote on a UNI/ETH rewards pool. Shared this in the UNI/ETH thread but it should be here as well.
Hey Everyone, I wanted to share some thoughts on the two main proposals being discussed within this governance channel, and why I think we should be championing a UNI/ETH farming pool before any retroactive airdrop that @nadav_dharma and the rest of the Dharma team have been proposing. This proposal is in no way questioning the merits of the retroactive airdrop. As an analyst working in this space I have my own opinions on it, but it will ultimately come down to governance to decide what to do. That is what is nice about governance tokens, my opinion doesn’t matter.
Since the proposal is being pushed back for a decrease in quorum, it should also be pushed back to after a vote on a UNI/ETH rewards pool. Shared this in the UNI/ETH thread but it should be here as well.
Hey Everyone, I wanted to share some thoughts on the two main proposals being discussed within this governance channel, and why I think we should be championing a UNI/ETH farming pool before any retroactive airdrop that @nadav_dharma and the rest of the Dharma team have been proposing. This proposal is in no way questioning the merits of the retroactive airdrop. As an analyst working in this space I have my own opinions on it, but it will ultimately come down to governance to decide what to do. That is what is nice about governance tokens, my opinion doesn’t matter.
To discuss why I think a UNI/ETH rewards pool should come before any retroactive airdrop, I want to take a high level look at what has worked over the past few months in during the yield craze. To me the what has surprised me the most has not been the amount of capital going into farming (You can see growth in TVL here: https://defipulse.com/) but the speed at which this capital has been rotating to different assets. There is no other asset class where billions of dollars can rotate investments in a few clicks at 3am on a Sunday night :slight_smile: But to me this makes it clear that these new assets have no investible moat. That has lead me to ask what does have a moat, and what else is benefiting from this trend when looking at how to invest. To me this is pretty clear, it is the underlying assets that are used to earn yield in almost all new farming projects. This is your YFI’s, SNX’s, LEND’s, and LINK’s. These have all been assets used to farm in multiple farming projects from YAM to Kimchi, and all saw increases in price because of it. I see this because of two reasons. The first being it locks up a significant percentage of the circulating supply causing a liquidity crisis on the buyside. With high yields, more people look to buy the underlying asset to capture that yield, causing a recursive feedback loop to the upside. The second and more important is that it gives an additional use case to a governance token. The token is making people money rather than just a say in governance I discussed this more in another thread about whether the fee switch should be a dividend or a token burn.(Message 47, [POLL] How Would We Structure a Fee Reward? ) Alittle different, but apply the same line of thinking here.
Turning towards a UNI/ETH pool. By having UNI as an underlying asset to earn more UNI we would accomplish both of the two things outlined above. We would lock up a significant chunk of UNI and holders of UNI would make money/earn yield rather than just a say in governance, and ultimately help end the sell pressure that UNI has been seeing. It would also begin pulling UNI off of centralized exchanges, which I think is everyone’s goal.
This should be done before any vote on either retroactive airdrop proposal because it will provide a way for the new UNI holders to make more money instead of just seeing 400 UNI offers across all exchanges. I believe a UNI/ETH rewards pool will have a significant impact on slowing down any dilution in the form of retroactive airdrops as well as begin building a price floor for UNI overall, and would love to see this proposal up for a vote and active before any retroactive airdrop proposals. I am happy to answer any questions or concerns to what I have outlined above. Long UNI
Wait, is this whole proposal currently tied up entirely over Dharma? It seems that the controversy has landed squarely on their participation and not any of the others for the past week or two. If that's the case then why can't the issues be separated out? There are clearly specific, particular issues the community has with 'Dharma's participation that isn't really apparent for the other services.
yes
Given the switch up on grouping and cohorts, Matcha should be submitted with the first cohort as it is a customer-facing application. Per the grouping criteria, Matcha provides no API integration for programatic usage thus falling squarely into an 'application integration' criteria. (e.g. No trading bots can be used on Matcha)
yes
Given the switch up on grouping and cohorts, Matcha should be submitted with the first cohort as it is a customer-facing application. Per the grouping criteria, Matcha provides no API integration for programatic usage thus falling squarely into an 'application integration' criteria. (e.g. No trading bots can be used on Matcha)
We can provide a breakdown for Matcha users specifically. Can you confirm @0age
yesss
@jumnhy on the Argent side we checked the uniqueness of our list vs the original Uniswap drop. We did start working with Kyber to have a unified list but then the proposals were split, so Kyber would have to remove all duplicates from their list if this proposal is approved. We could definitely have users in common with Dharma or others too but @0age is correct, these duplicates would be removed when building the airdrop Merkle root.
In favor of locked liquidity tokens
There has been a lot of discussion about how Dharma's retroactive airdrop proposal is not dilutive because it would come out of treasury tokens that unlock on the 18th. TLDR, it is a lot more nuanced than that. First, lets look at what the tokens in the community treasury are meant for: " The governance treasury will retain 43% [430,000,000 UNI] of UNI supply to distribute on an ongoing basis through contributor grants, community initiatives, liquidity mining , and other programs." Lets start with liquidity mining. Though liquidity mining is dilutive in nature as users sell UNI to capture the yield, this dilution is predictable and distributed over time. Additionally, as I mention above in this thread (message 170/179) we can remove some of that sell pressure by introducing a UNI/ETH rewards pool, something I think should be a priority before any retroactive airdrop proposals. Further more, at current UNI coming to market per day, it is highly unlikely that all of the Y1 community treasury will come to market in the first year. Now looking at grants, again by looking at amount of money going towards grants from other projects such as ANT or GNO, there is no way the full Y1 community treasury will be distributed throughout the year, additionally grant holders are directly incentivized to hold onto excess UNI over expenses as their work should lead to a material impact on the UNI price if grants are distributed correctly. Even more importantly than that, and why it is so important to turn on the fee switch is that by holding onto the UNI, they will earn a portion of Uniswap's revenues that will likely cover expenses and lead to less sell pressure. IMO both of these distributions lead to less dilution and directly benefit UNI holders as it either brings in more Uniswap users leading to higher trading fees through farming and improves overall infrastructure through R&D with grants.
Now changing the focus to the retroactive airdrop proposal, we already have an example of how recipients interact with their airdropped UNI from the initial airdrop.
There has been a lot of discussion about how Dharma's retroactive airdrop proposal is not dilutive because it would come out of treasury tokens that unlock on the 18th. TLDR, it is a lot more nuanced than that. First, lets look at what the tokens in the community treasury are meant for: " The governance treasury will retain 43% [430,000,000 UNI] of UNI supply to distribute on an ongoing basis through contributor grants, community initiatives, liquidity mining , and other programs." Lets start with liquidity mining. Though liquidity mining is dilutive in nature as users sell UNI to capture the yield, this dilution is predictable and distributed over time. Additionally, as I mention above in this thread (message 170/179) we can remove some of that sell pressure by introducing a UNI/ETH rewards pool, something I think should be a priority before any retroactive airdrop proposals. Further more, at current UNI coming to market per day, it is highly unlikely that all of the Y1 community treasury will come to market in the first year. Now looking at grants, again by looking at amount of money going towards grants from other projects such as ANT or GNO, there is no way the full Y1 community treasury will be distributed throughout the year, additionally grant holders are directly incentivized to hold onto excess UNI over expenses as their work should lead to a material impact on the UNI price if grants are distributed correctly. Even more importantly than that, and why it is so important to turn on the fee switch is that by holding onto the UNI, they will earn a portion of Uniswap's revenues that will likely cover expenses and lead to less sell pressure. IMO both of these distributions lead to less dilution and directly benefit UNI holders as it either brings in more Uniswap users leading to higher trading fees through farming and improves overall infrastructure through R&D with grants.
Now changing the focus to the retroactive airdrop proposal, we already have an example of how recipients interact with their airdropped UNI from the initial airdrop.
We saw a huge amount of 400 UNI offers across DEX's and centralized exchanges after the initial airdrop, and expect the same thing with any retroactive airdrop. This is not to argue for or against the retroactive airdrop proposal, we have our own opinions and will vote in any retroactive proposals. However, it is to say that arguing that a retroactive airdrop is not dilutive is not nuanced, and comparing yield farming and grants vs the airdrop lead to two very different types of dilution, and different benefits for Uniswap and UNI token holders. Happy to discuss more!
Below, words of @strangechances . "I would emphatically clarify three points about the UNI discussions regarding retroactive distribution and lowering thresholds. There's a lot of misinformation surfacing in the forums and media, and misinformation is bad for governance. So let me share these assertions:
Is it possible for me to claim? My swap was through kyber network.
0xdadbc2ea2ff7a97de0a32021284dc3873170624704b721bd67241f854ed8742e
Since the proposal is being pushed back for a decrease in quorum, it should also be pushed back to after a vote on a UNI/ETH rewards pool. Shared this in the UNI/ETH thread but it should be here as well.
Hey Everyone, I wanted to share some thoughts on the two main proposals being discussed within this governance channel, and why I think we should be championing a UNI/ETH farming pool before any retroactive airdrop that @nadav_dharma and the rest of the Dharma team have been proposing. This proposal is in no way questioning the merits of the retroactive airdrop. As an analyst working in this space I have my own opinions on it, but it will ultimately come down to governance to decide what to do. That is what is nice about governance tokens, my opinion doesn’t matter.
Since the proposal is being pushed back for a decrease in quorum, it should also be pushed back to after a vote on a UNI/ETH rewards pool. Shared this in the UNI/ETH thread but it should be here as well.
Hey Everyone, I wanted to share some thoughts on the two main proposals being discussed within this governance channel, and why I think we should be championing a UNI/ETH farming pool before any retroactive airdrop that @nadav_dharma and the rest of the Dharma team have been proposing. This proposal is in no way questioning the merits of the retroactive airdrop. As an analyst working in this space I have my own opinions on it, but it will ultimately come down to governance to decide what to do. That is what is nice about governance tokens, my opinion doesn’t matter.
To discuss why I think a UNI/ETH rewards pool should come before any retroactive airdrop, I want to take a high level look at what has worked over the past few months in during the yield craze. To me the what has surprised me the most has not been the amount of capital going into farming (You can see growth in TVL here: https://defipulse.com/) but the speed at which this capital has been rotating to different assets. There is no other asset class where billions of dollars can rotate investments in a few clicks at 3am on a Sunday night :slight_smile: But to me this makes it clear that these new assets have no investible moat. That has lead me to ask what does have a moat, and what else is benefiting from this trend when looking at how to invest. To me this is pretty clear, it is the underlying assets that are used to earn yield in almost all new farming projects. This is your YFI’s, SNX’s, LEND’s, and LINK’s. These have all been assets used to farm in multiple farming projects from YAM to Kimchi, and all saw increases in price because of it. I see this because of two reasons. The first being it locks up a significant percentage of the circulating supply causing a liquidity crisis on the buyside. With high yields, more people look to buy the underlying asset to capture that yield, causing a recursive feedback loop to the upside. The second and more important is that it gives an additional use case to a governance token. The token is making people money rather than just a say in governance I discussed this more in another thread about whether the fee switch should be a dividend or a token burn.(Message 47, [POLL] How Would We Structure a Fee Reward? ) Alittle different, but apply the same line of thinking here.
Turning towards a UNI/ETH pool. By having UNI as an underlying asset to earn more UNI we would accomplish both of the two things outlined above. We would lock up a significant chunk of UNI and holders of UNI would make money/earn yield rather than just a say in governance, and ultimately help end the sell pressure that UNI has been seeing. It would also begin pulling UNI off of centralized exchanges, which I think is everyone’s goal.
This should be done before any vote on either retroactive airdrop proposal because it will provide a way for the new UNI holders to make more money instead of just seeing 400 UNI offers across all exchanges. I believe a UNI/ETH rewards pool will have a significant impact on slowing down any dilution in the form of retroactive airdrops as well as begin building a price floor for UNI overall, and would love to see this proposal up for a vote and active before any retroactive airdrop proposals. I am happy to answer any questions or concerns to what I have outlined above. Long UNI
How do you feel about proxy users getting a different amount of airdropped tokens than direct users?
How do you feel about proxy users getting a different amount of airdropped tokens than direct users?
Dharma posted a link to a tweet from July 30th prominently advertising their Uniswap integration in the application thread which is linked in the OP under 'How'. I would suggest people thoroughly examine the applications from each app before throwing around baseless accusations of deception.
As for the snapshot, it is less than 50k votes, around 0.1% of currently delegated UNI or 0.3% compared to those delegated to dharma who presumably support the proposal, suggesting that it is a useful gauge of opinion is ridiculous.
Dharma posted a link to a tweet from July 30th prominently advertising their Uniswap integration in the application thread which is linked in the OP under 'How'. I would suggest people thoroughly examine the applications from each app before throwing around baseless accusations of deception.
As for the snapshot, it is less than 50k votes, around 0.1% of currently delegated UNI or 0.3% compared to those delegated to dharma who presumably support the proposal, suggesting that it is a useful gauge of opinion is ridiculous.
Personally I am for the phase 1 distribution but not phase 2, integrations of uniswap in apps provide volume, fees and ultimately extra value to Uniswap and this is a relatively cheap way to heavily encourage that. I think it is worth noting that users in app integrations may be more 'loyal' than those using uniswap through a browser when new competitors appear since they tend to value convenience over minimal fees or other perks and the use of the platform may be abstracted anyway.
I do not support a drop to DEXs such as Kyber or 1inch however as there is no risk of them not implementing uniswap integration (it is in their own interest to do so) , they simply go where the liquidity is and their added volume is incidental. Disclosure: I hold/have purchased UNI and would benefit from this proposal on 1 address in P1 and 2 addresses on P2
I agree! I will support this as well!👑
Ah I see your stance more clearly now.
For long term prospects of the health of the project I overall agree with you.
My main point is its main focus and topic of discussion I feel shouldn’t be “money” but “Governance”
I strongly suggest you use the services before you say incorrect things. Eidoo users are fully aware of which dex they are using for a specific pair as it is specified in the user interface from which dex passes the swap. At the moment the available dexes are Uniswap, Kyber, Bancor and we have provided the list of unique users who have used Uniswap proxy contracts. On GitHub, you will be able to find all the addresses that can be checked on Etherscan.
Dharma posted a link to a tweet from July 30th prominently advertising their Uniswap integration in the application thread which is linked in the OP under 'How'. I would suggest people thoroughly examine the applications from each app before throwing around baseless accusations of deception.
As for the snapshot, it is less than 50k votes, around 0.1% of currently delegated UNI or 0.3% compared to those delegated to dharma who presumably support the proposal, suggesting that it is a useful gauge of opinion is ridiculous.
Dharma posted a link to a tweet from July 30th prominently advertising their Uniswap integration in the application thread which is linked in the OP under 'How'. I would suggest people thoroughly examine the applications from each app before throwing around baseless accusations of deception.
As for the snapshot, it is less than 50k votes, around 0.1% of currently delegated UNI or 0.3% compared to those delegated to dharma who presumably support the proposal, suggesting that it is a useful gauge of opinion is ridiculous.
Personally I am for the phase 1 distribution but not phase 2, integrations of uniswap in apps provide volume, fees and ultimately extra value to Uniswap and this is a relatively cheap way to heavily encourage that. I think it is worth noting that users in app integrations may be more 'loyal' than those using uniswap through a browser when new competitors appear since they tend to value convenience over minimal fees or other perks and the use of the platform may be abstracted anyway.
I do not support a drop to DEXs such as Kyber or 1inch however as there is no risk of them not implementing uniswap integration (it is in their own interest to do so) , they simply go where the liquidity is and their added volume is incidental. Disclosure: I hold/have purchased UNI and would benefit from this proposal on 1 address in P1 and 2 addresses on P2
I agree! I will support this as well!👑
Ah I see your stance more clearly now.
For long term prospects of the health of the project I overall agree with you.
My main point is its main focus and topic of discussion I feel shouldn’t be “money” but “Governance”
I strongly suggest you use the services before you say incorrect things. Eidoo users are fully aware of which dex they are using for a specific pair as it is specified in the user interface from which dex passes the swap. At the moment the available dexes are Uniswap, Kyber, Bancor and we have provided the list of unique users who have used Uniswap proxy contracts. On GitHub, you will be able to find all the addresses that can be checked on Etherscan.
Ah I see your stance more clearly now.
For long term prospects of the health of the project I overall agree with you.
My main point is its main focus and topic of discussion I feel shouldn’t be “money” but “Governance”
I feel this cat is already out of the bag. Like you said it had to be listed, in order to function as a governance token. Its just unfortunate that since the token already launched and people have already invested, things get much less clear in terms of what the correct course of action would be.
What do you think about proxy users getting a different amount of voting power/tokens? I feel this may alleviate the problem on both ends.
Could you clarify this. So they would just be getting governance tokens that can't be sold on the market?
As another significant amount of UNI owner, I cannot agree more with Buckerino.
Hello! The methodology / logic can be found in the README here.
We worked with Argent to verify that all eligible wallets on their end are in our submitted list of addresses, and so Argent closed the PR on their side.
However, as there are now 2 phases, it seems like Argent's PR was re-opened and merged, resulting in the duplicate addresses. See the PR here.
Hello! The methodology / logic can be found in the README here.
We worked with Argent to verify that all eligible wallets on their end are in our submitted list of addresses, and so Argent closed the PR on their side.
However, as there are now 2 phases, it seems like Argent's PR was re-opened and merged, resulting in the duplicate addresses. See the PR here.
I can exclude all Argent addresses from our list, but given the composability of the projects, the more efficient method would be to aggregate all Phase 1 and Phase 2 addresses, then remove Phase 1 addresses from the Phase 2 addresses,
Buckerino, a question - what did you think of the initial UNI airdrop?
I think most were in agreement with the choice that devs made to distribute UNI evenly to Uniswap users. Some positives with this approach include:
Buckerino, a question - what did you think of the initial UNI airdrop?
I think most were in agreement with the choice that devs made to distribute UNI evenly to Uniswap users. Some positives with this approach include:
The UNI airdrop expanded the Uniswap community, and increased awareness of the possibilities around permissionless, decentralised protocols.
So why is this airdrop different? It's not. If anything, this airdrop would bring in a brand new swathe of participation, people who are even more green around the ears and have even more to learn.
Crypto is about empowering individuals with the tools to take ownership over their lives, but if we play the protectionist card then that ambition will be left unfulfilled. My two cents.
That's fair. I definitely want all concerns to be addressed. I just wish them to be unique and add something to the conversation. Yelling at each other over cash grab this or that is unproductive. If you feel someone echoes your point of view, please upvote them.
I am 100% for addressing fair concerns and making sure the methodology is bullet proof. I suppose I had been following the other threads, and feel confident the Univalent, Gauntlet, and Dharma teams are competent enough to make sure the airdrop is conducted smoothly and fairly.
That's fair. I definitely want all concerns to be addressed. I just wish them to be unique and add something to the conversation. Yelling at each other over cash grab this or that is unproductive. If you feel someone echoes your point of view, please upvote them.
I am 100% for addressing fair concerns and making sure the methodology is bullet proof. I suppose I had been following the other threads, and feel confident the Univalent, Gauntlet, and Dharma teams are competent enough to make sure the airdrop is conducted smoothly and fairly.
I don't mean to rush anything, take your time, I just like to see things moving forward.
While initially I was for this proposal, I'm realizing that there are more complex aspects to this issue.
This would be unfair to people who were not a part of the initial airdrop, yet still bought the UNI token after the launch. Many of them were likely unaware of this proposal, and they bought seeing the value of this project to support it while also hoping to see returns. Since 'fairness', 'not burning bridges', and building 'good faith' within the community (specifically in reference to third party devs) was brought up earlier, I feel this same point should be acknowledged for those in the community supporting the project monetarily, whether individually or in a group.
The difference between proxy users and direct users may indicate the need for a difference in the airdrops, were this proposal to go through.
Ah I see your stance more clearly now.
For long term prospects of the health of the project I overall agree with you.
My main point is its main focus and topic of discussion I feel shouldn’t be “money” but “Governance”
I feel this cat is already out of the bag. Like you said it had to be listed, in order to function as a governance token. Its just unfortunate that since the token already launched and people have already invested, things get much less clear in terms of what the correct course of action would be.
What do you think about proxy users getting a different amount of voting power/tokens? I feel this may alleviate the problem on both ends.
Could you clarify this. So they would just be getting governance tokens that can't be sold on the market?
As another significant amount of UNI owner, I cannot agree more with Buckerino.
Hello! The methodology / logic can be found in the README here.
We worked with Argent to verify that all eligible wallets on their end are in our submitted list of addresses, and so Argent closed the PR on their side.
However, as there are now 2 phases, it seems like Argent's PR was re-opened and merged, resulting in the duplicate addresses. See the PR here.
Hello! The methodology / logic can be found in the README here.
We worked with Argent to verify that all eligible wallets on their end are in our submitted list of addresses, and so Argent closed the PR on their side.
However, as there are now 2 phases, it seems like Argent's PR was re-opened and merged, resulting in the duplicate addresses. See the PR here.
I can exclude all Argent addresses from our list, but given the composability of the projects, the more efficient method would be to aggregate all Phase 1 and Phase 2 addresses, then remove Phase 1 addresses from the Phase 2 addresses,
Buckerino, a question - what did you think of the initial UNI airdrop?
I think most were in agreement with the choice that devs made to distribute UNI evenly to Uniswap users. Some positives with this approach include:
Buckerino, a question - what did you think of the initial UNI airdrop?
I think most were in agreement with the choice that devs made to distribute UNI evenly to Uniswap users. Some positives with this approach include:
The UNI airdrop expanded the Uniswap community, and increased awareness of the possibilities around permissionless, decentralised protocols.
So why is this airdrop different? It's not. If anything, this airdrop would bring in a brand new swathe of participation, people who are even more green around the ears and have even more to learn.
Crypto is about empowering individuals with the tools to take ownership over their lives, but if we play the protectionist card then that ambition will be left unfulfilled. My two cents.
That's fair. I definitely want all concerns to be addressed. I just wish them to be unique and add something to the conversation. Yelling at each other over cash grab this or that is unproductive. If you feel someone echoes your point of view, please upvote them.
I am 100% for addressing fair concerns and making sure the methodology is bullet proof. I suppose I had been following the other threads, and feel confident the Univalent, Gauntlet, and Dharma teams are competent enough to make sure the airdrop is conducted smoothly and fairly.
That's fair. I definitely want all concerns to be addressed. I just wish them to be unique and add something to the conversation. Yelling at each other over cash grab this or that is unproductive. If you feel someone echoes your point of view, please upvote them.
I am 100% for addressing fair concerns and making sure the methodology is bullet proof. I suppose I had been following the other threads, and feel confident the Univalent, Gauntlet, and Dharma teams are competent enough to make sure the airdrop is conducted smoothly and fairly.
I don't mean to rush anything, take your time, I just like to see things moving forward.
While initially I was for this proposal, I'm realizing that there are more complex aspects to this issue.
This would be unfair to people who were not a part of the initial airdrop, yet still bought the UNI token after the launch. Many of them were likely unaware of this proposal, and they bought seeing the value of this project to support it while also hoping to see returns. Since 'fairness', 'not burning bridges', and building 'good faith' within the community (specifically in reference to third party devs) was brought up earlier, I feel this same point should be acknowledged for those in the community supporting the project monetarily, whether individually or in a group.
The difference between proxy users and direct users may indicate the need for a difference in the airdrops, were this proposal to go through.
While initially I was for this proposal, I'm realizing that there are more complex aspects to this issue.
This would be unfair to people who were not a part of the initial airdrop, yet still bought the UNI token after the launch. Many of them were likely unaware of this proposal, and they bought seeing the value of this project to support it while also hoping to see returns. Since 'fairness', 'not burning bridges', and building 'good faith' within the community (specifically in reference to third party devs) was brought up earlier, I feel this same point should be acknowledged for those in the community supporting the project monetarily, whether individually or in a group.
The difference between proxy users and direct users may indicate the need for a difference in the airdrops, were this proposal to go through.
The best thing would have been for this to have all been accounted for in the beginning, so that it would have been a clean launch. Unfortunately this reminds me of the ETH fiasco that spawned ETH Classic. I think no matter what happens, unity is the most important thing, and that means considering the consequences for all sides, not just developers.
@jumnhy — your observation about duplicate addresses is indeed accurate, and there are many duplicates between various projects. In particular, single accounts end up interacting with multiple DEXes somewhat frequently. (It's less common for user applications, where you find distinct smart wallets rather than EOA's — for instance, there were no duplicate accounts between the Dharma address set and those of any other projects.)
That being said, each account is only included once in the final airdrop merkle root, even if it occurs in multiple projects, and phase two specifically excludes any accounts in phase one (just as both phases specifically exclude accounts that were part of the initial airdrop). I strongly encourage verification of this claim via inspection of the included accounts themselves!
While initially I was for this proposal, I'm realizing that there are more complex aspects to this issue.
This would be unfair to people who were not a part of the initial airdrop, yet still bought the UNI token after the launch. Many of them were likely unaware of this proposal, and they bought seeing the value of this project to support it while also hoping to see returns. Since 'fairness', 'not burning bridges', and building 'good faith' within the community (specifically in reference to third party devs) was brought up earlier, I feel this same point should be acknowledged for those in the community supporting the project monetarily, whether individually or in a group.
The difference between proxy users and direct users may indicate the need for a difference in the airdrops, were this proposal to go through.
The best thing would have been for this to have all been accounted for in the beginning, so that it would have been a clean launch. Unfortunately this reminds me of the ETH fiasco that spawned ETH Classic. I think no matter what happens, unity is the most important thing, and that means considering the consequences for all sides, not just developers.
@jumnhy — your observation about duplicate addresses is indeed accurate, and there are many duplicates between various projects. In particular, single accounts end up interacting with multiple DEXes somewhat frequently. (It's less common for user applications, where you find distinct smart wallets rather than EOA's — for instance, there were no duplicate accounts between the Dharma address set and those of any other projects.)
That being said, each account is only included once in the final airdrop merkle root, even if it occurs in multiple projects, and phase two specifically excludes any accounts in phase one (just as both phases specifically exclude accounts that were part of the initial airdrop). I strongly encourage verification of this claim via inspection of the included accounts themselves!
This conversation has really devolved. I suggest addressing any unique objections like double checking for duplicates, and unless there are any other objections other than "Cash grab!", I recommend moving on with the vote.
If the main voting delegates decide to vote yes, people have 24 hours to withdraw their votes. At this point it seems like the discussion has been exhausted.
Exactly! We at defi saver used uni through our smart wallets so we should also get the airdrop!
This conversation has really devolved. I suggest addressing any unique objections like double checking for duplicates, and unless there are any other objections other than "Cash grab!", I recommend moving on with the vote.
If the main voting delegates decide to vote yes, people have 24 hours to withdraw their votes. At this point it seems like the discussion has been exhausted.
Exactly! We at defi saver used uni through our smart wallets so we should also get the airdrop!
To the people saying that users who weren’t aware they were using Uniswap don't deserve the airdrop: of course I was aware I was using Uniswap, I just used it through Dharma because they had lower fees and I already had a wallet there so it seemed convenient but in my mind I just wanted to use Uniswap and that's what I thought I was doing so I was very disappointed when I tried to claim the airdrop and I didn't have any tokens. So I believe this is a fair proposal and I hope enough people support it.
To the people saying that users who weren’t aware they were using Uniswap don't deserve the airdrop: of course I was aware I was using Uniswap, I just used it through Dharma because they had lower fees and I already had a wallet there so it seemed convenient but in my mind I just wanted to use Uniswap and that's what I thought I was doing so I was very disappointed when I tried to claim the airdrop and I didn't have any tokens. So I believe this is a fair proposal and I hope enough people support it.
Certainly nothing wrong with making sure the methodology is sound. Although I suspect MEW was included in phase 1 because it is an end user wallet and not an aggregator.
What I mean is Uniswap is a low-level protocol. It's success is likely to come from protocol integrations rather than users using it directly. By not offering UNI rewards to users of the products which have integrated Uniswap, you are sending a message that Uniswap values users who use protocol integrations less. I believe Uniswap users who used a different interface were mistakenly overlooked in the airdrop. These protocol integrations have advertised that they use Uniswap. The punishment in this sense is treating the users of protocols who build on Uniswap as lesser than people who use it directly. By not rewarding the users, you are not rewarding the devs, who took a chance to build on your protocol, and helped validate it by bringing more users and volume.
If Uniswap is to succeed it will be by integrating the most protocols, I think it is a good long term business strategy to give every incentive for developers to integrate Uniswap into their systems. By turning away users of these protocols for the UNI airdrop, it doesn't build up good will with its earliest adopters which will ultimately harm the Uniswap brand in the long term.
What I mean is Uniswap is a low-level protocol. It's success is likely to come from protocol integrations rather than users using it directly. By not offering UNI rewards to users of the products which have integrated Uniswap, you are sending a message that Uniswap values users who use protocol integrations less. I believe Uniswap users who used a different interface were mistakenly overlooked in the airdrop. These protocol integrations have advertised that they use Uniswap. The punishment in this sense is treating the users of protocols who build on Uniswap as lesser than people who use it directly. By not rewarding the users, you are not rewarding the devs, who took a chance to build on your protocol, and helped validate it by bringing more users and volume.
If Uniswap is to succeed it will be by integrating the most protocols, I think it is a good long term business strategy to give every incentive for developers to integrate Uniswap into their systems. By turning away users of these protocols for the UNI airdrop, it doesn't build up good will with its earliest adopters which will ultimately harm the Uniswap brand in the long term.
Also, in regards to your list of protocols. If you go back to the first post on this topic, you see that all of the protocols sufficiently demonstrated they had publicly advertised Uniswap integrations and was the basis for qualification for this airdrop.
The list of accounts eligible for the airdrop is free to be audited, checked against the initial airdrop to see if they've already received UNI, etc. The script to do so is all open source so if you have the technical ability by all means audit the list and address any of your specific concerns.
I support this proposal for the reasons outlined by Nadav.
Dharma and others advertised that they used Uniswap. It would be unfortunate if those users who chose to use value added solutions with better UX were punished for some reason.
It was all free money, designed to reward early users of Uniswap. It would be unfortunate if suddenly everyone who got a free airdrop wanted to exclude others because they already got theirs.
I think not punishing developers who build on top of Uniswap builds goodwill and works to benefit Uniswap long-term, far more than the $ value of this airdrop.
This is from their application post on the original thread. They link a blog post that shows them using Uniswap. I mean personally, I don't care to nitpick that much. I say if it meets the criteria outlined by Nadav's original post it's good enough for me.
As mentioned, I feel rewarding as many users as possible is good for Uniswap, not bad.
This is from their application post on the original thread. They link a blog post that shows them using Uniswap. I mean personally, I don't care to nitpick that much. I say if it meets the criteria outlined by Nadav's original post it's good enough for me.
As mentioned, I feel rewarding as many users as possible is good for Uniswap, not bad.
@Shitcoingambler I am presuming many bots also used Uniswap API directly also, or is that untrue? Why would the bots disqualify a regular user like me from being part of the airdrop? How is that any less fair than the original airdrop? I am happy to complete re-captcha or some sort of 'are you human' check to claim the retroactive airdrop if helps.
One of the reasons why I asked for your wallet - is your story somewhat doesn’t make sense. Uniswap has the same easy UI just like Kyber does, and its super easy to convert from USD-C to BAND.
@Shitcoingambler I am presuming many bots also used Uniswap API directly also, or is that untrue? Why would the bots disqualify a regular user like me from being part of the airdrop? How is that any less fair than the original airdrop? I am happy to complete re-captcha or some sort of 'are you human' check to claim the retroactive airdrop if helps.
One of the reasons why I asked for your wallet - is your story somewhat doesn’t make sense. Uniswap has the same easy UI just like Kyber does, and its super easy to convert from USD-C to BAND.
When I used Uniswap, the UI was older (not the current one live now), and when typed USDC as input + tried typing BAND as output, nothing showed up (possibly an issue with Uni having many liquidity pools?).
@Shitcoingambler As I explained above, my literal intention & conscious decision was to use Uniswap; I just used it through a more clear / simple UI (I did not see an option for USD-C to BAND). And I am sure this is the case for a lot of Kyber users.
I understand any concerns for bots, but honestly this sort of nit-picking leaves a bad taste, and just seems like it is protecting the value of the free tokens you received by using the protocol for the same exact thing I did, rather than being for the benefit of the decentralized protocol.
I don’t agree with MEW in Phase 1
Would you see binance give out free $BNB to their users? I vote NO.
No money is free, this proposal is basically take the money off the market of the UNI holders.
How will you buy UNI to vote yes and give other people free money?
I vote NO.
Certainly nothing wrong with making sure the methodology is sound. Although I suspect MEW was included in phase 1 because it is an end user wallet and not an aggregator.
What I mean is Uniswap is a low-level protocol. It's success is likely to come from protocol integrations rather than users using it directly. By not offering UNI rewards to users of the products which have integrated Uniswap, you are sending a message that Uniswap values users who use protocol integrations less. I believe Uniswap users who used a different interface were mistakenly overlooked in the airdrop. These protocol integrations have advertised that they use Uniswap. The punishment in this sense is treating the users of protocols who build on Uniswap as lesser than people who use it directly. By not rewarding the users, you are not rewarding the devs, who took a chance to build on your protocol, and helped validate it by bringing more users and volume.
If Uniswap is to succeed it will be by integrating the most protocols, I think it is a good long term business strategy to give every incentive for developers to integrate Uniswap into their systems. By turning away users of these protocols for the UNI airdrop, it doesn't build up good will with its earliest adopters which will ultimately harm the Uniswap brand in the long term.
What I mean is Uniswap is a low-level protocol. It's success is likely to come from protocol integrations rather than users using it directly. By not offering UNI rewards to users of the products which have integrated Uniswap, you are sending a message that Uniswap values users who use protocol integrations less. I believe Uniswap users who used a different interface were mistakenly overlooked in the airdrop. These protocol integrations have advertised that they use Uniswap. The punishment in this sense is treating the users of protocols who build on Uniswap as lesser than people who use it directly. By not rewarding the users, you are not rewarding the devs, who took a chance to build on your protocol, and helped validate it by bringing more users and volume.
If Uniswap is to succeed it will be by integrating the most protocols, I think it is a good long term business strategy to give every incentive for developers to integrate Uniswap into their systems. By turning away users of these protocols for the UNI airdrop, it doesn't build up good will with its earliest adopters which will ultimately harm the Uniswap brand in the long term.
Also, in regards to your list of protocols. If you go back to the first post on this topic, you see that all of the protocols sufficiently demonstrated they had publicly advertised Uniswap integrations and was the basis for qualification for this airdrop.
The list of accounts eligible for the airdrop is free to be audited, checked against the initial airdrop to see if they've already received UNI, etc. The script to do so is all open source so if you have the technical ability by all means audit the list and address any of your specific concerns.
I support this proposal for the reasons outlined by Nadav.
Dharma and others advertised that they used Uniswap. It would be unfortunate if those users who chose to use value added solutions with better UX were punished for some reason.
It was all free money, designed to reward early users of Uniswap. It would be unfortunate if suddenly everyone who got a free airdrop wanted to exclude others because they already got theirs.
I think not punishing developers who build on top of Uniswap builds goodwill and works to benefit Uniswap long-term, far more than the $ value of this airdrop.
This is from their application post on the original thread. They link a blog post that shows them using Uniswap. I mean personally, I don't care to nitpick that much. I say if it meets the criteria outlined by Nadav's original post it's good enough for me.
As mentioned, I feel rewarding as many users as possible is good for Uniswap, not bad.
This is from their application post on the original thread. They link a blog post that shows them using Uniswap. I mean personally, I don't care to nitpick that much. I say if it meets the criteria outlined by Nadav's original post it's good enough for me.
As mentioned, I feel rewarding as many users as possible is good for Uniswap, not bad.
@Shitcoingambler I am presuming many bots also used Uniswap API directly also, or is that untrue? Why would the bots disqualify a regular user like me from being part of the airdrop? How is that any less fair than the original airdrop? I am happy to complete re-captcha or some sort of 'are you human' check to claim the retroactive airdrop if helps.
One of the reasons why I asked for your wallet - is your story somewhat doesn’t make sense. Uniswap has the same easy UI just like Kyber does, and its super easy to convert from USD-C to BAND.
@Shitcoingambler I am presuming many bots also used Uniswap API directly also, or is that untrue? Why would the bots disqualify a regular user like me from being part of the airdrop? How is that any less fair than the original airdrop? I am happy to complete re-captcha or some sort of 'are you human' check to claim the retroactive airdrop if helps.
One of the reasons why I asked for your wallet - is your story somewhat doesn’t make sense. Uniswap has the same easy UI just like Kyber does, and its super easy to convert from USD-C to BAND.
When I used Uniswap, the UI was older (not the current one live now), and when typed USDC as input + tried typing BAND as output, nothing showed up (possibly an issue with Uni having many liquidity pools?).
@Shitcoingambler As I explained above, my literal intention & conscious decision was to use Uniswap; I just used it through a more clear / simple UI (I did not see an option for USD-C to BAND). And I am sure this is the case for a lot of Kyber users.
I understand any concerns for bots, but honestly this sort of nit-picking leaves a bad taste, and just seems like it is protecting the value of the free tokens you received by using the protocol for the same exact thing I did, rather than being for the benefit of the decentralized protocol.
I don’t agree with MEW in Phase 1
Would you see binance give out free $BNB to their users? I vote NO.
No money is free, this proposal is basically take the money off the market of the UNI holders.
How will you buy UNI to vote yes and give other people free money?
I vote NO.
I support this proposal for the reasons outlined by Nadav.
Dharma and others advertised that they used Uniswap. It would be unfortunate if those users who chose to use value added solutions with better UX were punished for some reason.
It was all free money, designed to reward early users of Uniswap. It would be unfortunate if suddenly everyone who got a free airdrop wanted to exclude others because they already got theirs.
I think not punishing developers who build on top of Uniswap builds goodwill and works to benefit Uniswap long-term, far more than the $ value of this airdrop.
For these reasons, I support this proposal.
Excellent job done to organize and amass the necessary UNI to make this happen.
The logic is perfect and makes complete sense.
Dharma was advertised as using Uniswap on every trade, and users knew they were trading on Uniswap through a simple to use App. I will vote YES.
Hi Shitcoingambler,
I created an account to be able to share my opinion & use-case on this proposal. I haven't been active in UNI governance previously, but I have been following this topic on twitter and got introduced to this forum by navdav_dharma. I also separately bought about 300 UNI on Binance when it got listed (you're welcome for increasing the value of your free airdrop :wink: )
Hi Shitcoingambler,
I created an account to be able to share my opinion & use-case on this proposal. I haven't been active in UNI governance previously, but I have been following this topic on twitter and got introduced to this forum by navdav_dharma. I also separately bought about 300 UNI on Binance when it got listed (you're welcome for increasing the value of your free airdrop :wink: )
I unfortunately don't have 500 addresses; I have been using 2 ETH addresses for many years (note, neither was in UNI airdrop, and only 1 would be included in this proposal), so I don't feel comfortable sharing my address (would you share your bank account statements publicly on a forum if someone asked?)
But I would be happy to share a bit more on my use-case / opinion on this matter.
First of all, I am indeed a fairly new user to DEXs. I have been using centralized exchanges and centralized swaps like changelly and coinswitch for years. When I looked into DEXs years ago, the liquidity conditions were bad, and I had already had issues with order spread on centralized exchanges with low liquidity. On-top of that, I wanted to use stable coins for swapping to any pair, rather than first swapping to ETH (which would create issues with FIFO based taxes). Now that liquidity has improved on Uni, and the contracts have been used for longer, I felt comfortable using it.
For my trade that is eligible for this proposal, I was looking to buy BAND with USD-C. I wanted to use Uniswap but realized I would have to swap USD-C -> ETH -> wETH -> BAND, which frankly felt intimidating and very time consuming (especially with fluctuating ETH gas prices). I looked into DEX aggregators that could handle this whole process for me rather than executing multiple trades, which brought me to KyberSwap, as they had integrated Uniswap, and could handle all these separate exchanges through Uniswap. Again, Uniswap was the only reason I used Kyber - but also keep in mind, that if Kyber didn't exist, I possibly would have never gone through with the trade (aka Kyber brings uniswap users & liquidity on top of trade fees).
Also, besides for trading bots - which I understand the concern-, I am unclear why it would be an issue if a user had only had a few trades on Uni through a DEX aggregator? I am assuming lot's of people that used Uniswap only had 1-3 trades total, who still were still valid for the airdrop? I understand you don't want the value of your free UNI tokens to deflate, but if this is a fair governance program & was introduced to decentralize the exchange and increase use of the tokens / exchange, why would anyone using a proxy contract on Uniswap be any less entitled to the airdrop you also received for using Uniswap for the same exact purposes?
Again, to me, I feel I have been cheated out of the airdrop because of technicalities. Anyone reading my case may take it as they wish, and they are welcome to protect the value of their tokens purely out of self interest (which most of the negative feedback feels like to me), but to me this retroactive proxy contract airdrop proposal feels only fair.
What kind of filter would that be? You can view them by project in the GitHub repo, and the first post here mentions what projects are included in phase one. For example the Dharma addresses, which to my knowledge needs absolutely no filter. That is the list.
I am in favour of this and will vote yes :)
You mean the addresses that were generated before this proposal in the GitHub repo? It has the logic and list of addresses.
If airdrop happens tokens will be distributed from "Community Treasury" No new token will be minted.
Where would those tokens come from? I think it would be weird to do an other airdrop if you ask me ... It makes no sense.
Also the criteria for who is a Darma user etc are super unclear I also have 3 Darma wallets would this mean I will get 3*400 UNI this makes no sense.
I am a user of KyberSwap.
The main reason I used Kyber Swap was because of Uniswap integration. In fact I knew my transaction would run over Uniswap v2, I just didn't want to route the trade manually through multiple trades - I thought might as well let Kyber figure the intricacies of the trade out.
I am a user of KyberSwap.
The main reason I used Kyber Swap was because of Uniswap integration. In fact I knew my transaction would run over Uniswap v2, I just didn't want to route the trade manually through multiple trades - I thought might as well let Kyber figure the intricacies of the trade out.
This proposal and services integrated with Uniswap provide liquidity, tx volume, and a crazy amount of trading fees to Uniswap protocol.
I would encourage UNI voters to support this proposal and vote for DEX to receive the same right as other uniswap users - to me it only feels fair and I genuinely feel cheated out of the original UNI airdrop.
Just thought I would share my experience / 2-cents.
This proposal is about one thing and one thing only. MONEY! That’s it’s. MONEY. A cash grab. That’s all it is.
I was one of the lucky ones that used multiple addresses. Did I deserve to be rewarded over and above what I “deserved?” NO! Because I didn’t deserve anything.
This proposal is about one thing and one thing only. MONEY! That’s it’s. MONEY. A cash grab. That’s all it is.
I was one of the lucky ones that used multiple addresses. Did I deserve to be rewarded over and above what I “deserved?” NO! Because I didn’t deserve anything.
I also have multiple addresses I used on other platforms that now want an airdrop. Do I deserve to be rewarded even more? NO! I and thousands of other were lucky. LUCKY! That’s all it is. LUCK. A decision was made by those who created Uniswap and their investors.
No one is stopping the platforms that want UNI for their users from airdropping their own tokens. If they do you can bet they won’t be rewarding Uniswap users and why should they? They can have their own airdrops with September 15th as the cutoff date, but guess what? There will be thousands of people saying it’s unfair because everyone should get and airdrop up until the date of the announcement.
You’ll even have more unhappy people threatening not to use their platforms if they don’t get what they want. Any airdrops by these platforms that want UNI will be full of people gaming the system that started to create multiple addresses on as many different platforms as possible after UNI announced their airdrop in anticipation of a copy cat airdrop like UNI’s.
Life isn’t fair. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. No one deserves anything including me.
I support this proposal for the reasons outlined by Nadav.
Dharma and others advertised that they used Uniswap. It would be unfortunate if those users who chose to use value added solutions with better UX were punished for some reason.
It was all free money, designed to reward early users of Uniswap. It would be unfortunate if suddenly everyone who got a free airdrop wanted to exclude others because they already got theirs.
I think not punishing developers who build on top of Uniswap builds goodwill and works to benefit Uniswap long-term, far more than the $ value of this airdrop.
For these reasons, I support this proposal.
Excellent job done to organize and amass the necessary UNI to make this happen.
The logic is perfect and makes complete sense.
Dharma was advertised as using Uniswap on every trade, and users knew they were trading on Uniswap through a simple to use App. I will vote YES.
Hi Shitcoingambler,
I created an account to be able to share my opinion & use-case on this proposal. I haven't been active in UNI governance previously, but I have been following this topic on twitter and got introduced to this forum by navdav_dharma. I also separately bought about 300 UNI on Binance when it got listed (you're welcome for increasing the value of your free airdrop :wink: )
Hi Shitcoingambler,
I created an account to be able to share my opinion & use-case on this proposal. I haven't been active in UNI governance previously, but I have been following this topic on twitter and got introduced to this forum by navdav_dharma. I also separately bought about 300 UNI on Binance when it got listed (you're welcome for increasing the value of your free airdrop :wink: )
I unfortunately don't have 500 addresses; I have been using 2 ETH addresses for many years (note, neither was in UNI airdrop, and only 1 would be included in this proposal), so I don't feel comfortable sharing my address (would you share your bank account statements publicly on a forum if someone asked?)
But I would be happy to share a bit more on my use-case / opinion on this matter.
First of all, I am indeed a fairly new user to DEXs. I have been using centralized exchanges and centralized swaps like changelly and coinswitch for years. When I looked into DEXs years ago, the liquidity conditions were bad, and I had already had issues with order spread on centralized exchanges with low liquidity. On-top of that, I wanted to use stable coins for swapping to any pair, rather than first swapping to ETH (which would create issues with FIFO based taxes). Now that liquidity has improved on Uni, and the contracts have been used for longer, I felt comfortable using it.
For my trade that is eligible for this proposal, I was looking to buy BAND with USD-C. I wanted to use Uniswap but realized I would have to swap USD-C -> ETH -> wETH -> BAND, which frankly felt intimidating and very time consuming (especially with fluctuating ETH gas prices). I looked into DEX aggregators that could handle this whole process for me rather than executing multiple trades, which brought me to KyberSwap, as they had integrated Uniswap, and could handle all these separate exchanges through Uniswap. Again, Uniswap was the only reason I used Kyber - but also keep in mind, that if Kyber didn't exist, I possibly would have never gone through with the trade (aka Kyber brings uniswap users & liquidity on top of trade fees).
Also, besides for trading bots - which I understand the concern-, I am unclear why it would be an issue if a user had only had a few trades on Uni through a DEX aggregator? I am assuming lot's of people that used Uniswap only had 1-3 trades total, who still were still valid for the airdrop? I understand you don't want the value of your free UNI tokens to deflate, but if this is a fair governance program & was introduced to decentralize the exchange and increase use of the tokens / exchange, why would anyone using a proxy contract on Uniswap be any less entitled to the airdrop you also received for using Uniswap for the same exact purposes?
Again, to me, I feel I have been cheated out of the airdrop because of technicalities. Anyone reading my case may take it as they wish, and they are welcome to protect the value of their tokens purely out of self interest (which most of the negative feedback feels like to me), but to me this retroactive proxy contract airdrop proposal feels only fair.
What kind of filter would that be? You can view them by project in the GitHub repo, and the first post here mentions what projects are included in phase one. For example the Dharma addresses, which to my knowledge needs absolutely no filter. That is the list.
I am in favour of this and will vote yes :)
You mean the addresses that were generated before this proposal in the GitHub repo? It has the logic and list of addresses.
If airdrop happens tokens will be distributed from "Community Treasury" No new token will be minted.
Where would those tokens come from? I think it would be weird to do an other airdrop if you ask me ... It makes no sense.
Also the criteria for who is a Darma user etc are super unclear I also have 3 Darma wallets would this mean I will get 3*400 UNI this makes no sense.
I am a user of KyberSwap.
The main reason I used Kyber Swap was because of Uniswap integration. In fact I knew my transaction would run over Uniswap v2, I just didn't want to route the trade manually through multiple trades - I thought might as well let Kyber figure the intricacies of the trade out.
I am a user of KyberSwap.
The main reason I used Kyber Swap was because of Uniswap integration. In fact I knew my transaction would run over Uniswap v2, I just didn't want to route the trade manually through multiple trades - I thought might as well let Kyber figure the intricacies of the trade out.
This proposal and services integrated with Uniswap provide liquidity, tx volume, and a crazy amount of trading fees to Uniswap protocol.
I would encourage UNI voters to support this proposal and vote for DEX to receive the same right as other uniswap users - to me it only feels fair and I genuinely feel cheated out of the original UNI airdrop.
Just thought I would share my experience / 2-cents.
This proposal is about one thing and one thing only. MONEY! That’s it’s. MONEY. A cash grab. That’s all it is.
I was one of the lucky ones that used multiple addresses. Did I deserve to be rewarded over and above what I “deserved?” NO! Because I didn’t deserve anything.
This proposal is about one thing and one thing only. MONEY! That’s it’s. MONEY. A cash grab. That’s all it is.
I was one of the lucky ones that used multiple addresses. Did I deserve to be rewarded over and above what I “deserved?” NO! Because I didn’t deserve anything.
I also have multiple addresses I used on other platforms that now want an airdrop. Do I deserve to be rewarded even more? NO! I and thousands of other were lucky. LUCKY! That’s all it is. LUCK. A decision was made by those who created Uniswap and their investors.
No one is stopping the platforms that want UNI for their users from airdropping their own tokens. If they do you can bet they won’t be rewarding Uniswap users and why should they? They can have their own airdrops with September 15th as the cutoff date, but guess what? There will be thousands of people saying it’s unfair because everyone should get and airdrop up until the date of the announcement.
You’ll even have more unhappy people threatening not to use their platforms if they don’t get what they want. Any airdrops by these platforms that want UNI will be full of people gaming the system that started to create multiple addresses on as many different platforms as possible after UNI announced their airdrop in anticipation of a copy cat airdrop like UNI’s.
Life isn’t fair. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. No one deserves anything including me.
Actually it's because we are a niche segment of users that this proposal can be acceptable. On my situation (and I guess it's the most common here): I used Uniswap through Monolith (so through Paraswap) in August, because I like having a wallet with my private key on my smartphone, I think it's an important vector for Ethereum economy. Then, I used Uniswap directly the 3rd september. But I feel like I could be a member of the UniSwap community as I used it (through a proxy) before. On the Monolith app, I choose to use UniSwap for swapping tokens, so it's not like we didn't choose Uniswap, I wasn't ever aware of this proxy thing or Paraswap existence but I known that UniSwap was here.
So I think it should be the right thing, we are not that much, so the impact shouldn't be that bad. And it's not even sure that every adresses on the list will claim their UNI. I think that you could reduce the list and amount of UNI used by letting the owners of addresses asking before the proposal if they are interested for "claiming" their UNI by themself proving their interest without letting the app tell them "hey you maybe got UNI".
Actually it's because we are a niche segment of users that this proposal can be acceptable. On my situation (and I guess it's the most common here): I used Uniswap through Monolith (so through Paraswap) in August, because I like having a wallet with my private key on my smartphone, I think it's an important vector for Ethereum economy. Then, I used Uniswap directly the 3rd september. But I feel like I could be a member of the UniSwap community as I used it (through a proxy) before. On the Monolith app, I choose to use UniSwap for swapping tokens, so it's not like we didn't choose Uniswap, I wasn't ever aware of this proxy thing or Paraswap existence but I known that UniSwap was here.
So I think it should be the right thing, we are not that much, so the impact shouldn't be that bad. And it's not even sure that every adresses on the list will claim their UNI. I think that you could reduce the list and amount of UNI used by letting the owners of addresses asking before the proposal if they are interested for "claiming" their UNI by themself proving their interest without letting the app tell them "hey you maybe got UNI".
Afterall, I'm here, I bought and staked UNI After the 15th, I haven't be able to claim any UNI on my addresses, and one of my address is on the ParaSwap list.
I think it's fair to users like me to receive some UNI coins. And as I said, you should let users claiming to be on a definitive list proposal if they are in one of the lists on the Github. So less UNI reserved, less UNI claimed, less impact on prices, more fairness in the distribution for member that could have the right to vote and would like to participate in UNI governance.
We submitted a new PR for Matcha users and are working with the Zerion and DeFi Saver teams so they can submit the addresses that interacted with Uniswap through their 0x API integration.
Where can we see how many votes have been delegated?
As the two phases make emphasis on the end-user context (app or dex), is couldn't have been more accurate or possible to put Monolith user through ParaSwap into the Phase 1 instead of mixed them with DEX in Phase 2?
I say go ahead and let’s get this done! Fully supported from a uniswap holder!
Understanding developer sentiment and building in public are what today's projects are all about. Rightly incentivizing the developers to build on top is important to accumulate the reach.
Expecting to win this, though it looks a really tough battle. @nadav_dharma even if we lose this, we would have won the battle to bring devs together on the same page.
Vadim from Zerion here, wanted to follow up on Fulvia's and John's message.
We confirm that many of our users facilitated trades using 0x API to get better prices. Much of that volume went through Uniswap. We can provide a breakdown for Zerion users used 0x API. We also allow users to claim UNI tokens directly within our interface. So they will see the reward instantly within the interface.
@hazucf @fulviamorales — depending on how quickly delegation accumulates, there may still be time to modify and redeploy the phase one merkle distributor. A prerequisite to this would be to prepare a script to retrieve relevant accounts and submit a PR for each project to the repo as soon as possible.
@coffice — It does seem like this transaction would be valid under phase two, assuming it isn't already part of the original airdrop. Can you take a look at 1inch's submission script and see if you can a) work out why this account wouldn't be included in the query and b) if there's a modification to that script that would catch it?
Whatever be the outcome of this effort, Uniswap has succeeded in uniting various Devs from different projects under one forum and it is great to have all these Devs from different projects like 1inch, Dharma, Argent, Kyber, DexAG, Furucombo, 0x, Mew, Defi Saver, Eidoo, etc., (@Jay-Prime, @mounir_paraswap, @varundeshpande, @nadav_dharma @hsuanting, @itamar_argent.xyz, @easyswaptrade, @bannplayer, @Anyhowclick, @deacix, etc.,) who are fighting hard for their community members, as part of the Uniswap community! It is good to collaborate rather than compete in the field of DeFi, in order to be able to take on the might of the Centralized Exchanges! Uniswap is a great project and has been extremely generous in rewarding its community members! This is extremely positive for the project to have all these great developers of the DeFi space taking active part in the discussions and hope this will continue to be the shape of things going forward, not just for the Airdrop for their individual community members, but for all governance issues of Uniswap going forward. I see a bright future ahead for Uniswap and UNI with this kind of participation! We can never see this happening in real life. Can you ever imagine executives and top shareholders of GOOG. APPL, AMZN and FB getting together and deciding about the governance issues of MSFT? I love this collaborative openness in the DeFi space. Truly Amazing! It augurs well for the financial health of Uniswap and for the strengthening of the project and the entire DeFi space going forward!
Actually it's because we are a niche segment of users that this proposal can be acceptable. On my situation (and I guess it's the most common here): I used Uniswap through Monolith (so through Paraswap) in August, because I like having a wallet with my private key on my smartphone, I think it's an important vector for Ethereum economy. Then, I used Uniswap directly the 3rd september. But I feel like I could be a member of the UniSwap community as I used it (through a proxy) before. On the Monolith app, I choose to use UniSwap for swapping tokens, so it's not like we didn't choose Uniswap, I wasn't ever aware of this proxy thing or Paraswap existence but I known that UniSwap was here.
So I think it should be the right thing, we are not that much, so the impact shouldn't be that bad. And it's not even sure that every adresses on the list will claim their UNI. I think that you could reduce the list and amount of UNI used by letting the owners of addresses asking before the proposal if they are interested for "claiming" their UNI by themself proving their interest without letting the app tell them "hey you maybe got UNI".
Actually it's because we are a niche segment of users that this proposal can be acceptable. On my situation (and I guess it's the most common here): I used Uniswap through Monolith (so through Paraswap) in August, because I like having a wallet with my private key on my smartphone, I think it's an important vector for Ethereum economy. Then, I used Uniswap directly the 3rd september. But I feel like I could be a member of the UniSwap community as I used it (through a proxy) before. On the Monolith app, I choose to use UniSwap for swapping tokens, so it's not like we didn't choose Uniswap, I wasn't ever aware of this proxy thing or Paraswap existence but I known that UniSwap was here.
So I think it should be the right thing, we are not that much, so the impact shouldn't be that bad. And it's not even sure that every adresses on the list will claim their UNI. I think that you could reduce the list and amount of UNI used by letting the owners of addresses asking before the proposal if they are interested for "claiming" their UNI by themself proving their interest without letting the app tell them "hey you maybe got UNI".
Afterall, I'm here, I bought and staked UNI After the 15th, I haven't be able to claim any UNI on my addresses, and one of my address is on the ParaSwap list.
I think it's fair to users like me to receive some UNI coins. And as I said, you should let users claiming to be on a definitive list proposal if they are in one of the lists on the Github. So less UNI reserved, less UNI claimed, less impact on prices, more fairness in the distribution for member that could have the right to vote and would like to participate in UNI governance.
We submitted a new PR for Matcha users and are working with the Zerion and DeFi Saver teams so they can submit the addresses that interacted with Uniswap through their 0x API integration.
Where can we see how many votes have been delegated?
As the two phases make emphasis on the end-user context (app or dex), is couldn't have been more accurate or possible to put Monolith user through ParaSwap into the Phase 1 instead of mixed them with DEX in Phase 2?
I say go ahead and let’s get this done! Fully supported from a uniswap holder!
Understanding developer sentiment and building in public are what today's projects are all about. Rightly incentivizing the developers to build on top is important to accumulate the reach.
Expecting to win this, though it looks a really tough battle. @nadav_dharma even if we lose this, we would have won the battle to bring devs together on the same page.
Vadim from Zerion here, wanted to follow up on Fulvia's and John's message.
We confirm that many of our users facilitated trades using 0x API to get better prices. Much of that volume went through Uniswap. We can provide a breakdown for Zerion users used 0x API. We also allow users to claim UNI tokens directly within our interface. So they will see the reward instantly within the interface.
@hazucf @fulviamorales — depending on how quickly delegation accumulates, there may still be time to modify and redeploy the phase one merkle distributor. A prerequisite to this would be to prepare a script to retrieve relevant accounts and submit a PR for each project to the repo as soon as possible.
@coffice — It does seem like this transaction would be valid under phase two, assuming it isn't already part of the original airdrop. Can you take a look at 1inch's submission script and see if you can a) work out why this account wouldn't be included in the query and b) if there's a modification to that script that would catch it?
Whatever be the outcome of this effort, Uniswap has succeeded in uniting various Devs from different projects under one forum and it is great to have all these Devs from different projects like 1inch, Dharma, Argent, Kyber, DexAG, Furucombo, 0x, Mew, Defi Saver, Eidoo, etc., (@Jay-Prime, @mounir_paraswap, @varundeshpande, @nadav_dharma @hsuanting, @itamar_argent.xyz, @easyswaptrade, @bannplayer, @Anyhowclick, @deacix, etc.,) who are fighting hard for their community members, as part of the Uniswap community! It is good to collaborate rather than compete in the field of DeFi, in order to be able to take on the might of the Centralized Exchanges! Uniswap is a great project and has been extremely generous in rewarding its community members! This is extremely positive for the project to have all these great developers of the DeFi space taking active part in the discussions and hope this will continue to be the shape of things going forward, not just for the Airdrop for their individual community members, but for all governance issues of Uniswap going forward. I see a bright future ahead for Uniswap and UNI with this kind of participation! We can never see this happening in real life. Can you ever imagine executives and top shareholders of GOOG. APPL, AMZN and FB getting together and deciding about the governance issues of MSFT? I love this collaborative openness in the DeFi space. Truly Amazing! It augurs well for the financial health of Uniswap and for the strengthening of the project and the entire DeFi space going forward!
Check the yuni site, they have 2 goals, it looks like goal 1 was met.
Also to check delegates I believe you have to use the "read current votes" function. Or #9 on etherscan under the read tab.
John from Matcha here, just wanted to echo Fulvia's message.
Given the switch up on grouping and cohorts, Matcha should be submitted with the first cohort as it is a customer-facing application. Per the grouping criteria, Matcha provides no API integration for programatic usage thus falling squarely into an 'application integration' criteria. (e.g. No trading bots can be used on Matcha)
John from Matcha here, just wanted to echo Fulvia's message.
Given the switch up on grouping and cohorts, Matcha should be submitted with the first cohort as it is a customer-facing application. Per the grouping criteria, Matcha provides no API integration for programatic usage thus falling squarely into an 'application integration' criteria. (e.g. No trading bots can be used on Matcha)
We can provide a breakdown for Matcha users specifically. Can you confirm @0age
@TragedyStruck balanceOf gives the UNI balance of an account, not the delegated votes — to get those, you want getCurrentVotes!
Uniguy772 thank you so much
I hope Phase_Two's distribution will begin soon)
Thanks! The "I might be an idiot"-part came from trying to find the number of delegates. Seems balanceOf just gives the number of held UNI, which didn't help @Giratina very much.
0age big thanks
please keep us informed about the Phase_Two!
While the focus of this proposal is on Phase One, i.e. application integrations, here is the updated information on Phase Two, i.e. DEX aggregators (including ParaSwap):
PHASE TWO: 26,986 accounts — 10,794,400 UNI @ 400 UNI per unique account
Project Accounts (overlapping %'s)
0x 1772 (6.57%)
1inch 4924 (18.25%)
DEXAG 465 (1.72%)
Kyber 23933 (88.69%)
ParaSwap 486 (1.80%)
Totle 718 (2.66%)
How many votes does Dharma currently have?
I'll gladly delegate my vote to the team.
I'm not 100% sure but I believe that yuni.finance just hit 10mil votes.
The page talks specifically (only) about users who have provided liquidity to Uniswap through Argent.
This proposal include other Argent users who have swapped tokens through Uniswap.
Here's the merkle root, token total, and claims (account, index, amount, and proof) for all 12,600 accounts in phase one (400 UNI each, 5,040,000 UNI total) — phase two needs to be regenerated to include Paraswap (thanks for pointing out the omission, @MrDost... PR has been merged!)
Paraswap indicated they were submitting a list (https://twitter.com/paraswap/status/1309169251652177933) but I don't see them here. Did they fail to submit before the cutoff date?
Check the yuni site, they have 2 goals, it looks like goal 1 was met.
Also to check delegates I believe you have to use the "read current votes" function. Or #9 on etherscan under the read tab.
John from Matcha here, just wanted to echo Fulvia's message.
Given the switch up on grouping and cohorts, Matcha should be submitted with the first cohort as it is a customer-facing application. Per the grouping criteria, Matcha provides no API integration for programatic usage thus falling squarely into an 'application integration' criteria. (e.g. No trading bots can be used on Matcha)
John from Matcha here, just wanted to echo Fulvia's message.
Given the switch up on grouping and cohorts, Matcha should be submitted with the first cohort as it is a customer-facing application. Per the grouping criteria, Matcha provides no API integration for programatic usage thus falling squarely into an 'application integration' criteria. (e.g. No trading bots can be used on Matcha)
We can provide a breakdown for Matcha users specifically. Can you confirm @0age
@TragedyStruck balanceOf gives the UNI balance of an account, not the delegated votes — to get those, you want getCurrentVotes!
Uniguy772 thank you so much
I hope Phase_Two's distribution will begin soon)
Thanks! The "I might be an idiot"-part came from trying to find the number of delegates. Seems balanceOf just gives the number of held UNI, which didn't help @Giratina very much.
0age big thanks
please keep us informed about the Phase_Two!
While the focus of this proposal is on Phase One, i.e. application integrations, here is the updated information on Phase Two, i.e. DEX aggregators (including ParaSwap):
PHASE TWO: 26,986 accounts — 10,794,400 UNI @ 400 UNI per unique account
Project Accounts (overlapping %'s)
0x 1772 (6.57%)
1inch 4924 (18.25%)
DEXAG 465 (1.72%)
Kyber 23933 (88.69%)
ParaSwap 486 (1.80%)
Totle 718 (2.66%)
How many votes does Dharma currently have?
I'll gladly delegate my vote to the team.
I'm not 100% sure but I believe that yuni.finance just hit 10mil votes.
The page talks specifically (only) about users who have provided liquidity to Uniswap through Argent.
This proposal include other Argent users who have swapped tokens through Uniswap.
Here's the merkle root, token total, and claims (account, index, amount, and proof) for all 12,600 accounts in phase one (400 UNI each, 5,040,000 UNI total) — phase two needs to be regenerated to include Paraswap (thanks for pointing out the omission, @MrDost... PR has been merged!)
Paraswap indicated they were submitting a list (https://twitter.com/paraswap/status/1309169251652177933) but I don't see them here. Did they fail to submit before the cutoff date?
Hi, Fulvia from 0x Labs. We applied on behalf of the 0x API integrators to facilitate things for them. We can demonstrate that the affected addresses we reported originated transactions through user-facing applications like Matcha, Zerion and DeFi saver — which is included in the first group. If we provide the split would they be included in the first group?
hello,
I have a question about the Phase_Two. when will Phase_Two be started?
many thanks.
My guess is most of the people who would have voted against this have the 50 million in liquidity locked up in uni-Eth like me and were not able to vote because we are doing something useful like providing liquidity for the uni-Eth pair so don’t presume to know motives for the no vote not getting more support
Could you include paraswap, please? :pray: twitter.com/paraswap/status/1309274376198651906
My colleges and I put a very large sum on here, and missed the vote.
I have to admit that it was too difficult to vote sooner :roll_eyes: Why wait until the last moment?
If I send 0x7e4A8391C728fEd9069B2962699AB416628B19Fa to the balanceOf of the contract https://etherscan.io/address/0x1f9840a85d5af5bf1d1762f925bdaddc4201f984#readContract I get:
uint256 :
1000403434097477213
Then again, I might be an idiot (how many decimals is that... 18?).
The airdrop was perfectly consensual except for a few people.
It was a close vote, and it could have easily reached quorum. The abstaining/against votes won it this time, not much more to it. It was not a good proposal, and it couldn’t swing the votes.
Hopefully we get to move forward as a community to better proposals. Get that RNG out of your backyard @rabbidfly, useful proposals are soon to come.
wake me up when UNI implements reverse-staking
until then, i'll vote by seeding my random number generator from an electro-magnetic sensor i have mounted in my backyard
time to find out if the universe is truly random
Well, it backfired on them now, didnt it. Better luck on the next proposal. This proposal was an utter disgrace anyway. A cash grab
Hi, Fulvia from 0x Labs. We applied on behalf of the 0x API integrators to facilitate things for them. We can demonstrate that the affected addresses we reported originated transactions through user-facing applications like Matcha, Zerion and DeFi saver — which is included in the first group. If we provide the split would they be included in the first group?
hello,
I have a question about the Phase_Two. when will Phase_Two be started?
many thanks.
My guess is most of the people who would have voted against this have the 50 million in liquidity locked up in uni-Eth like me and were not able to vote because we are doing something useful like providing liquidity for the uni-Eth pair so don’t presume to know motives for the no vote not getting more support
Could you include paraswap, please? :pray: twitter.com/paraswap/status/1309274376198651906
My colleges and I put a very large sum on here, and missed the vote.
I have to admit that it was too difficult to vote sooner :roll_eyes: Why wait until the last moment?
If I send 0x7e4A8391C728fEd9069B2962699AB416628B19Fa to the balanceOf of the contract https://etherscan.io/address/0x1f9840a85d5af5bf1d1762f925bdaddc4201f984#readContract I get:
uint256 :
1000403434097477213
Then again, I might be an idiot (how many decimals is that... 18?).
The airdrop was perfectly consensual except for a few people.
It was a close vote, and it could have easily reached quorum. The abstaining/against votes won it this time, not much more to it. It was not a good proposal, and it couldn’t swing the votes.
Hopefully we get to move forward as a community to better proposals. Get that RNG out of your backyard @rabbidfly, useful proposals are soon to come.
wake me up when UNI implements reverse-staking
until then, i'll vote by seeding my random number generator from an electro-magnetic sensor i have mounted in my backyard
time to find out if the universe is truly random
Well, it backfired on them now, didnt it. Better luck on the next proposal. This proposal was an utter disgrace anyway. A cash grab
i know right people dont even understand that simple concept, atleast dharma aint getting no free air drop. would not be surprised if they just dumped all thier uni
of course i'm filled with illogicalities
you think language was semantically constructed to make sense? ha!
instead of picking apart 'how i say things' - focus instead on 'what i meant'
there is humanity there
for example, perhaps i meant the following
of course i'm filled with illogicalities
you think language was semantically constructed to make sense? ha!
instead of picking apart 'how i say things' - focus instead on 'what i meant'
there is humanity there
for example, perhaps i meant the following
that wasn't so hard - since we are adding value here, are there any other logical errors that i have made? why don't we call in a 3rd party semiotics professor to opine on this discussion as well. i'm sure his/her objectivity will sting us both.
well said, on to the next. lets get a real proposal to governance and move away from "air drops"
Hypothesis: even proposals with unanimous agreement won't pass due to voter apathy and ridiculous quorum constraints that have already proven ineffective
experiment: launch a proposal with unanimous support
expected outcome: quorum will not be achieved
i hope y'all know who the Guvner is.
Hypothesis: even proposals with unanimous agreement won't pass due to voter apathy and ridiculous quorum constraints that have already proven ineffective
experiment: launch a proposal with unanimous support
expected outcome: quorum will not be achieved
i hope y'all know who the Guvner is.
I'm willing to bet that more than 50% of UNI are in the hands of traders that wouldn't know 'governance' if the gavel smashed them in the face.
can it man, you had two tries to get more money it failed move on.
1 Dharma user != 1 Uniswap user
1 Dharma user != 1 Uniswap user
Yes. You may have used Dharma knowing it was Uniswap and supporting Uniswap. But we can say without doubt that this did not apply to 100.00% of Dharma users.
Yes and that is why not 100% of Dharma users are getting the airdrop, only those who were users of UniSwap are included in this. Same with every other wallet included in the list shared by @nadav_dharm
If every single Dharma user was due to get UNI then I could sympathise with you and agree that's not right, however you can do a quick check on their app store page and see they have well over 10,000 users of their Android application alone and not including their iOS application user numbers.
Dharma doesn't even have the most amount of UniSwap users who will benefit from this proposal, as you can see from the table below, the most amount of users to benefit would be those who used UniSwap via MEW.
| Project | Accounts | % of total |
|---|---|---|
| MEW | 4278 | 33.90% |
| Argent | 3418 | 27.09% |
| Dharma | 2833 | 22.45% |
Here's a couple of key vital extracts from that post.
15% of UNI
150,000,000 UNIcan immediately be claimed by historical liquidity providers, users, and SOCKS redeemers/holders based on a snapshot ending September 1, 2020, at 12:00 am UTC.
There's nothing explicit there saying that the end users must be aware they are using the UniSwap protocol and quite frankly, I doubt the UniSwap team care if they are aware, at the end of the day it's more impressive KPI numbers for them and those are the numbers make UNI increase in value which is what we all want as UNI holders right?
400 UNI are claimable by each address that has ever called the Uniswap v1 or v2 contracts. This includes ~12,000 addresses that have only ever submitted failed transactions — love you guys.
Have all of the users in this proposals called the UniSwap v1 or v2 contracts? YES.
At this stage I am convinced @UniT is just trolling.
exactly man at this point lets give uni to every breathing person in the world and dilute this coin down to nothing, sounds like a plan.
look you guys missed out on free money its not the end of the world quit ruining the UNI eco system with your greedy AF proposals. Even if you guys do get the airdrop it wont be worth more then a couple bucks cause you will have destroyed the value of UNI
I think we can all agree with this assumption:
1 Dharma user != 1 Uniswap user
Yes. You may have used Dharma knowing it was Uniswap and supporting Uniswap. But we can say without doubt that this did not apply to 100.00% of Dharma users.
If you follow the objective rationale here, you will see that airdropping 400 UNI to a Uniswap user and 400 UNI to a Dharma user is imbalanced.
I think we can all agree with this assumption:
1 Dharma user != 1 Uniswap user
Yes. You may have used Dharma knowing it was Uniswap and supporting Uniswap. But we can say without doubt that this did not apply to 100.00% of Dharma users.
If you follow the objective rationale here, you will see that airdropping 400 UNI to a Uniswap user and 400 UNI to a Dharma user is imbalanced.
It is saying: "you may not knowingly used Uniswap and you may not even know what Uniswap is. But here's 400 UNI tokens."
Once again. This is not in the spirit of the UNI launch post which explicitly states that Uniswap users and community members will be "responsible stewards" of the Uniswap protocol.
For many users (Dharma, Argent and so forth), they did not fit the description. 50% might? 90% might? But not 100.00% as implied by the equal 400 UNI distribution.
this will just tank the price into the ground man
5 weeks on a protocol that may exist for a century is rushed.
And I understand why. The longer the wait the more decentralised the governance. It's now or never. But that doesn't change how horrible this is to deal with.
The speed at which this is being pushed through is alarming and disgusting.
I urge those who want Uniswap governance to remain credible to vote NO on this proposal.
Because they found out they could get free UNI (Dharma made their plans public) and came here to push for it.
The complete omission of "Uniswap" from the Dharma swap feature is a key factor here. The icon is not even expandable to show that the icon relates to Uniswap.
Because they found out they could get free UNI (Dharma made their plans public) and came here to push for it.
The complete omission of "Uniswap" from the Dharma swap feature is a key factor here. The icon is not even expandable to show that the icon relates to Uniswap.
Going further, I could argue that Dharma's integration of Uniswap to enhance their product, whilst not providing clear credit to Uniswap, is another reason to vote against this proposal.
this is pretty bad just looks like a group who missed out on free money wants their money, if this is all the "voting" is going to be used for then this is worthless
What would happen to this exchange feature on Dharma all UniSwap liquidity migrated to SushiSwap and there was 0 left on UniSwap?
Dharma will not punish their users by plugging into or setting the default trade to route through an illiquid exchange.
You’re right, I’m blinded by the excessive amount of branding on the uniswap app itself, such a huge difference…
What would happen to this exchange feature on Dharma all UniSwap liquidity migrated to SushiSwap and there was 0 left on UniSwap?
Dharma will not punish their users by plugging into or setting the default trade to route through an illiquid exchange.
You’re right, I’m blinded by the excessive amount of branding on the uniswap app itself, such a huge difference…
I refuse to take the bait on this one.
Look. I used Dharma. I used Argent. And Lord knows I've used 1inch more times than I can count.
What you guys are arguing for is a thinly veiled handout.
Read the blog post. Read the critiques. Of course we'll find ways to spin this into some justification that we're owed $1200. That's understandable. But it is not at all inline with the Uniswap blog post.
Once again, I ask you to look at the screenshot I posted. Imagine yourself using Dharma and then try to understand why the complete lack of reference to Uniswap is at odds with the Uniswap journey and being an early Uniswap community member.
Again. From the blog post:
Uniswap owes its success to the thousands of community members that have joined its journey over the past two years. These early community members will naturally serve as responsible stewards of Uniswap.
This is why Dharma users are not Uniswap users
These points are COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.
What would happen to this exchange feature on Dharma all UniSwap liquidity migrated to SushiSwap and there was 0 left on UniSwap?
It wouldn't work and because all of Dharma's users are using UniSwap via Dharma's app. They are still UniSwap users.
I hope this is clear.
Probably the worst take I’ve seen so far
For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that this hyperbole is recognised for what it is by readers, please view the screenshot below and:
This is why Dharma users are not Uniswap users. And why this proposal should not pass.
Probably the worst take I've seen so far
i know right people dont even understand that simple concept, atleast dharma aint getting no free air drop. would not be surprised if they just dumped all thier uni
of course i'm filled with illogicalities
you think language was semantically constructed to make sense? ha!
instead of picking apart 'how i say things' - focus instead on 'what i meant'
there is humanity there
for example, perhaps i meant the following
of course i'm filled with illogicalities
you think language was semantically constructed to make sense? ha!
instead of picking apart 'how i say things' - focus instead on 'what i meant'
there is humanity there
for example, perhaps i meant the following
that wasn't so hard - since we are adding value here, are there any other logical errors that i have made? why don't we call in a 3rd party semiotics professor to opine on this discussion as well. i'm sure his/her objectivity will sting us both.
well said, on to the next. lets get a real proposal to governance and move away from "air drops"
Hypothesis: even proposals with unanimous agreement won't pass due to voter apathy and ridiculous quorum constraints that have already proven ineffective
experiment: launch a proposal with unanimous support
expected outcome: quorum will not be achieved
i hope y'all know who the Guvner is.
Hypothesis: even proposals with unanimous agreement won't pass due to voter apathy and ridiculous quorum constraints that have already proven ineffective
experiment: launch a proposal with unanimous support
expected outcome: quorum will not be achieved
i hope y'all know who the Guvner is.
I'm willing to bet that more than 50% of UNI are in the hands of traders that wouldn't know 'governance' if the gavel smashed them in the face.
can it man, you had two tries to get more money it failed move on.
1 Dharma user != 1 Uniswap user
1 Dharma user != 1 Uniswap user
Yes. You may have used Dharma knowing it was Uniswap and supporting Uniswap. But we can say without doubt that this did not apply to 100.00% of Dharma users.
Yes and that is why not 100% of Dharma users are getting the airdrop, only those who were users of UniSwap are included in this. Same with every other wallet included in the list shared by @nadav_dharm
If every single Dharma user was due to get UNI then I could sympathise with you and agree that's not right, however you can do a quick check on their app store page and see they have well over 10,000 users of their Android application alone and not including their iOS application user numbers.
Dharma doesn't even have the most amount of UniSwap users who will benefit from this proposal, as you can see from the table below, the most amount of users to benefit would be those who used UniSwap via MEW.
| Project | Accounts | % of total |
|---|---|---|
| MEW | 4278 | 33.90% |
| Argent | 3418 | 27.09% |
| Dharma | 2833 | 22.45% |
Here's a couple of key vital extracts from that post.
15% of UNI
150,000,000 UNIcan immediately be claimed by historical liquidity providers, users, and SOCKS redeemers/holders based on a snapshot ending September 1, 2020, at 12:00 am UTC.
There's nothing explicit there saying that the end users must be aware they are using the UniSwap protocol and quite frankly, I doubt the UniSwap team care if they are aware, at the end of the day it's more impressive KPI numbers for them and those are the numbers make UNI increase in value which is what we all want as UNI holders right?
400 UNI are claimable by each address that has ever called the Uniswap v1 or v2 contracts. This includes ~12,000 addresses that have only ever submitted failed transactions — love you guys.
Have all of the users in this proposals called the UniSwap v1 or v2 contracts? YES.
At this stage I am convinced @UniT is just trolling.
exactly man at this point lets give uni to every breathing person in the world and dilute this coin down to nothing, sounds like a plan.
look you guys missed out on free money its not the end of the world quit ruining the UNI eco system with your greedy AF proposals. Even if you guys do get the airdrop it wont be worth more then a couple bucks cause you will have destroyed the value of UNI
I think we can all agree with this assumption:
1 Dharma user != 1 Uniswap user
Yes. You may have used Dharma knowing it was Uniswap and supporting Uniswap. But we can say without doubt that this did not apply to 100.00% of Dharma users.
If you follow the objective rationale here, you will see that airdropping 400 UNI to a Uniswap user and 400 UNI to a Dharma user is imbalanced.
I think we can all agree with this assumption:
1 Dharma user != 1 Uniswap user
Yes. You may have used Dharma knowing it was Uniswap and supporting Uniswap. But we can say without doubt that this did not apply to 100.00% of Dharma users.
If you follow the objective rationale here, you will see that airdropping 400 UNI to a Uniswap user and 400 UNI to a Dharma user is imbalanced.
It is saying: "you may not knowingly used Uniswap and you may not even know what Uniswap is. But here's 400 UNI tokens."
Once again. This is not in the spirit of the UNI launch post which explicitly states that Uniswap users and community members will be "responsible stewards" of the Uniswap protocol.
For many users (Dharma, Argent and so forth), they did not fit the description. 50% might? 90% might? But not 100.00% as implied by the equal 400 UNI distribution.
this will just tank the price into the ground man
5 weeks on a protocol that may exist for a century is rushed.
And I understand why. The longer the wait the more decentralised the governance. It's now or never. But that doesn't change how horrible this is to deal with.
The speed at which this is being pushed through is alarming and disgusting.
I urge those who want Uniswap governance to remain credible to vote NO on this proposal.
Because they found out they could get free UNI (Dharma made their plans public) and came here to push for it.
The complete omission of "Uniswap" from the Dharma swap feature is a key factor here. The icon is not even expandable to show that the icon relates to Uniswap.
Because they found out they could get free UNI (Dharma made their plans public) and came here to push for it.
The complete omission of "Uniswap" from the Dharma swap feature is a key factor here. The icon is not even expandable to show that the icon relates to Uniswap.
Going further, I could argue that Dharma's integration of Uniswap to enhance their product, whilst not providing clear credit to Uniswap, is another reason to vote against this proposal.
this is pretty bad just looks like a group who missed out on free money wants their money, if this is all the "voting" is going to be used for then this is worthless
What would happen to this exchange feature on Dharma all UniSwap liquidity migrated to SushiSwap and there was 0 left on UniSwap?
Dharma will not punish their users by plugging into or setting the default trade to route through an illiquid exchange.
You’re right, I’m blinded by the excessive amount of branding on the uniswap app itself, such a huge difference…
What would happen to this exchange feature on Dharma all UniSwap liquidity migrated to SushiSwap and there was 0 left on UniSwap?
Dharma will not punish their users by plugging into or setting the default trade to route through an illiquid exchange.
You’re right, I’m blinded by the excessive amount of branding on the uniswap app itself, such a huge difference…
I refuse to take the bait on this one.
Look. I used Dharma. I used Argent. And Lord knows I've used 1inch more times than I can count.
What you guys are arguing for is a thinly veiled handout.
Read the blog post. Read the critiques. Of course we'll find ways to spin this into some justification that we're owed $1200. That's understandable. But it is not at all inline with the Uniswap blog post.
Once again, I ask you to look at the screenshot I posted. Imagine yourself using Dharma and then try to understand why the complete lack of reference to Uniswap is at odds with the Uniswap journey and being an early Uniswap community member.
Again. From the blog post:
Uniswap owes its success to the thousands of community members that have joined its journey over the past two years. These early community members will naturally serve as responsible stewards of Uniswap.
This is why Dharma users are not Uniswap users
These points are COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.
What would happen to this exchange feature on Dharma all UniSwap liquidity migrated to SushiSwap and there was 0 left on UniSwap?
It wouldn't work and because all of Dharma's users are using UniSwap via Dharma's app. They are still UniSwap users.
I hope this is clear.
Probably the worst take I’ve seen so far
For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that this hyperbole is recognised for what it is by readers, please view the screenshot below and:
This is why Dharma users are not Uniswap users. And why this proposal should not pass.
Probably the worst take I've seen so far
Probably the worst take I've seen so far
The people who used Dharma still count as users of UniSwap, their trade volumes still count, it doesn't matter what frontend was used if they interacted with the UniSwap smart contracts via some other frontend when connected to their own wallet then they are still UniSwap users.
Every single unique frontend which allows more users to access UniSwap is a great thing for the UNI token
From the UNI blog post:
Uniswap owes its success to the thousands of community members that have joined its journey over the past two years. These early community members will naturally serve as responsible stewards of Uniswap.
Using Dharma to unknowingly trade Uniswap was not joining the Uniswap journey. Those who used Dharma used Dharma , not Uniswap.
From the UNI blog post:
Uniswap owes its success to the thousands of community members that have joined its journey over the past two years. These early community members will naturally serve as responsible stewards of Uniswap.
Using Dharma to unknowingly trade Uniswap was not joining the Uniswap journey. Those who used Dharma used Dharma , not Uniswap.
To the Dharma folks: perhaps create your own DHARMA token and airdrop to your users.
This applies to 1inch and others too.
Please can we put a line through this already and prove that we're resistant to what amounts to subversion.
The last proposal was more controversial as users were afraid of putting governance in the hands of two companies. This is rewarding users who used the system like everyone else, just with a proxy contract. We still knew we were using Uniswap.
If the Dharma users are unaware they're a part of the UniSwap journey, then why have so many shared their thoughts about wanting to get the UNI they missed out on?
Appreciate that. Looking on etherscan as of today, it looks like we're back up to 90k holders from the 78k that that article references (and still down from the 190k addresses that had claimed then). I'll do some more reading.
Again, would love to see what (undoubtedly small) proportion of drop recipients have sold and bought back in versus speculators picking up the sellers' bags.
What you call "nonsense" I call "checks and balances".
I firmly believe this entire process is totally against the spirit of the UNI launch post for the reasons I've stated above.
Dharma (and other) users were not part of the Uniswap community nor were they on the Uniswap journey.
What you call "nonsense" I call "checks and balances".
I firmly believe this entire process is totally against the spirit of the UNI launch post for the reasons I've stated above.
Dharma (and other) users were not part of the Uniswap community nor were they on the Uniswap journey.
As evidenced above, the chance that any Dharma user even knew they were interacting with Uniswap is slim to none - let alone deserving of the full 400 UNI airdrop.
A complete sham and total subversion of the process. Vote NO.
Is that true? Not making a claim one way or the other, but I'm sure there's data out there on how much of UNI supply is held by the same addresses that got the drop.
I imagine there's some folks who strictly sold, some who tried to swing trade, and some who have held and accumulated.
If you've seen that sort of analysis, or know where to find it, I'd love to read it.
distribution is from the treasure (no such indicated dilution)
It is dilution when you consider that the treasury could, instead of being given away, be burned or given to existing holders or spent on value-add services for Uniswap (e.g., development, tooling, etc.).
Perhaps I missed it, but why should a random person who got lucky and received UNI as part of the airdrop vote to dilute their holdings and give free UNI to someone who got unlucky and didn’t get anything in the airdrop?
most of current UNI holders are not the lucky ones who got 400 UNI... most of current UNI holders bought their UNI from people who sold their airdrop
Perhaps I missed it, but why should a random person who got lucky and received UNI as part of the airdrop vote to dilute their holdings and give free UNI to someone who got unlucky and didn't get anything in the airdrop?
Imagine if the airdrop was just distributed randomly to existing Ethereum accounts, with no rhyme or reason other than randomness. Why would the randomly selected individuals choose to give up their free money to those who were not randomly selected? Is the hope here that UNI holders are altruistic and will give away their free money to strangers out of a sense of fairness/karmic balance?
I agree with DefiSaver proposal
Is that true? Not making a claim one way or the other, but I’m sure there’s data out there on how much of UNI supply is held by the same addresses that got the drop.
after only 8 days of the Airdrop, 55% was already sold https://cryptonews.net/en/news/altcoins/386506/ now after more than 1 month I am pretty sure it is much higher
Disagree apps are directly profiting from users using their dapp and not going directly to uniswap... so your totally wrong there. Life isn't fair either it was a blind airdrop; no one knew. But it was the choice of the devs to do with it as they saw fit. They should also publicize the vote more as it wasn't real clear when the first vote was going to happen.
Agree with this 100%; that's just like saying all metamask users should get a uni airdrop because a third party aggregator they used made a swap through uniswap. It's actually quite insane.
or they should get nothing since they already made money off their users from uniswap users and LP's...
This is ridiculous. It's a dex aggregator the people were not directly interacting with uniswap's website or program, which was the entire purpose of the airdrop. Now rewarding people who used third party dex aggregators. And lowering the amount for quorum is also ridiculous since it's crazy easy to delegate votes on here. Very likely were seeing exactly what the creators of Uniswap didn't intend. I guess we'll see in a few months after they lower the quorum and give themselves free uni which was a 1 time thing as far as I'm concerned. Change the rules of game after halftime and the games already over.
Have you read the proposal? All duplicates from the original airdrop are removed
You may not be aware of the fact that on Dharma’s SWAP view, there exists the Unicorn logo to let everyone know what is powering their transaction.
what you are inferring is that Dharma (et al) users are ‘LESS’ likely to contribute positively with their UNI than original Uniswap token owners.
what you are inferring is that Dharma (et al) users are ‘LESS’ likely to contribute positively with their UNI than original Uniswap token owners.
Because those users never bothered to even interact with the Uniswap protocol directly in the first place, most likely they don't really care about it... they are Dharma users, before the airdrop they didn't even tried to use Uniswap directly (otherwise they would have been included).
You may not be aware of the fact that on Dharma's SWAP view, there exists the Unicorn logo to let everyone know what is powering their transaction. They all know. Perhaps they prefer the accessibility of a mobile interface over a website/metamask integration.
I am for phase 1 and 2 with conditions:
Application aggregators that take a large slippage or addition exchange fee from its users for trades should have to pay a % of this to the treasury.
For example: lets say dharma charges 3%~ slippage per trade to its users. Then .10% of this 3% should be directed to the treasury OR to be supplemental cash flow to the reward fee once switched.
I am for phase 1 and 2 with conditions:
Application aggregators that take a large slippage or addition exchange fee from its users for trades should have to pay a % of this to the treasury.
For example: lets say dharma charges 3%~ slippage per trade to its users. Then .10% of this 3% should be directed to the treasury OR to be supplemental cash flow to the reward fee once switched.
Users will be more likely to keep these UNI rather than dump onto the market.
Your worries about dilution are unfounded because the tokens are coming from the treasury, and unless you wish to liquidate your ‘interest’ early, there is no change to the fully diluted valuation.
Probably the worst take I've seen so far
The people who used Dharma still count as users of UniSwap, their trade volumes still count, it doesn't matter what frontend was used if they interacted with the UniSwap smart contracts via some other frontend when connected to their own wallet then they are still UniSwap users.
Every single unique frontend which allows more users to access UniSwap is a great thing for the UNI token
From the UNI blog post:
Uniswap owes its success to the thousands of community members that have joined its journey over the past two years. These early community members will naturally serve as responsible stewards of Uniswap.
Using Dharma to unknowingly trade Uniswap was not joining the Uniswap journey. Those who used Dharma used Dharma , not Uniswap.
From the UNI blog post:
Uniswap owes its success to the thousands of community members that have joined its journey over the past two years. These early community members will naturally serve as responsible stewards of Uniswap.
Using Dharma to unknowingly trade Uniswap was not joining the Uniswap journey. Those who used Dharma used Dharma , not Uniswap.
To the Dharma folks: perhaps create your own DHARMA token and airdrop to your users.
This applies to 1inch and others too.
Please can we put a line through this already and prove that we're resistant to what amounts to subversion.
The last proposal was more controversial as users were afraid of putting governance in the hands of two companies. This is rewarding users who used the system like everyone else, just with a proxy contract. We still knew we were using Uniswap.
If the Dharma users are unaware they're a part of the UniSwap journey, then why have so many shared their thoughts about wanting to get the UNI they missed out on?
Appreciate that. Looking on etherscan as of today, it looks like we're back up to 90k holders from the 78k that that article references (and still down from the 190k addresses that had claimed then). I'll do some more reading.
Again, would love to see what (undoubtedly small) proportion of drop recipients have sold and bought back in versus speculators picking up the sellers' bags.
What you call "nonsense" I call "checks and balances".
I firmly believe this entire process is totally against the spirit of the UNI launch post for the reasons I've stated above.
Dharma (and other) users were not part of the Uniswap community nor were they on the Uniswap journey.
What you call "nonsense" I call "checks and balances".
I firmly believe this entire process is totally against the spirit of the UNI launch post for the reasons I've stated above.
Dharma (and other) users were not part of the Uniswap community nor were they on the Uniswap journey.
As evidenced above, the chance that any Dharma user even knew they were interacting with Uniswap is slim to none - let alone deserving of the full 400 UNI airdrop.
A complete sham and total subversion of the process. Vote NO.
Is that true? Not making a claim one way or the other, but I'm sure there's data out there on how much of UNI supply is held by the same addresses that got the drop.
I imagine there's some folks who strictly sold, some who tried to swing trade, and some who have held and accumulated.
If you've seen that sort of analysis, or know where to find it, I'd love to read it.
distribution is from the treasure (no such indicated dilution)
It is dilution when you consider that the treasury could, instead of being given away, be burned or given to existing holders or spent on value-add services for Uniswap (e.g., development, tooling, etc.).
Perhaps I missed it, but why should a random person who got lucky and received UNI as part of the airdrop vote to dilute their holdings and give free UNI to someone who got unlucky and didn’t get anything in the airdrop?
most of current UNI holders are not the lucky ones who got 400 UNI... most of current UNI holders bought their UNI from people who sold their airdrop
Perhaps I missed it, but why should a random person who got lucky and received UNI as part of the airdrop vote to dilute their holdings and give free UNI to someone who got unlucky and didn't get anything in the airdrop?
Imagine if the airdrop was just distributed randomly to existing Ethereum accounts, with no rhyme or reason other than randomness. Why would the randomly selected individuals choose to give up their free money to those who were not randomly selected? Is the hope here that UNI holders are altruistic and will give away their free money to strangers out of a sense of fairness/karmic balance?
I agree with DefiSaver proposal
Is that true? Not making a claim one way or the other, but I’m sure there’s data out there on how much of UNI supply is held by the same addresses that got the drop.
after only 8 days of the Airdrop, 55% was already sold https://cryptonews.net/en/news/altcoins/386506/ now after more than 1 month I am pretty sure it is much higher
Disagree apps are directly profiting from users using their dapp and not going directly to uniswap... so your totally wrong there. Life isn't fair either it was a blind airdrop; no one knew. But it was the choice of the devs to do with it as they saw fit. They should also publicize the vote more as it wasn't real clear when the first vote was going to happen.
Agree with this 100%; that's just like saying all metamask users should get a uni airdrop because a third party aggregator they used made a swap through uniswap. It's actually quite insane.
or they should get nothing since they already made money off their users from uniswap users and LP's...
This is ridiculous. It's a dex aggregator the people were not directly interacting with uniswap's website or program, which was the entire purpose of the airdrop. Now rewarding people who used third party dex aggregators. And lowering the amount for quorum is also ridiculous since it's crazy easy to delegate votes on here. Very likely were seeing exactly what the creators of Uniswap didn't intend. I guess we'll see in a few months after they lower the quorum and give themselves free uni which was a 1 time thing as far as I'm concerned. Change the rules of game after halftime and the games already over.
Have you read the proposal? All duplicates from the original airdrop are removed
You may not be aware of the fact that on Dharma’s SWAP view, there exists the Unicorn logo to let everyone know what is powering their transaction.
what you are inferring is that Dharma (et al) users are ‘LESS’ likely to contribute positively with their UNI than original Uniswap token owners.
what you are inferring is that Dharma (et al) users are ‘LESS’ likely to contribute positively with their UNI than original Uniswap token owners.
Because those users never bothered to even interact with the Uniswap protocol directly in the first place, most likely they don't really care about it... they are Dharma users, before the airdrop they didn't even tried to use Uniswap directly (otherwise they would have been included).
You may not be aware of the fact that on Dharma's SWAP view, there exists the Unicorn logo to let everyone know what is powering their transaction. They all know. Perhaps they prefer the accessibility of a mobile interface over a website/metamask integration.
I am for phase 1 and 2 with conditions:
Application aggregators that take a large slippage or addition exchange fee from its users for trades should have to pay a % of this to the treasury.
For example: lets say dharma charges 3%~ slippage per trade to its users. Then .10% of this 3% should be directed to the treasury OR to be supplemental cash flow to the reward fee once switched.
I am for phase 1 and 2 with conditions:
Application aggregators that take a large slippage or addition exchange fee from its users for trades should have to pay a % of this to the treasury.
For example: lets say dharma charges 3%~ slippage per trade to its users. Then .10% of this 3% should be directed to the treasury OR to be supplemental cash flow to the reward fee once switched.
Users will be more likely to keep these UNI rather than dump onto the market.
Your worries about dilution are unfounded because the tokens are coming from the treasury, and unless you wish to liquidate your ‘interest’ early, there is no change to the fully diluted valuation.
You may not be aware of the fact that on Dharma’s SWAP view, there exists the Unicorn logo to let everyone know what is powering their transaction.
Do you really think that a new DeFi user understands the meaning of that small Unicorn logo? It could mean anything to the untrained eye... it's almost a white label integration
And still, users of the Dharma wallet are users of Dharma, Uniswap has no way of retaining them unless Dharma signs an exclusivity contract
Your worries about dilution are unfounded because the tokens are coming from the treasury, and unless you wish to liquidate your ‘interest’ early, there is no change to the fully diluted valuation.
This treasury should be spent on development, R&D, marketing, support, etc... not on handing money to companies just because. IMO It still counts as a dilution, because the recipients of those tokens are not going to be contributing anything to Uniswap in exchange for it.
Thank you for your response. I guess we'll have to disagree on the use of the word 'enrichment'. I tend to evaluate systems - not necessarily people. I see 'enrichment' of ecosystems as a product of USE. In a model where the Value of this ecosystem is greater than the sum of its parts, everyone participates towards this goal.
I don't see 'enrichment' as the post-hoc greedy attempt to 'cash-in' on an air-drop. Nadav won't personally benefit from this, except to champion the interests of his user community. Dharma users are as conscientious, loyal and thoughtful as dedicated Uniswap supporters. Demonizing one because of the disputed terms of an air-drop is unfair to them.
Thank you for your response. I guess we'll have to disagree on the use of the word 'enrichment'. I tend to evaluate systems - not necessarily people. I see 'enrichment' of ecosystems as a product of USE. In a model where the Value of this ecosystem is greater than the sum of its parts, everyone participates towards this goal.
I don't see 'enrichment' as the post-hoc greedy attempt to 'cash-in' on an air-drop. Nadav won't personally benefit from this, except to champion the interests of his user community. Dharma users are as conscientious, loyal and thoughtful as dedicated Uniswap supporters. Demonizing one because of the disputed terms of an air-drop is unfair to them.
btw - you didn't mention 'dilution', but you made reference to 'market price of UNI', so i apologize for the inference, if it indeed was incorrect.
UNI holders should vote no to this proposal!
A large part of the success of Uniswap is a product of 3rd party integrations. The thousands of users who swapped coins on dharma knew they were going through Uniswap. These thousands of users and their thousands of transactions were adding liquidity and velocity through Uniswap.
There is nothing arbitrary about it. Uniswap is benefiting from Dharma.
A large part of the success of Uniswap is a product of 3rd party integrations. The thousands of users who swapped coins on dharma knew they were going through Uniswap. These thousands of users and their thousands of transactions were adding liquidity and velocity through Uniswap.
There is nothing arbitrary about it. Uniswap is benefiting from Dharma.
nadav_dharma is an unselfish leader in this space campaigning on behalf of his users to promote both his product and Uniswap. His interest is in achieving fairness in the intent behind the distribution of UNI tokens.This distribution was not meant to exclude active users of the Uniswap platform. Yes, devs can't get it right all the time in the complex world of software. I know this only too well.
Your worries about dilution are unfounded because the tokens are coming from the treasury, and unless you wish to liquidate your 'interest' early, there is no change to the fully diluted valuation.
Your claim that you understand the 'spirit' of the Uniswap system is also interesting. I believe this will be understood once the proposal is completed. That's the nature of a DAO. It attempts to represent its values through the delegated parties that are charged with upholding this 'spirit'. Your voice is but one in a quorum. Your appeal is an opinionated attempt to influence members to deny a vibrant partner within the Uniswap ecosystem. The impact of these types of decisions will have far reaching effects on the health of this ecosystem. Don't assume Uniswap can survive in a bubble without frens.
Any reply to why MEW are in phase one? I asked about this multiple times in the thread. Would prefer if you answered here than in a DM so everyone can see it.
That air-drop was the biggest marketing event in Uniswap’s history from what i can tell. Adding another meagre allocation from the treasury to extend this campaign demonstrates Uniswap’s awareness of the value.
That air-drop was the biggest marketing event in Uniswap’s history from what i can tell. Adding another meagre allocation from the treasury to extend this campaign demonstrates Uniswap’s awareness of the value.
And were does it end? this second airdrop wave would cost us 40m USD, is that the best way we can spend 40m USD on marketing? should we keep doing more airdrops then? It doesn't make any sense
what you are inferring is that Dharma (et al) users are ‘LESS’ likely to contribute positively with their UNI than original Uniswap token owners.
Because those users never bothered to even interact with the Uniswap protocol directly in the first place, most likely they don't really care about it... they are Dharma users, before the airdrop they didn't even tried to use Uniswap directly (otherwise they would have been included)
If we are Uniswap owners, don’t we all belong to the same community?
No, someone who willingly tried Uniswap before the 1st of September, or provided liquidity to Uniswap v1 doesn't belong to the same community as someone who happen to be routed using Uniswap by pure chance.
The airdrop wasn't perfect, that doesn't mean that we need to keep accentuating the problems of the initial airdrop.
The Argent case was different, the users that used wallet connect to interact with Uniswap received their airdrop just fine, that's because they opened https://uniswap.exchange/ and did the trade there, Argent was just a wallet in that sense, they are Uniswap users. On the contrary some users traded using the Argent "exchange" integration, those users are Argent users and they didn't interacted with Uniswap directly, they didn't received the airdrop.
InstadApp users shouldn't have received the airdrop, but at some point they cannot be distinguished from "Real" users without having to implement complex rules for that, so it's a known inefficiency of the original airdrop, that doesn't mean that we need to keep worsening the situation.
So the original proposal was abandoned in order to lower the quorum and yet Univalent haven't even held up their end of the bargain, and voted. Not going to get 40 million at this rate.
Thank you for recognizing the importance of this decision! Dharma made a decision to use a proxy contract to interact with Uniswap. The users of Dharma used Dharma a third-party to interact with the Uniswap platform and did not make the effort or have the skill to go to the uniswap.exchange. They neither earned nor qualified for the airdrop.
Thank you for recognizing the importance of this decision! Dharma made a decision to use a proxy contract to interact with Uniswap. The users of Dharma used Dharma a third-party to interact with the Uniswap platform and did not make the effort or have the skill to go to the uniswap.exchange. They neither earned nor qualified for the airdrop.
I think you are failing to recognize that Dharma users would have received the original UNI airdrop if the Uniswap integration at Dharma was only slightly different. This has happened with other apps where the integration wasn't going via a proxy contract (which allows developers more freedom/agility with how the integration can be used). There are already accounts out there that received the UNI without ever using the actual default Uniswap.org frontend.
I'm sorry, but I think your argument (also mentioned by others) that the airdrop should remain exclusive to users of the actual Uniswap frontend simply does not work, since the original UNI airdrop already included users and accounts of many different apps. If you need confirmation for this, you can look at Argent and Instadapp, for example, who both published guides for their users how to claim and withdraw UNI from their smart contract wallet accounts at those apps.
You say it wouldnt be fair to the Dharma end users etc...HOW is it fair to the people who invested their hard earned money into UNI??? Or are we willing to ignore them?
@nadav_dharma you completely skipped over the conflict of interest part. The airdrop is dillutive in a sense that the actors can market dump their coins and impact price! Please, address this issue openly.
I try to provide as much context and information to my arguments as possible, I don’t see anything wrong with that. It isn’t pasted over from anywhere, it’s freshly typed text.
I try to provide as much context and information to my arguments as possible, I don’t see anything wrong with that. It isn’t pasted over from anywhere, it’s freshly typed text.
I think that you need to logout and log back in with @Uniguy772 account.
Forcing a vesting period on this potential new airdrop would in a way be marking and making these users/accounts covered by the proposal less worthy of the original airdrop than those that already received it
These accounts are users from third party companies and competitors, that happen to interact with Uniswap by pure chance... I think that Dharma, Kyber, 1inch etc should be giving them free tokens, not us. Giving them voting power it's not fair, for current UNI holders not for them.
similar to how DeFi Saver, a tool for interacting with defi protocols including Uniswap, has the Uniswap logo on its homepage
You don't need DeFi saver to interact with Uniswap, you do need a motherboard to install a CPU
Finally, the exclusivity contract idea just goes against everything DeFi stands for and I don’t think any further comments are needed.
So those apps can't even promise us to keep using Uniswap after the airdrop, again, why are we going to spend 40m USD on them?
Edit: Again flagged for being off-topic, what part of this post is off-topic? this is as relevant to the conversation as any other post pro-dharma proposal.
I'm not actually sure which argument you're referring to @Buckerino, but hope this post I quoted covers it.
You keep bringing this point, but you are still failing to explain why then isn’t a good idea to add a vesting program to this new airdrop? A good vesting program will ensure that those new tokens holders don’t insta-dump on the market (This proposal requires 15m UNI, that’s almost as much as the whole budget for the farming). Also a good vesting program will align their incentives, they would be invested on Uniswap during the whole length of the vesting program.
Probably best to get Dharmas response to the questions you asked earlier as we were waiting for before continuing anyway as otherwise this conversation will just continue down the same back and forth never ending cycle.
Would think the signal to noise ratio of this post is low right now due to the same conversations of repeated text being posted over and over again by multiple parties best to wait for an answer to one question one step at a time
How much research have you done? You can literally go to their Twitter and see a clear mention of Uniswap well before September 1
This treasury should be spent on development, R&D, marketing, support, etc... not on handing money to companies just because. IMO It still counts as a dilution, because the recipients of those tokens are not going to be contributing anything to Uniswap in exchange for it.
The treasury fund it's a mechanism to fund Uniswap development, any token distribution outside that intent should be considered dilution (it takes value from UNI holders and doesn't add anything for them).
From looking at the ongoing discussion I think it can safely be said that there was not infact a very clear no to this proposal and that it very much still needs a lot further discussion as only a subset of holders actually knew about the vote.
Surprised the vote closed would be interested to know who and what controls how long a vote on the snapshot page is open for is it decided by the creator or is it automatic.
From looking at the ongoing discussion I think it can safely be said that there was not infact a very clear no to this proposal and that it very much still needs a lot further discussion as only a subset of holders actually knew about the vote.
Surprised the vote closed would be interested to know who and what controls how long a vote on the snapshot page is open for is it decided by the creator or is it automatic.
It sounds like you are suggesting that the primary idea of the original aidrop was to provide participants with monetary value, whereas I would argue that the goal was to distribute voting power and help kick-start a decentralized governance for the Uniswap protocol.
I suggested the same thing above and have similar thoughts as you good to see someone else on a similar thought pattern to me it's a governance token yet a lot of people seemed to assume it was for monetary value or for farming which was not at all suggested anywhere on the original announcement page (https://uniswap.org/blog/uni/)
I quote this from the Uni announcement page
Community-led Growth
Since its inception, the Uniswap Protocol (”Uniswap”) has served as trustless and highly decentralized financial infrastructure.
Inspired by Ethereum’s vision, we have long committed to the ideals of permissionless access, security, and immutability, all indespensable components for a future where anyone in the world can access financial services without fear of discrimination or counterparty risk.
Now rivaling centralized incumbents on daily volume, Uniswap’s success to date — achieved without involvement of the core development team since deployment — indicates that there is considerable demand for permissionless financial services.
In less than two years, the protocol has:
- Supported over $20bn volume ($270k of which was socks!) traded by over 250,000 unique addresses across 8,484 unique assets
- Secured over $1bn liquidity deposited by over 49,000 unique liquidity providers (LPs), earning $56m fees in the process
- Emerged as foundational DeFi infrastructure, with integrations across hundreds of interfaces and applications
Having proven product-market fit for highly decentralized financial infrastructure with a platform that has thrived independently, Uniswap is now particularly well positioned for community-led growth, development, and self-sustainability . The introduction of UNI (ERC-20) serves this purpose, enabling shared community ownership and a vibrant, diverse, and dedicated governance system, which will actively guide the protocol towards the future.
Uniswap has always embraced the tenets of neutrality and trust minimization : it is crucial that governance is constrained to where it is strictly necessary. With this in mind, the Uniswap governance framework is limited to contributing to both protocol development and usage as well as development of the broader Uniswap ecosystem.
In doing so, UNI officially enshrines Uniswap as publicly-owned and self-sustainable infrastructure while continuing to carefully protect its indestructible and autonomous qualities .
Nowhere in that do they mention money or Farming but they do mention that all important word Governance
As mentioned before hopefully Dharma will answer any questions put to them they feel reasonable to answer and things can be cleared up so the conversation can continue past its current stuck state
It is against the original idea of UNI because they WERE NOT included. If they were part of the original idea, they WOULD have been included regardless of an “innocent” overlook or not. Airdropping more to end users of these companies, when the token is publicly traded, is a disgrace as you are exposing people to potential loss of value.
It is against the original idea of UNI because they WERE NOT included. If they were part of the original idea, they WOULD have been included regardless of an "innocent" overlook or not. Airdropping more to end users of these companies, when the token is publicly traded, is a disgrace as you are exposing people to potential loss of value.
I find the snapshot a valuable piece of evidence as you can see the power of the small UNI holders who actually have skin in the game. Even if Dharma voted for the proposal, they will still lack a considerable amount of UNI to pass it through so every single token counts.
It is against the original idea of UNI because they WERE NOT included. If they were part of the original idea, they WOULD have been included regardless of an "innocent" overlook or not. Airdropping more to end users of these companies, when the token is publicly traded, is a disgrace as you are exposing people to potential loss of value.
I find the snapshot a valuable piece of evidence as you can see the power of the small UNI holders who actually have skin in the game. Even if Dharma voted for the proposal, they will still lack a considerable amount of UNI to pass it through so every single token counts.
I still have not seen anybody address the issues Pipo, shitcoingambler, and others raised...
If there ever was a snapshot done already, I see no point in using it as an argument here. It was certainly not publicly promoted and it was surely not participated in by a huge part of the UNI holders and certainly not by some of the larges current delegates - Dharma and Yuni.finance.
Dharma posted a link to a tweet from July 30th prominently advertising their Uniswap integration in the application thread which is linked in the OP under ‘How’. I would suggest people thoroughly examine the applications from each app before throwing around baseless accusations of deception.
You may not be aware of the fact that on Dharma’s SWAP view, there exists the Unicorn logo to let everyone know what is powering their transaction.
Do you really think that a new DeFi user understands the meaning of that small Unicorn logo? It could mean anything to the untrained eye... it's almost a white label integration
And still, users of the Dharma wallet are users of Dharma, Uniswap has no way of retaining them unless Dharma signs an exclusivity contract
Your worries about dilution are unfounded because the tokens are coming from the treasury, and unless you wish to liquidate your ‘interest’ early, there is no change to the fully diluted valuation.
This treasury should be spent on development, R&D, marketing, support, etc... not on handing money to companies just because. IMO It still counts as a dilution, because the recipients of those tokens are not going to be contributing anything to Uniswap in exchange for it.
Thank you for your response. I guess we'll have to disagree on the use of the word 'enrichment'. I tend to evaluate systems - not necessarily people. I see 'enrichment' of ecosystems as a product of USE. In a model where the Value of this ecosystem is greater than the sum of its parts, everyone participates towards this goal.
I don't see 'enrichment' as the post-hoc greedy attempt to 'cash-in' on an air-drop. Nadav won't personally benefit from this, except to champion the interests of his user community. Dharma users are as conscientious, loyal and thoughtful as dedicated Uniswap supporters. Demonizing one because of the disputed terms of an air-drop is unfair to them.
Thank you for your response. I guess we'll have to disagree on the use of the word 'enrichment'. I tend to evaluate systems - not necessarily people. I see 'enrichment' of ecosystems as a product of USE. In a model where the Value of this ecosystem is greater than the sum of its parts, everyone participates towards this goal.
I don't see 'enrichment' as the post-hoc greedy attempt to 'cash-in' on an air-drop. Nadav won't personally benefit from this, except to champion the interests of his user community. Dharma users are as conscientious, loyal and thoughtful as dedicated Uniswap supporters. Demonizing one because of the disputed terms of an air-drop is unfair to them.
btw - you didn't mention 'dilution', but you made reference to 'market price of UNI', so i apologize for the inference, if it indeed was incorrect.
UNI holders should vote no to this proposal!
A large part of the success of Uniswap is a product of 3rd party integrations. The thousands of users who swapped coins on dharma knew they were going through Uniswap. These thousands of users and their thousands of transactions were adding liquidity and velocity through Uniswap.
There is nothing arbitrary about it. Uniswap is benefiting from Dharma.
A large part of the success of Uniswap is a product of 3rd party integrations. The thousands of users who swapped coins on dharma knew they were going through Uniswap. These thousands of users and their thousands of transactions were adding liquidity and velocity through Uniswap.
There is nothing arbitrary about it. Uniswap is benefiting from Dharma.
nadav_dharma is an unselfish leader in this space campaigning on behalf of his users to promote both his product and Uniswap. His interest is in achieving fairness in the intent behind the distribution of UNI tokens.This distribution was not meant to exclude active users of the Uniswap platform. Yes, devs can't get it right all the time in the complex world of software. I know this only too well.
Your worries about dilution are unfounded because the tokens are coming from the treasury, and unless you wish to liquidate your 'interest' early, there is no change to the fully diluted valuation.
Your claim that you understand the 'spirit' of the Uniswap system is also interesting. I believe this will be understood once the proposal is completed. That's the nature of a DAO. It attempts to represent its values through the delegated parties that are charged with upholding this 'spirit'. Your voice is but one in a quorum. Your appeal is an opinionated attempt to influence members to deny a vibrant partner within the Uniswap ecosystem. The impact of these types of decisions will have far reaching effects on the health of this ecosystem. Don't assume Uniswap can survive in a bubble without frens.
Any reply to why MEW are in phase one? I asked about this multiple times in the thread. Would prefer if you answered here than in a DM so everyone can see it.
That air-drop was the biggest marketing event in Uniswap’s history from what i can tell. Adding another meagre allocation from the treasury to extend this campaign demonstrates Uniswap’s awareness of the value.
That air-drop was the biggest marketing event in Uniswap’s history from what i can tell. Adding another meagre allocation from the treasury to extend this campaign demonstrates Uniswap’s awareness of the value.
And were does it end? this second airdrop wave would cost us 40m USD, is that the best way we can spend 40m USD on marketing? should we keep doing more airdrops then? It doesn't make any sense
what you are inferring is that Dharma (et al) users are ‘LESS’ likely to contribute positively with their UNI than original Uniswap token owners.
Because those users never bothered to even interact with the Uniswap protocol directly in the first place, most likely they don't really care about it... they are Dharma users, before the airdrop they didn't even tried to use Uniswap directly (otherwise they would have been included)
If we are Uniswap owners, don’t we all belong to the same community?
No, someone who willingly tried Uniswap before the 1st of September, or provided liquidity to Uniswap v1 doesn't belong to the same community as someone who happen to be routed using Uniswap by pure chance.
The airdrop wasn't perfect, that doesn't mean that we need to keep accentuating the problems of the initial airdrop.
The Argent case was different, the users that used wallet connect to interact with Uniswap received their airdrop just fine, that's because they opened https://uniswap.exchange/ and did the trade there, Argent was just a wallet in that sense, they are Uniswap users. On the contrary some users traded using the Argent "exchange" integration, those users are Argent users and they didn't interacted with Uniswap directly, they didn't received the airdrop.
InstadApp users shouldn't have received the airdrop, but at some point they cannot be distinguished from "Real" users without having to implement complex rules for that, so it's a known inefficiency of the original airdrop, that doesn't mean that we need to keep worsening the situation.
So the original proposal was abandoned in order to lower the quorum and yet Univalent haven't even held up their end of the bargain, and voted. Not going to get 40 million at this rate.
Thank you for recognizing the importance of this decision! Dharma made a decision to use a proxy contract to interact with Uniswap. The users of Dharma used Dharma a third-party to interact with the Uniswap platform and did not make the effort or have the skill to go to the uniswap.exchange. They neither earned nor qualified for the airdrop.
Thank you for recognizing the importance of this decision! Dharma made a decision to use a proxy contract to interact with Uniswap. The users of Dharma used Dharma a third-party to interact with the Uniswap platform and did not make the effort or have the skill to go to the uniswap.exchange. They neither earned nor qualified for the airdrop.
I think you are failing to recognize that Dharma users would have received the original UNI airdrop if the Uniswap integration at Dharma was only slightly different. This has happened with other apps where the integration wasn't going via a proxy contract (which allows developers more freedom/agility with how the integration can be used). There are already accounts out there that received the UNI without ever using the actual default Uniswap.org frontend.
I'm sorry, but I think your argument (also mentioned by others) that the airdrop should remain exclusive to users of the actual Uniswap frontend simply does not work, since the original UNI airdrop already included users and accounts of many different apps. If you need confirmation for this, you can look at Argent and Instadapp, for example, who both published guides for their users how to claim and withdraw UNI from their smart contract wallet accounts at those apps.
You say it wouldnt be fair to the Dharma end users etc...HOW is it fair to the people who invested their hard earned money into UNI??? Or are we willing to ignore them?
@nadav_dharma you completely skipped over the conflict of interest part. The airdrop is dillutive in a sense that the actors can market dump their coins and impact price! Please, address this issue openly.
I try to provide as much context and information to my arguments as possible, I don’t see anything wrong with that. It isn’t pasted over from anywhere, it’s freshly typed text.
I try to provide as much context and information to my arguments as possible, I don’t see anything wrong with that. It isn’t pasted over from anywhere, it’s freshly typed text.
I think that you need to logout and log back in with @Uniguy772 account.
Forcing a vesting period on this potential new airdrop would in a way be marking and making these users/accounts covered by the proposal less worthy of the original airdrop than those that already received it
These accounts are users from third party companies and competitors, that happen to interact with Uniswap by pure chance... I think that Dharma, Kyber, 1inch etc should be giving them free tokens, not us. Giving them voting power it's not fair, for current UNI holders not for them.
similar to how DeFi Saver, a tool for interacting with defi protocols including Uniswap, has the Uniswap logo on its homepage
You don't need DeFi saver to interact with Uniswap, you do need a motherboard to install a CPU
Finally, the exclusivity contract idea just goes against everything DeFi stands for and I don’t think any further comments are needed.
So those apps can't even promise us to keep using Uniswap after the airdrop, again, why are we going to spend 40m USD on them?
Edit: Again flagged for being off-topic, what part of this post is off-topic? this is as relevant to the conversation as any other post pro-dharma proposal.
I'm not actually sure which argument you're referring to @Buckerino, but hope this post I quoted covers it.
You keep bringing this point, but you are still failing to explain why then isn’t a good idea to add a vesting program to this new airdrop? A good vesting program will ensure that those new tokens holders don’t insta-dump on the market (This proposal requires 15m UNI, that’s almost as much as the whole budget for the farming). Also a good vesting program will align their incentives, they would be invested on Uniswap during the whole length of the vesting program.
Probably best to get Dharmas response to the questions you asked earlier as we were waiting for before continuing anyway as otherwise this conversation will just continue down the same back and forth never ending cycle.
Would think the signal to noise ratio of this post is low right now due to the same conversations of repeated text being posted over and over again by multiple parties best to wait for an answer to one question one step at a time
How much research have you done? You can literally go to their Twitter and see a clear mention of Uniswap well before September 1
This treasury should be spent on development, R&D, marketing, support, etc... not on handing money to companies just because. IMO It still counts as a dilution, because the recipients of those tokens are not going to be contributing anything to Uniswap in exchange for it.
The treasury fund it's a mechanism to fund Uniswap development, any token distribution outside that intent should be considered dilution (it takes value from UNI holders and doesn't add anything for them).
From looking at the ongoing discussion I think it can safely be said that there was not infact a very clear no to this proposal and that it very much still needs a lot further discussion as only a subset of holders actually knew about the vote.
Surprised the vote closed would be interested to know who and what controls how long a vote on the snapshot page is open for is it decided by the creator or is it automatic.
From looking at the ongoing discussion I think it can safely be said that there was not infact a very clear no to this proposal and that it very much still needs a lot further discussion as only a subset of holders actually knew about the vote.
Surprised the vote closed would be interested to know who and what controls how long a vote on the snapshot page is open for is it decided by the creator or is it automatic.
It sounds like you are suggesting that the primary idea of the original aidrop was to provide participants with monetary value, whereas I would argue that the goal was to distribute voting power and help kick-start a decentralized governance for the Uniswap protocol.
I suggested the same thing above and have similar thoughts as you good to see someone else on a similar thought pattern to me it's a governance token yet a lot of people seemed to assume it was for monetary value or for farming which was not at all suggested anywhere on the original announcement page (https://uniswap.org/blog/uni/)
I quote this from the Uni announcement page
Community-led Growth
Since its inception, the Uniswap Protocol (”Uniswap”) has served as trustless and highly decentralized financial infrastructure.
Inspired by Ethereum’s vision, we have long committed to the ideals of permissionless access, security, and immutability, all indespensable components for a future where anyone in the world can access financial services without fear of discrimination or counterparty risk.
Now rivaling centralized incumbents on daily volume, Uniswap’s success to date — achieved without involvement of the core development team since deployment — indicates that there is considerable demand for permissionless financial services.
In less than two years, the protocol has:
- Supported over $20bn volume ($270k of which was socks!) traded by over 250,000 unique addresses across 8,484 unique assets
- Secured over $1bn liquidity deposited by over 49,000 unique liquidity providers (LPs), earning $56m fees in the process
- Emerged as foundational DeFi infrastructure, with integrations across hundreds of interfaces and applications
Having proven product-market fit for highly decentralized financial infrastructure with a platform that has thrived independently, Uniswap is now particularly well positioned for community-led growth, development, and self-sustainability . The introduction of UNI (ERC-20) serves this purpose, enabling shared community ownership and a vibrant, diverse, and dedicated governance system, which will actively guide the protocol towards the future.
Uniswap has always embraced the tenets of neutrality and trust minimization : it is crucial that governance is constrained to where it is strictly necessary. With this in mind, the Uniswap governance framework is limited to contributing to both protocol development and usage as well as development of the broader Uniswap ecosystem.
In doing so, UNI officially enshrines Uniswap as publicly-owned and self-sustainable infrastructure while continuing to carefully protect its indestructible and autonomous qualities .
Nowhere in that do they mention money or Farming but they do mention that all important word Governance
As mentioned before hopefully Dharma will answer any questions put to them they feel reasonable to answer and things can be cleared up so the conversation can continue past its current stuck state
It is against the original idea of UNI because they WERE NOT included. If they were part of the original idea, they WOULD have been included regardless of an “innocent” overlook or not. Airdropping more to end users of these companies, when the token is publicly traded, is a disgrace as you are exposing people to potential loss of value.
It is against the original idea of UNI because they WERE NOT included. If they were part of the original idea, they WOULD have been included regardless of an "innocent" overlook or not. Airdropping more to end users of these companies, when the token is publicly traded, is a disgrace as you are exposing people to potential loss of value.
I find the snapshot a valuable piece of evidence as you can see the power of the small UNI holders who actually have skin in the game. Even if Dharma voted for the proposal, they will still lack a considerable amount of UNI to pass it through so every single token counts.
It is against the original idea of UNI because they WERE NOT included. If they were part of the original idea, they WOULD have been included regardless of an "innocent" overlook or not. Airdropping more to end users of these companies, when the token is publicly traded, is a disgrace as you are exposing people to potential loss of value.
I find the snapshot a valuable piece of evidence as you can see the power of the small UNI holders who actually have skin in the game. Even if Dharma voted for the proposal, they will still lack a considerable amount of UNI to pass it through so every single token counts.
I still have not seen anybody address the issues Pipo, shitcoingambler, and others raised...
If there ever was a snapshot done already, I see no point in using it as an argument here. It was certainly not publicly promoted and it was surely not participated in by a huge part of the UNI holders and certainly not by some of the larges current delegates - Dharma and Yuni.finance.
Dharma posted a link to a tweet from July 30th prominently advertising their Uniswap integration in the application thread which is linked in the OP under ‘How’. I would suggest people thoroughly examine the applications from each app before throwing around baseless accusations of deception.
I'm not actually sure which argument you're referring to @Buckerino, but hope this post I quoted covers it.
You keep bringing this point, but you are still failing to explain why then isn’t a good idea to add a vesting program to this new airdrop? A good vesting program will ensure that those new tokens holders don’t insta-dump on the market (This proposal requires 15m UNI, that’s almost as much as the whole budget for the farming). Also a good vesting program will align their incentives, they would be invested on Uniswap during the whole length of the vesting program.
Sorry, I missed this suggestion previously, as there's been a lot of back and forth and overall noise in the thread.
Forcing a vesting period on this potential new airdrop would in a way be marking and making these users/accounts covered by the proposal less worthy of the original airdrop than those that already received it, which I don't believe would be the fair approach.
By the way, it’s really necessary that you paste wall of texts with each post? It seems like you are trying to make this hard to read on purpose
I try to provide as much context and information to my arguments as possible, I don't see anything wrong with that. It isn't pasted over from anywhere, it's freshly typed text.
These companies don’t promote Uniswap, they sell it to the user the same way a restaurant does, with their own brand without promoting their providers.
I believe your restaurant analogy is flawed. In a restaurant you wouldn't have a clue where any of the ingredients are coming from. With these apps you know that Uniswap is there in the backend.
Perhaps a better analogy would be how my ASRock B450 motherboard for using an AMD CPU has AMD and Ryzen logos on the box, similar to how DeFi Saver, a tool for interacting with defi protocols including Uniswap, has the Uniswap logo on its homepage. You know that Uniswap is one of the ingredients.
If this is the case every company that benefits from the airdrop should first sign an exclusivity contract with Uniswap.
You are once again saying that companies are benefiting from the airdrop which is simply not true. The proposed airdrop would be going straight to the affected accounts. And I have to once again highlight that users of some apps already received aidrops without ever using app.uniswap.org or the previous uniswap.exchange frontends at any point.
Finally, the exclusivity contract idea just goes against everything DeFi stands for and I don't think any further comments are needed.
This treasury should be spent on development, R&D, marketing, support, etc... not on handing money to companies just because. IMO It still counts as a dilution, because the recipients of those tokens are not going to be contributing anything to Uniswap in exchange for it.
That air-drop was the biggest marketing event in Uniswap's history from what i can tell. Adding another meagre allocation from the treasury to extend this campaign demonstrates Uniswap's awareness of the value.
Your assertion that 'recipients' of the token are not going to contribute is also suspect - how do we know? In fact, what you are inferring is that Dharma (et al) users are 'LESS' likely to contribute positively with their UNI than original Uniswap token owners. If we are Uniswap owners, don't we all belong to the same community? Is growing this community advantageous to you? I'm curious to know what your exact intentions are in expressing your opinion. If they are to ensure that current Market Cap isn't diluted temporarily, then i agree with your argument. However, if they are to exclude a portion of Uniswap users from the community, simply because they operated through a proxy on a mobile wallet (pretty innovative!), then your argument doesn't make sense. Why would you bite the hand that feeds you?
The treasury fund it's a mechanism to fund Uniswap development, any token distribution outside that intent should be considered dilution (it takes value from UNI holders and doesn't add anything for them).
Fair enough, however, we already knew that the app did it, and that's fine. But do you mind providing some proof that the Dharma didn't added Uniswap to their landing on the 18 of September?. It may sound silly, but if that section of the landing was added on that date, in my opinion it shows a particular intention of manipulating public opinion of UNI holders. TBF there is a good chance that the image was there before it, but proof would be nice.
If we assume that 3rd party providers must compromise to move this proposal further, what do you think about these options:
a) The second airdrop includes a newly designed vesting, something around 5 or 10 years. These vested UNIs can vote but cannot be sold (and can't be delegated, to avoid the formation of a cartel).
b) The companies that currently provide an "alternative frontend" to Uniswap can only be considered as such if they sign an exclusivity contract with Uniswap, only then their users can be considered truly "Uniswap users" and we can procede with the airdrop.
c) The companies behind these requests must provide a token of similar/equivalent value of the amount of USD that the Uniswap treasury has to use in order to move this proposal further, the format could vary depending if the company has a token or not.
It is against the original idea of UNI because they WERE NOT included. If they were part of the original idea, they WOULD have been included regardless of an “innocent” overlook or not. Airdropping more to end users of these companies, when the token is publicly traded, is a disgrace as you are exposing people to potential loss of value.
You may not know this, but many users of apps that are not the Uniswap default frontend have already received the UNI airdrop. Would you say that those should not have received the airdrop either? Because the fact that they did signals that the goal of the airdrop was to reach all the accounts that interacted with Uniswap protocol, disregarding the end interface used.
Additionally, three of DeFi Saver smart contracts received the original UNI airdrop. We are almost absolutely certain that the goal there was to reach the end accounts whose funds were actually being swapped via Uniswap (and whose addresses we submitted for this proposal) but the technical solution that was used to prepare a list of accounts was not adjusted to skip through these proxy contracts that some of the apps utilizing Uniswap have in place.
I find the snapshot a valuable piece of evidence as you can see the power of the small UNI holders who actually have skin in the game.
What would be "skin in the game" in this case? Usage of the Uniswap protocol? Because in that case there's no difference between accounts that already received the UNI airdrop and those that are being proposed to receive it here.
I believe you are trying to argue that users of Uniswap = users of the app.uniswap.org frontend which I don't consider to be valid, in the light of previously mentioned included accounts that used Uniswap protocol outside of it and, ultimately, the actual concept of decentralized exchanges which are meant to be accessible through a number of means and not a singular website.
The "end users of these companies" as you call them are users of decentralized exchanges and decentralized finance protocols that decided to use a different UI to interact with Uniswap. If we're looking at DeFi Saver, those are for example users who prefer to use our one app for quicker, more convenient leverage management instead of using the Oasis app and Uniswap separately. Their goal is to interact with these protocols in the way they find preferrable. I would argue that they are ultimately and consciously primarily users of the underlying protocols.
It sounds like you are suggesting that the primary idea of the original aidrop was to provide participants with monetary value, whereas I would argue that the goal was to distribute voting power and help kick-start a decentralized governance for the Uniswap protocol.
However, I naturally cannot speak on behalf of the Uniswap team and stand to be corrected by any one of them.
If there ever was a snapshot done already, I see no point in using it as an argument here. It was certainly not publicly promoted and it was surely not participated in by a huge part of the UNI holders and certainly not by some of the larges current delegates - Dharma and Yuni.finance.
The argument that Dharma updated their website in order to influence the voting for this proposal honestly does not make sense. They integrated Uniswap and trading in general only months ago (July, iirc) and it is only natural that they are gradually updating their landing pages and marketing as they keep adding new features built around Uniswap. For example, they introduced limit orders via Uniswap yesterday, a feature that is not available with the Uniswap frontend. How one can see these developments as non-beneficial for the core Uniswap protocol is beyond me.
More importantly, though, another thing that appears to be overlooked by most arguing against a follow-up airdrop for proxied users is that these UNI would go to actual end users. Not to Dharma and not to DeFi Saver (whose users I'm representing here for the most part, though some have joined the discussion, too) and not to any other team's account - but specifically to end users.
In terms of DeFi Saver, the Uniswap integration went live in July 2019, at a time when DEXes were still not that popular and were certainly not enjoying the spotlight that they do now. Users like those from DeFi Saver made millions upon millions of volume and helped the Uniswap protocol grow and reach the success it's enjoying today.
I fail to see how including these users in the proposed airdrop is against the original idea of the UNI aidrop that aimed to include everyone who helped Uniswap protocol attain its current status, but I am following this thread for any arguments that oppose that.
Dharma posted a link to a tweet from July 30th prominently advertising their Uniswap integration in the application thread which is linked in the OP under ‘How’. I would suggest people thoroughly examine the applications from each app before throwing around baseless accusations of deception.
I am not saying that Dharma integration didn't existed, what I am saying is that before the UNI drop Dharma didn't advertised Uniswap on their main landing page... the 18 of September they added it. To me that seems more like a move to appear more "Uniswap friendly" and swing the opinion of UNI holders, not really a deal breaker, but it shows bad intentions.
I think it is worth noting that users in app integrations may be more ‘loyal’ than those using uniswap through a browser when new competitors appear since they tend to value convenience over minimal fees or other perks and the use of the platform may be abstracted anyway.
I think the opposite, if an Uniswap competitor appears any of the app integrations can switch backend without their users even noticing, they are using "Dharma" or "MEW", not really Uniswap, if suddenly Dharma offers them better rates, why bother changing wallets?
One solution could be that these apps sign an exclusivity contract with Uniswap, and only then we procede with the airdrop. Something like: "Dharma can only offer token swap services exclusively through Uniswap, for the next x years"
Please, both Jay-Prime and you address the argument Pipo made and kindly stop dodging them as this would directly contribute to moving this discussion forward. Thank you.
I think I had to state it outright as Pipo had to repeat himself as nobody addressed his valid argument.
You keep bringing this point, but you are still failing to explain why then isn't a good idea to add a vesting program to this new airdrop? A good vesting program will ensure that those new tokens holders don't insta-dump on the market (This proposal requires 15m UNI, that's almost as much as the whole budget for the farming). Also a good vesting program will align their incentives, they would be invested on Uniswap during the whole length of the vesting program.
You keep bringing this point, but you are still failing to explain why then isn't a good idea to add a vesting program to this new airdrop? A good vesting program will ensure that those new tokens holders don't insta-dump on the market (This proposal requires 15m UNI, that's almost as much as the whole budget for the farming). Also a good vesting program will align their incentives, they would be invested on Uniswap during the whole length of the vesting program.
EDIT: By the way, it's really necessary that you paste wall of texts with each post? It seems like you are trying to make this hard to read on purpose
The “end users of these companies” as you call them are users of decentralized exchanges and decentralized finance protocols that decided to use a different UI to interact with Uniswap.
These companies don't promote Uniswap, they sell it to the user the same way a restaurant does, with their own brand without promoting their providers.
I would argue that they are ultimately and consciously primarily users of the underlying protocols.
If this is the case every company that benefits from the airdrop should first sign an exclusivity contract with Uniswap.
What do you think about proxy users getting a different amount of voting power/tokens? I feel this may alleviate the problem on both ends
What do you think about proxy users getting a different amount of voting power/tokens? I feel this may alleviate the problem on both ends
I personally wouldn't have any objection to reviewing the amount of tokens being reconsidered if the community at large felt it to be the right thing to do. I think this is where discussion on the precise topic is important and should be covered/discussed before this goes to vote on whether we feel they should have the opportunity to get the same amount as the official airdrop or not
My follow up to you would be did you buy in the interest of gaining profit/farming and or speculative comments on the future price of Uni or did you buy in the interest of Governing and having a say on the platform and the direction it takes in the future? (if you're comfortable answering that question).
Some people may have invested because they have used Uniswap in the past or more recently, liked the platform and wish to suggest or maybe even make a change they think would find useful to the wider Uniswap community.
My follow up to you would be did you buy in the interest of gaining profit/farming and or speculative comments on the future price of Uni or did you buy in the interest of Governing and having a say on the platform and the direction it takes in the future? (if you're comfortable answering that question).
Some people may have invested because they have used Uniswap in the past or more recently, liked the platform and wish to suggest or maybe even make a change they think would find useful to the wider Uniswap community.
We don't know anyone's intentions here. Everything me, you or anyone says is just guessing really the only way to know is to have friendly, calm discussion and maybe even poll in here followed by a follow up vote on the Snapshot page where only token holders can vote to see the consensus before finally possibly putting it forward for the real vote on the vote page of app.uniswap.org
Also this is not a general forum price discussion is more general discussion than governance discussion and should really be put in the Uniswap discord (think admins would agree)
The guidelines directly state that you should provide a counter argument to his argument. You have not provided a counter argument. Instead, you provided a knee jerk contradiction cherry picking sentences out of his point. How is that not an appropriate use of the flagging system? In my honest opinion, it is.
Also, you cannot have a discussion about governance solely when you have a token where people invested their money. That is my counter argument here to you saying it should be only about governance. I still feel like the main points @Pipo-Mandarina made remain not properly addressed by anybody....
This is a complicated one which has a yes and no part to its answer.
Yes if its purpose was only for governance in my opinion it should never have been listed but then here comes the no part.
This is a complicated one which has a yes and no part to its answer.
Yes if its purpose was only for governance in my opinion it should never have been listed but then here comes the no part.
No because if it wasn't listed then only airdrop holders would gain to vote which isn't ideal again an open system where as many people who have used and brought value to the platform to be able to vote the better in my opinion really and airdropping to these people is a start with buying as another option if someone feels they wanted to have a say on Governance.
My main point is its main focus and topic of discussion I feel shouldn't be "money" but "Governance"
EDIT: By the way, it’s really necessary that you paste wall of texts with each post? It seems like you are trying to make this hard to read on purpose
EDIT: By the way, it’s really necessary that you paste wall of texts with each post? It seems like you are trying to make this hard to read on purpose
Its giving information to supplement my comment not posting a wall something you keep repeating also
Trying to introduce reading content so people know I'm not at just spurting out gibberish hopefully someone reading gains benefit from it
A snapshot of this proposal has already been made and was heavily rejected. You can see it on the snapshot page.
I am more than comfortable answering that question. UNI is an investment vehicle with governance aspect. So both of these things are intertwined and cannot be treated separately. I think its highly likely that people who bought the token think along a similar line. It is incredibly selfish to discard the people who have vested the most amount of trust you can possibly put into a project. Snapshot results also reflect this by the way.
A snapshot of this proposal has already been made and was heavily rejected. You can see it on the snapshot page.
I am more than comfortable answering that question. UNI is an investment vehicle with governance aspect. So both of these things are intertwined and cannot be treated separately. I think its highly likely that people who bought the token think along a similar line. It is incredibly selfish to discard the people who have vested the most amount of trust you can possibly put into a project. Snapshot results also reflect this by the way.
With this comment, I would like to invite @nadav_dharma to offer further clarity regarding the waybackmachine accussation because it is outrageous.
You are absolutely ignoring the points he made and you cherry pick sentences out of his main point. Where is your counter argument? He stated two valid points and you ignored them. You are just repeating the same over and over. I am flagging your response.
where is the discussion about airdropping those tokens to empower the life of individuals?
where is the discussion about airdropping those tokens to empower the life of individuals?
On the Uniswap Governance forum? Why would the discussion of another token happen on another companies Governance forums those discussions would be happening on those companies discussion forums surely?
I think personally in my opinion better to have more people who bring value to the platform be allowed to have a say and be allowed to vote on any prospective changes rather than just a select few.
There are also some big CEX that have a lot of Uni tokens right now so keeping the circle closed could actually end up causing more damage than one would think where as opening it could potentially be the difference to offsetting these big CEX from voting in something that could ideally ruin Uniswap and help the CEX's
So in my opinion airdropping tokens to people who have used and brought value to the platform in the past both directly/indirectly in my opinion will open up the process and in the end show fairer decision making.
All voices of opinion are good her but this conversation has got waylaid to the point of ridiculousness
My point being the team has clearly laid out what their vision was for the token the fact it has since been twisted away from the original vision is a whole other conversation.
All voices of opinion are good her but this conversation has got waylaid to the point of ridiculousness. I re-quote the original post posted by @nadav_dharma
My point being the team has clearly laid out what their vision was for the token the fact it has since been twisted away from the original vision is a whole other conversation.
All voices of opinion are good her but this conversation has got waylaid to the point of ridiculousness. I re-quote the original post posted by @nadav_dharma
Project Accounts
Argent 3418 (27.13%)
DeFi Saver 890 (7.06%)
Dharma 2833 (22.48%)
eidoo 301 (2.39%)
FURUCOMBO 57 (0.45%)
MEW 4278 (33.95%)
Nuo 740 (5.87%)
Opyn 79 (0.63%)
rebalance 4 (0.03%)
Project Accounts (overlapping %'s)
0x 1772 (6.66%)
1inch 4924 (18.51%)
DEXAG 465 (1.75%)
Kyber 23933 (89.98%)
Totle 718 (2.70%)
* targets: `[ "0x1f9840a85d5aF5bf1D1762F925BDADdC4201F9841" ]` (UNI)
* values: `[ 0 ]`
* signatures: `[ "approve(address,uint256)" ]`
* calldatas: `[0x0000000000000000000000006a9929D29b7488517D383358a847c95a5D1d6d76000000000000000000000000000000000000000000042b42f28d278eee000000]` (address: `0x6a9929D29b7488517D383358a847c95a5D1d6d76` (phase one merkle dropper, amount: 5.04M UNI)
I expect aspects of this proposal to be contentious, so I’ll leave the community with a last note, copy-pasta’d from the original post I shared in this forum:
I will note to the community that this vote sets a cultural precedent as to how the protocol treats not only its direct users but also developers who take entrepreneurial bets building on Uniswap. The status quo has unfortunately punished our users and eroded our reputation with them — future builders will heed the signal and precedent set by how the Uniswap community addresses this.
Let the discussion begin!
-N
so the question is if this were just a governance token representing Voting Shares would you disagree to a second airdrop and for more people to be able to vote or would you limit it to just a small handful as I see it to be right now.
As mentioned so well by @Rainbow
Crypto is about empowering individuals with the tools to take ownership over their lives, but if we play the protectionist card then that ambition will be left unfulfilled.
What hijacking are you taking about? it seems like you only want supporters of the proposal to voice their opinions, we shouldn't limit ourselves to "make sure this is done right" we can also be against this entirely.
So why is this airdrop different? It’s not. If anything, this airdrop would bring in a brand new swathe of participation, people who are even more green around the ears and have even more to learn.
My post showing how Dharma edited their landing after the Uniswap airdrop (they added an "Uniswap" section), has been flagged by the community. Why hide a post like that? It's direct evidence that Dharma is not being honest here... unless the post has been flagged by Dharma-followers
With this comment, I would like to invite @nadav_dharma to offer further clarity regarding the waybackmachine accussation because it is outrageous.
With this comment, I would like to invite @nadav_dharma to offer further clarity regarding the waybackmachine accussation because it is outrageous.
That's fair and hopefully Nadav can now answer the new questions that have been posed to Dharma which may or may not in turn change peoples votes. A lot has been presented since that original vote I think if a lot of new information has been presented or another "shoot/stem" as it is is presented a new vote would need to be had to see the current view again and confirm that people still wish to vote the same way in my opinion :slight_smile:
I have found something even more outrageous, most of these companies don't mention Uniswap on their main pages at all :rage:
Kyber network
They don't name Uniswap at all, neither on their main webpage or on the "swap" page, it always says Kyber everywhere, no sign of Uniswap
Dharma
I have found something even more outrageous, most of these companies don't mention Uniswap on their main pages at all :rage:
Kyber network
They don't name Uniswap at all, neither on their main webpage or on the "swap" page, it always says Kyber everywhere, no sign of Uniswap
Dharma
This one is an obvious attempt of deception, if you go to https://dharma.io/ you will see a gigantic image, "Uniswap - Minus Metamask", nice, so, they are supporting Uniswap after all?
Well, let's go to the way back machine, https://web.archive.org/web/20200914234637/https://www.dharma.io/, sadly their page doesn't work there... so we can't check if the image was there before the Uniswap airdrop... or can we?
The url of the image is https://www.dharma.io/static/media/uniswap_unicorn.e3af465e.png, this URL is supported by the WayBackMachine... and surprise! The image was uploaded the 18 of September, the day after Uniswap launched UNI
Most likely Dharma never mentioned Uniswap on their landing, until the UNI airdrop happen and they realised that they needed to show themselves as "Uniswap promoters", so they rushed to add a big section mentioning Uniswap... @nadav_dharma care to comment on this?
Edit: This post has been hided for being "off-topic", I don't think this is off-topic, a 3rd party company is giving the appearance of being an "Uniswap friend" using deceptive techniques, this is direct evidence of that
My concern about duplicated addresses has been addressed to some extent by @0age; however, I'd still appreciate an ongoing discussion around due diligence in the distribution.
And while I agree that nothing productive has been added to the conversation in the last few hours, flag the posts and move on. As I said above, if UNI voters want to do this, we need to make sure it's absolutely bulletproof.
My concern about duplicated addresses has been addressed to some extent by @0age; however, I'd still appreciate an ongoing discussion around due diligence in the distribution.
And while I agree that nothing productive has been added to the conversation in the last few hours, flag the posts and move on. As I said above, if UNI voters want to do this, we need to make sure it's absolutely bulletproof.
There's no need to rush the voting process. Governance doesn't go live until Oct. 17th. I understand that everyone is eager to get UNI they didn't have before, but that's a hard-coded limit.
I still welcome responses from @itamar_argent.xyz and @Anyhowclick as to the validity and logic behind their respective platform's lists--particularly as Argent's list was initially touted as unique/distinct from Kyber's.
I'm not actually sure which argument you're referring to @Buckerino, but hope this post I quoted covers it.
You keep bringing this point, but you are still failing to explain why then isn’t a good idea to add a vesting program to this new airdrop? A good vesting program will ensure that those new tokens holders don’t insta-dump on the market (This proposal requires 15m UNI, that’s almost as much as the whole budget for the farming). Also a good vesting program will align their incentives, they would be invested on Uniswap during the whole length of the vesting program.
Sorry, I missed this suggestion previously, as there's been a lot of back and forth and overall noise in the thread.
Forcing a vesting period on this potential new airdrop would in a way be marking and making these users/accounts covered by the proposal less worthy of the original airdrop than those that already received it, which I don't believe would be the fair approach.
By the way, it’s really necessary that you paste wall of texts with each post? It seems like you are trying to make this hard to read on purpose
I try to provide as much context and information to my arguments as possible, I don't see anything wrong with that. It isn't pasted over from anywhere, it's freshly typed text.
These companies don’t promote Uniswap, they sell it to the user the same way a restaurant does, with their own brand without promoting their providers.
I believe your restaurant analogy is flawed. In a restaurant you wouldn't have a clue where any of the ingredients are coming from. With these apps you know that Uniswap is there in the backend.
Perhaps a better analogy would be how my ASRock B450 motherboard for using an AMD CPU has AMD and Ryzen logos on the box, similar to how DeFi Saver, a tool for interacting with defi protocols including Uniswap, has the Uniswap logo on its homepage. You know that Uniswap is one of the ingredients.
If this is the case every company that benefits from the airdrop should first sign an exclusivity contract with Uniswap.
You are once again saying that companies are benefiting from the airdrop which is simply not true. The proposed airdrop would be going straight to the affected accounts. And I have to once again highlight that users of some apps already received aidrops without ever using app.uniswap.org or the previous uniswap.exchange frontends at any point.
Finally, the exclusivity contract idea just goes against everything DeFi stands for and I don't think any further comments are needed.
This treasury should be spent on development, R&D, marketing, support, etc... not on handing money to companies just because. IMO It still counts as a dilution, because the recipients of those tokens are not going to be contributing anything to Uniswap in exchange for it.
That air-drop was the biggest marketing event in Uniswap's history from what i can tell. Adding another meagre allocation from the treasury to extend this campaign demonstrates Uniswap's awareness of the value.
Your assertion that 'recipients' of the token are not going to contribute is also suspect - how do we know? In fact, what you are inferring is that Dharma (et al) users are 'LESS' likely to contribute positively with their UNI than original Uniswap token owners. If we are Uniswap owners, don't we all belong to the same community? Is growing this community advantageous to you? I'm curious to know what your exact intentions are in expressing your opinion. If they are to ensure that current Market Cap isn't diluted temporarily, then i agree with your argument. However, if they are to exclude a portion of Uniswap users from the community, simply because they operated through a proxy on a mobile wallet (pretty innovative!), then your argument doesn't make sense. Why would you bite the hand that feeds you?
The treasury fund it's a mechanism to fund Uniswap development, any token distribution outside that intent should be considered dilution (it takes value from UNI holders and doesn't add anything for them).
Fair enough, however, we already knew that the app did it, and that's fine. But do you mind providing some proof that the Dharma didn't added Uniswap to their landing on the 18 of September?. It may sound silly, but if that section of the landing was added on that date, in my opinion it shows a particular intention of manipulating public opinion of UNI holders. TBF there is a good chance that the image was there before it, but proof would be nice.
If we assume that 3rd party providers must compromise to move this proposal further, what do you think about these options:
a) The second airdrop includes a newly designed vesting, something around 5 or 10 years. These vested UNIs can vote but cannot be sold (and can't be delegated, to avoid the formation of a cartel).
b) The companies that currently provide an "alternative frontend" to Uniswap can only be considered as such if they sign an exclusivity contract with Uniswap, only then their users can be considered truly "Uniswap users" and we can procede with the airdrop.
c) The companies behind these requests must provide a token of similar/equivalent value of the amount of USD that the Uniswap treasury has to use in order to move this proposal further, the format could vary depending if the company has a token or not.
It is against the original idea of UNI because they WERE NOT included. If they were part of the original idea, they WOULD have been included regardless of an “innocent” overlook or not. Airdropping more to end users of these companies, when the token is publicly traded, is a disgrace as you are exposing people to potential loss of value.
You may not know this, but many users of apps that are not the Uniswap default frontend have already received the UNI airdrop. Would you say that those should not have received the airdrop either? Because the fact that they did signals that the goal of the airdrop was to reach all the accounts that interacted with Uniswap protocol, disregarding the end interface used.
Additionally, three of DeFi Saver smart contracts received the original UNI airdrop. We are almost absolutely certain that the goal there was to reach the end accounts whose funds were actually being swapped via Uniswap (and whose addresses we submitted for this proposal) but the technical solution that was used to prepare a list of accounts was not adjusted to skip through these proxy contracts that some of the apps utilizing Uniswap have in place.
I find the snapshot a valuable piece of evidence as you can see the power of the small UNI holders who actually have skin in the game.
What would be "skin in the game" in this case? Usage of the Uniswap protocol? Because in that case there's no difference between accounts that already received the UNI airdrop and those that are being proposed to receive it here.
I believe you are trying to argue that users of Uniswap = users of the app.uniswap.org frontend which I don't consider to be valid, in the light of previously mentioned included accounts that used Uniswap protocol outside of it and, ultimately, the actual concept of decentralized exchanges which are meant to be accessible through a number of means and not a singular website.
The "end users of these companies" as you call them are users of decentralized exchanges and decentralized finance protocols that decided to use a different UI to interact with Uniswap. If we're looking at DeFi Saver, those are for example users who prefer to use our one app for quicker, more convenient leverage management instead of using the Oasis app and Uniswap separately. Their goal is to interact with these protocols in the way they find preferrable. I would argue that they are ultimately and consciously primarily users of the underlying protocols.
It sounds like you are suggesting that the primary idea of the original aidrop was to provide participants with monetary value, whereas I would argue that the goal was to distribute voting power and help kick-start a decentralized governance for the Uniswap protocol.
However, I naturally cannot speak on behalf of the Uniswap team and stand to be corrected by any one of them.
If there ever was a snapshot done already, I see no point in using it as an argument here. It was certainly not publicly promoted and it was surely not participated in by a huge part of the UNI holders and certainly not by some of the larges current delegates - Dharma and Yuni.finance.
The argument that Dharma updated their website in order to influence the voting for this proposal honestly does not make sense. They integrated Uniswap and trading in general only months ago (July, iirc) and it is only natural that they are gradually updating their landing pages and marketing as they keep adding new features built around Uniswap. For example, they introduced limit orders via Uniswap yesterday, a feature that is not available with the Uniswap frontend. How one can see these developments as non-beneficial for the core Uniswap protocol is beyond me.
More importantly, though, another thing that appears to be overlooked by most arguing against a follow-up airdrop for proxied users is that these UNI would go to actual end users. Not to Dharma and not to DeFi Saver (whose users I'm representing here for the most part, though some have joined the discussion, too) and not to any other team's account - but specifically to end users.
In terms of DeFi Saver, the Uniswap integration went live in July 2019, at a time when DEXes were still not that popular and were certainly not enjoying the spotlight that they do now. Users like those from DeFi Saver made millions upon millions of volume and helped the Uniswap protocol grow and reach the success it's enjoying today.
I fail to see how including these users in the proposed airdrop is against the original idea of the UNI aidrop that aimed to include everyone who helped Uniswap protocol attain its current status, but I am following this thread for any arguments that oppose that.
Dharma posted a link to a tweet from July 30th prominently advertising their Uniswap integration in the application thread which is linked in the OP under ‘How’. I would suggest people thoroughly examine the applications from each app before throwing around baseless accusations of deception.
I am not saying that Dharma integration didn't existed, what I am saying is that before the UNI drop Dharma didn't advertised Uniswap on their main landing page... the 18 of September they added it. To me that seems more like a move to appear more "Uniswap friendly" and swing the opinion of UNI holders, not really a deal breaker, but it shows bad intentions.
I think it is worth noting that users in app integrations may be more ‘loyal’ than those using uniswap through a browser when new competitors appear since they tend to value convenience over minimal fees or other perks and the use of the platform may be abstracted anyway.
I think the opposite, if an Uniswap competitor appears any of the app integrations can switch backend without their users even noticing, they are using "Dharma" or "MEW", not really Uniswap, if suddenly Dharma offers them better rates, why bother changing wallets?
One solution could be that these apps sign an exclusivity contract with Uniswap, and only then we procede with the airdrop. Something like: "Dharma can only offer token swap services exclusively through Uniswap, for the next x years"
Please, both Jay-Prime and you address the argument Pipo made and kindly stop dodging them as this would directly contribute to moving this discussion forward. Thank you.
I think I had to state it outright as Pipo had to repeat himself as nobody addressed his valid argument.
You keep bringing this point, but you are still failing to explain why then isn't a good idea to add a vesting program to this new airdrop? A good vesting program will ensure that those new tokens holders don't insta-dump on the market (This proposal requires 15m UNI, that's almost as much as the whole budget for the farming). Also a good vesting program will align their incentives, they would be invested on Uniswap during the whole length of the vesting program.
You keep bringing this point, but you are still failing to explain why then isn't a good idea to add a vesting program to this new airdrop? A good vesting program will ensure that those new tokens holders don't insta-dump on the market (This proposal requires 15m UNI, that's almost as much as the whole budget for the farming). Also a good vesting program will align their incentives, they would be invested on Uniswap during the whole length of the vesting program.
EDIT: By the way, it's really necessary that you paste wall of texts with each post? It seems like you are trying to make this hard to read on purpose
The “end users of these companies” as you call them are users of decentralized exchanges and decentralized finance protocols that decided to use a different UI to interact with Uniswap.
These companies don't promote Uniswap, they sell it to the user the same way a restaurant does, with their own brand without promoting their providers.
I would argue that they are ultimately and consciously primarily users of the underlying protocols.
If this is the case every company that benefits from the airdrop should first sign an exclusivity contract with Uniswap.
What do you think about proxy users getting a different amount of voting power/tokens? I feel this may alleviate the problem on both ends
What do you think about proxy users getting a different amount of voting power/tokens? I feel this may alleviate the problem on both ends
I personally wouldn't have any objection to reviewing the amount of tokens being reconsidered if the community at large felt it to be the right thing to do. I think this is where discussion on the precise topic is important and should be covered/discussed before this goes to vote on whether we feel they should have the opportunity to get the same amount as the official airdrop or not
My follow up to you would be did you buy in the interest of gaining profit/farming and or speculative comments on the future price of Uni or did you buy in the interest of Governing and having a say on the platform and the direction it takes in the future? (if you're comfortable answering that question).
Some people may have invested because they have used Uniswap in the past or more recently, liked the platform and wish to suggest or maybe even make a change they think would find useful to the wider Uniswap community.
My follow up to you would be did you buy in the interest of gaining profit/farming and or speculative comments on the future price of Uni or did you buy in the interest of Governing and having a say on the platform and the direction it takes in the future? (if you're comfortable answering that question).
Some people may have invested because they have used Uniswap in the past or more recently, liked the platform and wish to suggest or maybe even make a change they think would find useful to the wider Uniswap community.
We don't know anyone's intentions here. Everything me, you or anyone says is just guessing really the only way to know is to have friendly, calm discussion and maybe even poll in here followed by a follow up vote on the Snapshot page where only token holders can vote to see the consensus before finally possibly putting it forward for the real vote on the vote page of app.uniswap.org
Also this is not a general forum price discussion is more general discussion than governance discussion and should really be put in the Uniswap discord (think admins would agree)
The guidelines directly state that you should provide a counter argument to his argument. You have not provided a counter argument. Instead, you provided a knee jerk contradiction cherry picking sentences out of his point. How is that not an appropriate use of the flagging system? In my honest opinion, it is.
Also, you cannot have a discussion about governance solely when you have a token where people invested their money. That is my counter argument here to you saying it should be only about governance. I still feel like the main points @Pipo-Mandarina made remain not properly addressed by anybody....
This is a complicated one which has a yes and no part to its answer.
Yes if its purpose was only for governance in my opinion it should never have been listed but then here comes the no part.
This is a complicated one which has a yes and no part to its answer.
Yes if its purpose was only for governance in my opinion it should never have been listed but then here comes the no part.
No because if it wasn't listed then only airdrop holders would gain to vote which isn't ideal again an open system where as many people who have used and brought value to the platform to be able to vote the better in my opinion really and airdropping to these people is a start with buying as another option if someone feels they wanted to have a say on Governance.
My main point is its main focus and topic of discussion I feel shouldn't be "money" but "Governance"
EDIT: By the way, it’s really necessary that you paste wall of texts with each post? It seems like you are trying to make this hard to read on purpose
EDIT: By the way, it’s really necessary that you paste wall of texts with each post? It seems like you are trying to make this hard to read on purpose
Its giving information to supplement my comment not posting a wall something you keep repeating also
Trying to introduce reading content so people know I'm not at just spurting out gibberish hopefully someone reading gains benefit from it
A snapshot of this proposal has already been made and was heavily rejected. You can see it on the snapshot page.
I am more than comfortable answering that question. UNI is an investment vehicle with governance aspect. So both of these things are intertwined and cannot be treated separately. I think its highly likely that people who bought the token think along a similar line. It is incredibly selfish to discard the people who have vested the most amount of trust you can possibly put into a project. Snapshot results also reflect this by the way.
A snapshot of this proposal has already been made and was heavily rejected. You can see it on the snapshot page.
I am more than comfortable answering that question. UNI is an investment vehicle with governance aspect. So both of these things are intertwined and cannot be treated separately. I think its highly likely that people who bought the token think along a similar line. It is incredibly selfish to discard the people who have vested the most amount of trust you can possibly put into a project. Snapshot results also reflect this by the way.
With this comment, I would like to invite @nadav_dharma to offer further clarity regarding the waybackmachine accussation because it is outrageous.
You are absolutely ignoring the points he made and you cherry pick sentences out of his main point. Where is your counter argument? He stated two valid points and you ignored them. You are just repeating the same over and over. I am flagging your response.
where is the discussion about airdropping those tokens to empower the life of individuals?
where is the discussion about airdropping those tokens to empower the life of individuals?
On the Uniswap Governance forum? Why would the discussion of another token happen on another companies Governance forums those discussions would be happening on those companies discussion forums surely?
I think personally in my opinion better to have more people who bring value to the platform be allowed to have a say and be allowed to vote on any prospective changes rather than just a select few.
There are also some big CEX that have a lot of Uni tokens right now so keeping the circle closed could actually end up causing more damage than one would think where as opening it could potentially be the difference to offsetting these big CEX from voting in something that could ideally ruin Uniswap and help the CEX's
So in my opinion airdropping tokens to people who have used and brought value to the platform in the past both directly/indirectly in my opinion will open up the process and in the end show fairer decision making.
All voices of opinion are good her but this conversation has got waylaid to the point of ridiculousness
My point being the team has clearly laid out what their vision was for the token the fact it has since been twisted away from the original vision is a whole other conversation.
All voices of opinion are good her but this conversation has got waylaid to the point of ridiculousness. I re-quote the original post posted by @nadav_dharma
My point being the team has clearly laid out what their vision was for the token the fact it has since been twisted away from the original vision is a whole other conversation.
All voices of opinion are good her but this conversation has got waylaid to the point of ridiculousness. I re-quote the original post posted by @nadav_dharma
Project Accounts
Argent 3418 (27.13%)
DeFi Saver 890 (7.06%)
Dharma 2833 (22.48%)
eidoo 301 (2.39%)
FURUCOMBO 57 (0.45%)
MEW 4278 (33.95%)
Nuo 740 (5.87%)
Opyn 79 (0.63%)
rebalance 4 (0.03%)
Project Accounts (overlapping %'s)
0x 1772 (6.66%)
1inch 4924 (18.51%)
DEXAG 465 (1.75%)
Kyber 23933 (89.98%)
Totle 718 (2.70%)
* targets: `[ "0x1f9840a85d5aF5bf1D1762F925BDADdC4201F9841" ]` (UNI)
* values: `[ 0 ]`
* signatures: `[ "approve(address,uint256)" ]`
* calldatas: `[0x0000000000000000000000006a9929D29b7488517D383358a847c95a5D1d6d76000000000000000000000000000000000000000000042b42f28d278eee000000]` (address: `0x6a9929D29b7488517D383358a847c95a5D1d6d76` (phase one merkle dropper, amount: 5.04M UNI)
I expect aspects of this proposal to be contentious, so I’ll leave the community with a last note, copy-pasta’d from the original post I shared in this forum:
I will note to the community that this vote sets a cultural precedent as to how the protocol treats not only its direct users but also developers who take entrepreneurial bets building on Uniswap. The status quo has unfortunately punished our users and eroded our reputation with them — future builders will heed the signal and precedent set by how the Uniswap community addresses this.
Let the discussion begin!
-N
so the question is if this were just a governance token representing Voting Shares would you disagree to a second airdrop and for more people to be able to vote or would you limit it to just a small handful as I see it to be right now.
As mentioned so well by @Rainbow
Crypto is about empowering individuals with the tools to take ownership over their lives, but if we play the protectionist card then that ambition will be left unfulfilled.
What hijacking are you taking about? it seems like you only want supporters of the proposal to voice their opinions, we shouldn't limit ourselves to "make sure this is done right" we can also be against this entirely.
So why is this airdrop different? It’s not. If anything, this airdrop would bring in a brand new swathe of participation, people who are even more green around the ears and have even more to learn.
My post showing how Dharma edited their landing after the Uniswap airdrop (they added an "Uniswap" section), has been flagged by the community. Why hide a post like that? It's direct evidence that Dharma is not being honest here... unless the post has been flagged by Dharma-followers
With this comment, I would like to invite @nadav_dharma to offer further clarity regarding the waybackmachine accussation because it is outrageous.
With this comment, I would like to invite @nadav_dharma to offer further clarity regarding the waybackmachine accussation because it is outrageous.
That's fair and hopefully Nadav can now answer the new questions that have been posed to Dharma which may or may not in turn change peoples votes. A lot has been presented since that original vote I think if a lot of new information has been presented or another "shoot/stem" as it is is presented a new vote would need to be had to see the current view again and confirm that people still wish to vote the same way in my opinion :slight_smile:
I have found something even more outrageous, most of these companies don't mention Uniswap on their main pages at all :rage:
Kyber network
They don't name Uniswap at all, neither on their main webpage or on the "swap" page, it always says Kyber everywhere, no sign of Uniswap
Dharma
I have found something even more outrageous, most of these companies don't mention Uniswap on their main pages at all :rage:
Kyber network
They don't name Uniswap at all, neither on their main webpage or on the "swap" page, it always says Kyber everywhere, no sign of Uniswap
Dharma
This one is an obvious attempt of deception, if you go to https://dharma.io/ you will see a gigantic image, "Uniswap - Minus Metamask", nice, so, they are supporting Uniswap after all?
Well, let's go to the way back machine, https://web.archive.org/web/20200914234637/https://www.dharma.io/, sadly their page doesn't work there... so we can't check if the image was there before the Uniswap airdrop... or can we?
The url of the image is https://www.dharma.io/static/media/uniswap_unicorn.e3af465e.png, this URL is supported by the WayBackMachine... and surprise! The image was uploaded the 18 of September, the day after Uniswap launched UNI
Most likely Dharma never mentioned Uniswap on their landing, until the UNI airdrop happen and they realised that they needed to show themselves as "Uniswap promoters", so they rushed to add a big section mentioning Uniswap... @nadav_dharma care to comment on this?
Edit: This post has been hided for being "off-topic", I don't think this is off-topic, a 3rd party company is giving the appearance of being an "Uniswap friend" using deceptive techniques, this is direct evidence of that
My concern about duplicated addresses has been addressed to some extent by @0age; however, I'd still appreciate an ongoing discussion around due diligence in the distribution.
And while I agree that nothing productive has been added to the conversation in the last few hours, flag the posts and move on. As I said above, if UNI voters want to do this, we need to make sure it's absolutely bulletproof.
My concern about duplicated addresses has been addressed to some extent by @0age; however, I'd still appreciate an ongoing discussion around due diligence in the distribution.
And while I agree that nothing productive has been added to the conversation in the last few hours, flag the posts and move on. As I said above, if UNI voters want to do this, we need to make sure it's absolutely bulletproof.
There's no need to rush the voting process. Governance doesn't go live until Oct. 17th. I understand that everyone is eager to get UNI they didn't have before, but that's a hard-coded limit.
I still welcome responses from @itamar_argent.xyz and @Anyhowclick as to the validity and logic behind their respective platform's lists--particularly as Argent's list was initially touted as unique/distinct from Kyber's.
All voices of opinion are good her but this conversation has got waylaid to the point of ridiculousness
"ridiculousness" being "don't agreeing with Dharma proposal", I think the proposal is fundamentally wrong and I don't see the point on arguing about details on the list of addresses or queries.
Of course I disagree with a second airdrop, for two reasons:
a) It dilutes voting power and the value of the share owners b) It benefits primarily Uniswap competitors
It's the same reason why Intel doesn't dilutes his shares to give shares to AMD CPU buyers, because it makes no sense at all, nor from a "voting" perspective or from a financial perspective.
Crypto is about empowering individuals with the tools to take ownership over their lives
Dharma is a company, it has shareholders, why don't they also dilute themselves for the common good? 1inch and Kyber both have a token, where is the discussion about airdropping those tokens to empower the life of individuals? It's so easy to do charity with other peoples' money
What hijacking are you taking about? it seems like you only want supporters of the proposal to voice their opinions, we shouldn't limit ourselves to "make sure this is done right" we can also be against this entirely.
It has been said multiple times already, but if the argument is giving 3rd party users the ability to vote on the platform, the proposal should include a strong vesting schedule, and it doesn't...
So why is this airdrop different? It’s not. If anything, this airdrop would bring in a brand new swathe of participation, people who are even more green around the ears and have even more to learn.
With this criteria we should do 20 more airdrops, send UNI to every single Ethereum address... the line has to be drawn at some point, repeating the airdrop blurs everything
There are lots of issues with this @lauracroft123. I have asked very valid questions and got no responses. I will be thoroughly disappointed and surprised if this even comes close to passing in it's current state.
Not an appropriate use of the flagging system and just causes unnecessary backlog for admins which is a suspendable offense admins have suspended accounts in the past for abusing the flagging system just a FYI
The initial airdrop was different just solely because of the fact that there was no dillution and no potential conflict of interest. Now, when UNI is publicly tradeable, you encounter a significant conflict of interest where people aim to take advantage of the free money to enrich themselves by taking advantage of millions of people who poured in their hard earned money into the token.I simply do not believe all of the actors here have honest intentions not to rob the current holders of UNI of value.
If it is voting power the actors are after, then adjust the proposal that the coins will be locked in a contract forever and cannot be sold and can used only for voting matters, but even then, I would not trust the people implementing that they exercise such a feat as they have a direct conflict on interest. No, no, and NO!
Your post presented a verbal personal attack on me implying violence and threat of financial ruin. I´d like moderators to intervene as this forum should not have any tolerance for such barbaric, improper, and utterly uncivil behavior which does not contribute to the debate.
Do you work for Hayden? what is your position in the company? would love to know if this is @haydenadams view.
Very clearly someone has spend a lot of today making new account to clearly try and swing voting for this matter to 1 side this should really be investigated and if this is a single person their IP address should be banned and handed over to police
cc @TMod_Marco @BOR4 @kolten
I´d say your comment here violated the guidelines directly and thus should be flagged.
Be Agreeable, Even When You Disagree
You may wish to respond to something by disagreeing with it. That’s fine. But remember to criticize ideas, not people . Please avoid:
I´d say your comment here violated the guidelines directly and thus should be flagged.
Be Agreeable, Even When You Disagree
You may wish to respond to something by disagreeing with it. That’s fine. But remember to criticize ideas, not people . Please avoid:
Instead, provide reasoned counter-arguments that improve the conversation.
Hayden split his share among us, he did it willingly, now everybody who is trying to claim "airdrops" is just plain stealing.
This is a plan to dump on the current holders of UNI and as I have stated before, shame on anybody who defends this blatant theft.
I find your answer highly disrespectful by the way and offensive in every way.
No one held a gun to your head and said "Invest in Uni" you made an active choice to invest. No one is robbing anyone otherwise you would ideally be saying anyone who go a free airdrop is robbing people of their money which is just untrue.
If you can't deal with the crypto space probably best to get out now before you risk losing everything but again this isn't financial advice and as always DYOR.
This proposal is just an utter cash grab aiming to dillute the current owners of the token. Anybody with a sane mind who invested into UNI believing in Uniswap´s future will not vote yes for this proposal.
The way I see it is that you are asking for a disproportional amount of UNI for a little less than 1 % of overall Uniswap "users" who, in reality, are people who ditched Uniswap for cheaper options and will jump ship the second another opportunity arises.
This proposal is just an utter cash grab aiming to dillute the current owners of the token. Anybody with a sane mind who invested into UNI believing in Uniswap´s future will not vote yes for this proposal.
The way I see it is that you are asking for a disproportional amount of UNI for a little less than 1 % of overall Uniswap "users" who, in reality, are people who ditched Uniswap for cheaper options and will jump ship the second another opportunity arises.
As a holder of a significant amount of UNI, I am utterly disgusted by this proposal and I will voice my opinion with a big fat NO as a vote. I do not understand how 37 addresses delegated their votes to Dharma totalling 15M uni in the first place to support such a blatant attempt to dillute current UNI holders. It is a disgrace really and you should all be ashamed that you are trying to steal other people´s money.
Appalled that comments about this proposal being a "Cash Grab" are still being mentioned in here and being considered as constructive.
I attach the following screenshot from https://app.uniswap.org/#/vote
as mentioned on the Uniswap website
UNI tokens represent voting shares in Uniswap governance. You can vote on each proposal yourself or delegate your votes to a third party.
Appalled that comments about this proposal being a "Cash Grab" are still being mentioned in here and being considered as constructive.
I attach the following screenshot from https://app.uniswap.org/#/vote
as mentioned on the Uniswap website
UNI tokens represent voting shares in Uniswap governance. You can vote on each proposal yourself or delegate your votes to a third party.
This isn't a farming token and never was mentioned to ever be a farming token where people got that idea i'm not sure. The token was also not made as a money maker although it did have significant value when listed.
The token is a governance token representing a Voting Share in Uniswap Governance. Please can we stop discussions on how this is a cash grab and focus on the logic and merits of the Airdrop and logical queries such as @jumnhy question to the Dharma/relevant team(s).
The hijacking of this post needs to end here
My apologies Kolten if my words were against Governance rules I will try to be more mindful of what I post and the way it could be interpreted in the future. I did not mean any attack on anyone but I could see how it could possibly be misinterpreted looking back on it now
Thanks for your assistance in this :slight_smile:
I don't think his goal was to attack you, but either way the tone of this conversation isn't encouraged on this forum. We should move on and keep conversation civil and productive. Please refer to the rules in the future: https://gov.uniswap.org/t/uniswap-governance-forum-rules/5142
Otherwise we'll have to hide / remove posts and do whatever else is necessary to preserve the signal to noise ratio here.
Thanks, mate. I'm pretty agnostic about whether this drop is a good idea, myself, but if we're going to do it, we need to make sure it's done right.
Very honest of you to point out the mistake and not just choose to potentially leave it and exploit it seeing stuff like this will hopefully let people see that there are genuine good people behind these accounts and not just bots and contracts as some of the naysayers have falsely said without any proof. Hopefully this will help them to decide on/whether this drop would be a good idea or not
Hello all,
Just made an account to chime in here. Some may know me from reddit where I'm under the same tag.
This may be late in the process, but I'd like to voice a concern--I see that my address is listed both under Argent and through Kyber. This, of course, makes sense--I swapped tokens on Kyber using Uniswap liquidity with the front-end provided by Argent.
Hello all,
Just made an account to chime in here. Some may know me from reddit where I'm under the same tag.
This may be late in the process, but I'd like to voice a concern--I see that my address is listed both under Argent and through Kyber. This, of course, makes sense--I swapped tokens on Kyber using Uniswap liquidity with the front-end provided by Argent.
That said, my understanding was that these lists of accounts should be mutually exclusive; I believe Argent specified that their list was intended to be only unique, non-duplicative accounts, ie, accounts not already included on Kyber's list.
I'm not a developer. I don't have the technical wherewithal to audit the queries, simple though they may be, that generated these lists.
I may be a sample size of one, but my account is absolutely duplicated across these two eligibility lists.
@nadav_dharma, you have stated that your team was well suited to lead this proposal due to your technical expertise.
Can you give us some assurance, in light of the above, of how the expanded distribution will work? I'm not familiar with the exact mechanism, but I'd like to know that it won't be as simple as "every address on all these projects' lists gets 400 UNI" without any sort of error-checking, particularly with the 2-phase structure proposed for the distribution. My Argent wallet could/would get 400 UNI in phase 1--what's to stop it from getting 400 UNI in phase 2?
@itamar_argent.xyz would love to hear y'all's takes on this as well.
Again, I'm not intending to disparage the effort everyone has made on this proposal. However, if we want this to work, it's got to go off as flawlessly as the initial drop. Re-visiting a one-time drop and making it a (potentially) three-time drop invites enough criticisms around bad precedent--any hint of a potential issue needs to be clearly and transparently addressed.
Thank you for your help, and I look forward to your replies.
In case of Dharma’s list - a large share of addresses I see are contracts. Are you telling me that each contract would end up receiving an airdrop?
Better than having yes men... not a troll just trying to help there be clear, concise information but whatever if you really think Uniswap made this token to "Pay your fees" or whatever you want to think it to be you believe that.
you're entitled to vote no like anyone else is entitled to vote yes/no no one is taking that away from you but lets try and get the discussion back on track and focus on the question of the post at hand
@0age--Thank you for the clarification! I saw your post (would link, it's in this thread, account too new) of the merkle root for both phases and checked my address there--can confirm that it appears on phase 1 but not phase 2.
Much appreciated.
Dharma is asking Uniswap token holders to dilute themselves in order to benefit Dharma's users directly, Dharma is offering absolutely nothing in return, how is that not a cash grab?
It's a governance token not a cash grab let's use it accordingly wouldnt it be good to have users of these other platforms onboard to help grow Uniswap which has been my aim all along
All voices of opinion are good her but this conversation has got waylaid to the point of ridiculousness
"ridiculousness" being "don't agreeing with Dharma proposal", I think the proposal is fundamentally wrong and I don't see the point on arguing about details on the list of addresses or queries.
Of course I disagree with a second airdrop, for two reasons:
a) It dilutes voting power and the value of the share owners b) It benefits primarily Uniswap competitors
It's the same reason why Intel doesn't dilutes his shares to give shares to AMD CPU buyers, because it makes no sense at all, nor from a "voting" perspective or from a financial perspective.
Crypto is about empowering individuals with the tools to take ownership over their lives
Dharma is a company, it has shareholders, why don't they also dilute themselves for the common good? 1inch and Kyber both have a token, where is the discussion about airdropping those tokens to empower the life of individuals? It's so easy to do charity with other peoples' money
What hijacking are you taking about? it seems like you only want supporters of the proposal to voice their opinions, we shouldn't limit ourselves to "make sure this is done right" we can also be against this entirely.
It has been said multiple times already, but if the argument is giving 3rd party users the ability to vote on the platform, the proposal should include a strong vesting schedule, and it doesn't...
So why is this airdrop different? It’s not. If anything, this airdrop would bring in a brand new swathe of participation, people who are even more green around the ears and have even more to learn.
With this criteria we should do 20 more airdrops, send UNI to every single Ethereum address... the line has to be drawn at some point, repeating the airdrop blurs everything
There are lots of issues with this @lauracroft123. I have asked very valid questions and got no responses. I will be thoroughly disappointed and surprised if this even comes close to passing in it's current state.
Not an appropriate use of the flagging system and just causes unnecessary backlog for admins which is a suspendable offense admins have suspended accounts in the past for abusing the flagging system just a FYI
The initial airdrop was different just solely because of the fact that there was no dillution and no potential conflict of interest. Now, when UNI is publicly tradeable, you encounter a significant conflict of interest where people aim to take advantage of the free money to enrich themselves by taking advantage of millions of people who poured in their hard earned money into the token.I simply do not believe all of the actors here have honest intentions not to rob the current holders of UNI of value.
If it is voting power the actors are after, then adjust the proposal that the coins will be locked in a contract forever and cannot be sold and can used only for voting matters, but even then, I would not trust the people implementing that they exercise such a feat as they have a direct conflict on interest. No, no, and NO!
Your post presented a verbal personal attack on me implying violence and threat of financial ruin. I´d like moderators to intervene as this forum should not have any tolerance for such barbaric, improper, and utterly uncivil behavior which does not contribute to the debate.
Do you work for Hayden? what is your position in the company? would love to know if this is @haydenadams view.
Very clearly someone has spend a lot of today making new account to clearly try and swing voting for this matter to 1 side this should really be investigated and if this is a single person their IP address should be banned and handed over to police
cc @TMod_Marco @BOR4 @kolten
I´d say your comment here violated the guidelines directly and thus should be flagged.
Be Agreeable, Even When You Disagree
You may wish to respond to something by disagreeing with it. That’s fine. But remember to criticize ideas, not people . Please avoid:
I´d say your comment here violated the guidelines directly and thus should be flagged.
Be Agreeable, Even When You Disagree
You may wish to respond to something by disagreeing with it. That’s fine. But remember to criticize ideas, not people . Please avoid:
Instead, provide reasoned counter-arguments that improve the conversation.
Hayden split his share among us, he did it willingly, now everybody who is trying to claim "airdrops" is just plain stealing.
This is a plan to dump on the current holders of UNI and as I have stated before, shame on anybody who defends this blatant theft.
I find your answer highly disrespectful by the way and offensive in every way.
No one held a gun to your head and said "Invest in Uni" you made an active choice to invest. No one is robbing anyone otherwise you would ideally be saying anyone who go a free airdrop is robbing people of their money which is just untrue.
If you can't deal with the crypto space probably best to get out now before you risk losing everything but again this isn't financial advice and as always DYOR.
This proposal is just an utter cash grab aiming to dillute the current owners of the token. Anybody with a sane mind who invested into UNI believing in Uniswap´s future will not vote yes for this proposal.
The way I see it is that you are asking for a disproportional amount of UNI for a little less than 1 % of overall Uniswap "users" who, in reality, are people who ditched Uniswap for cheaper options and will jump ship the second another opportunity arises.
This proposal is just an utter cash grab aiming to dillute the current owners of the token. Anybody with a sane mind who invested into UNI believing in Uniswap´s future will not vote yes for this proposal.
The way I see it is that you are asking for a disproportional amount of UNI for a little less than 1 % of overall Uniswap "users" who, in reality, are people who ditched Uniswap for cheaper options and will jump ship the second another opportunity arises.
As a holder of a significant amount of UNI, I am utterly disgusted by this proposal and I will voice my opinion with a big fat NO as a vote. I do not understand how 37 addresses delegated their votes to Dharma totalling 15M uni in the first place to support such a blatant attempt to dillute current UNI holders. It is a disgrace really and you should all be ashamed that you are trying to steal other people´s money.
Appalled that comments about this proposal being a "Cash Grab" are still being mentioned in here and being considered as constructive.
I attach the following screenshot from https://app.uniswap.org/#/vote
as mentioned on the Uniswap website
UNI tokens represent voting shares in Uniswap governance. You can vote on each proposal yourself or delegate your votes to a third party.
Appalled that comments about this proposal being a "Cash Grab" are still being mentioned in here and being considered as constructive.
I attach the following screenshot from https://app.uniswap.org/#/vote
as mentioned on the Uniswap website
UNI tokens represent voting shares in Uniswap governance. You can vote on each proposal yourself or delegate your votes to a third party.
This isn't a farming token and never was mentioned to ever be a farming token where people got that idea i'm not sure. The token was also not made as a money maker although it did have significant value when listed.
The token is a governance token representing a Voting Share in Uniswap Governance. Please can we stop discussions on how this is a cash grab and focus on the logic and merits of the Airdrop and logical queries such as @jumnhy question to the Dharma/relevant team(s).
The hijacking of this post needs to end here
My apologies Kolten if my words were against Governance rules I will try to be more mindful of what I post and the way it could be interpreted in the future. I did not mean any attack on anyone but I could see how it could possibly be misinterpreted looking back on it now
Thanks for your assistance in this :slight_smile:
I don't think his goal was to attack you, but either way the tone of this conversation isn't encouraged on this forum. We should move on and keep conversation civil and productive. Please refer to the rules in the future: https://gov.uniswap.org/t/uniswap-governance-forum-rules/5142
Otherwise we'll have to hide / remove posts and do whatever else is necessary to preserve the signal to noise ratio here.
Thanks, mate. I'm pretty agnostic about whether this drop is a good idea, myself, but if we're going to do it, we need to make sure it's done right.
Very honest of you to point out the mistake and not just choose to potentially leave it and exploit it seeing stuff like this will hopefully let people see that there are genuine good people behind these accounts and not just bots and contracts as some of the naysayers have falsely said without any proof. Hopefully this will help them to decide on/whether this drop would be a good idea or not
Hello all,
Just made an account to chime in here. Some may know me from reddit where I'm under the same tag.
This may be late in the process, but I'd like to voice a concern--I see that my address is listed both under Argent and through Kyber. This, of course, makes sense--I swapped tokens on Kyber using Uniswap liquidity with the front-end provided by Argent.
Hello all,
Just made an account to chime in here. Some may know me from reddit where I'm under the same tag.
This may be late in the process, but I'd like to voice a concern--I see that my address is listed both under Argent and through Kyber. This, of course, makes sense--I swapped tokens on Kyber using Uniswap liquidity with the front-end provided by Argent.
That said, my understanding was that these lists of accounts should be mutually exclusive; I believe Argent specified that their list was intended to be only unique, non-duplicative accounts, ie, accounts not already included on Kyber's list.
I'm not a developer. I don't have the technical wherewithal to audit the queries, simple though they may be, that generated these lists.
I may be a sample size of one, but my account is absolutely duplicated across these two eligibility lists.
@nadav_dharma, you have stated that your team was well suited to lead this proposal due to your technical expertise.
Can you give us some assurance, in light of the above, of how the expanded distribution will work? I'm not familiar with the exact mechanism, but I'd like to know that it won't be as simple as "every address on all these projects' lists gets 400 UNI" without any sort of error-checking, particularly with the 2-phase structure proposed for the distribution. My Argent wallet could/would get 400 UNI in phase 1--what's to stop it from getting 400 UNI in phase 2?
@itamar_argent.xyz would love to hear y'all's takes on this as well.
Again, I'm not intending to disparage the effort everyone has made on this proposal. However, if we want this to work, it's got to go off as flawlessly as the initial drop. Re-visiting a one-time drop and making it a (potentially) three-time drop invites enough criticisms around bad precedent--any hint of a potential issue needs to be clearly and transparently addressed.
Thank you for your help, and I look forward to your replies.
In case of Dharma’s list - a large share of addresses I see are contracts. Are you telling me that each contract would end up receiving an airdrop?
Better than having yes men... not a troll just trying to help there be clear, concise information but whatever if you really think Uniswap made this token to "Pay your fees" or whatever you want to think it to be you believe that.
you're entitled to vote no like anyone else is entitled to vote yes/no no one is taking that away from you but lets try and get the discussion back on track and focus on the question of the post at hand
@0age--Thank you for the clarification! I saw your post (would link, it's in this thread, account too new) of the merkle root for both phases and checked my address there--can confirm that it appears on phase 1 but not phase 2.
Much appreciated.
Dharma is asking Uniswap token holders to dilute themselves in order to benefit Dharma's users directly, Dharma is offering absolutely nothing in return, how is that not a cash grab?
It's a governance token not a cash grab let's use it accordingly wouldnt it be good to have users of these other platforms onboard to help grow Uniswap which has been my aim all along
In case of Dharma’s list - a large share of addresses I see are contracts. Are you telling me that each contract would end up receiving an airdrop?
As far as I know these are all smart contract wallets. Same as Argent accounts which are smart contract wallets.
And same applies to DeFi Saver "Smart Wallets" (also known as DSProxies) which are smart contract wallets. We provided more context in terms of this in the readme file of our submitted list, as well as here on the forums previously.
For all intents and purposes the Smart Wallet/DSProxy is the user's account when using DeFi Saver.
Did you pay for any uni outside of the airdrop? Did you pay for the uni airdropped to you?
Yes, I bought UNI, I wasn't entitled and I didn't cry until someone gifted it to me
Did you pay for any uni outside of the airdrop? Did you pay for the uni airdropped to you?
Yes, I bought UNI, I wasn't entitled and I didn't cry until someone gifted it to me
And you don't have any argument to defend this cash grab, this is why now you decided to attack me personally. Most likely you don't own any UNI and you want this proposal to pass in order to get some free money out of it.
Did you pay for any uni outside of the airdrop? Did you pay for the uni airdropped to you?
You haven't paid for anything Uniswap paid to create the token and that's about as far as that line goes
It's implicitly going to the company, for them it's like spending all of this money on marketing and brand reputation, without actually spending the money. It's like Uniswap paying for Kyber billboards
Their users don't "rightfully deserve some UNI", by your own words:
an airdrop Uniswap wasnt required to airdrop you tokens.
It's implicitly going to the company, for them it's like spending all of this money on marketing and brand reputation, without actually spending the money. It's like Uniswap paying for Kyber billboards
Their users don't "rightfully deserve some UNI", by your own words:
an airdrop Uniswap wasnt required to airdrop you tokens.
In any case Kyber users "deserve" Kyber tokens, 1inch users deserve "Moon" tokens and etc. Why do we have to pay for that, only because Kyber and 1inch had so few liquidity that they had to use ours? WTF
It's not going to the company its going to the companies users where is your evidence it stops at the company? Provide a link unless you have no evidence and are making something up to try and allude these companies as something they're not and steal from their users who rightfully deserve some UNI
Dharma's users are theirs, they are only using Uniswap because it's the better deal for them. If tomorrow Sushiswap has a better deal they will switch providers without a second tought. Uniswap has absolutely no way of retaining those users, because they belong to another company!
understand why they went to Dharma and 1inch etc in the first place and help to propose the necessary
Dharma's users are theirs, they are only using Uniswap because it's the better deal for them. If tomorrow Sushiswap has a better deal they will switch providers without a second tought. Uniswap has absolutely no way of retaining those users, because they belong to another company!
understand why they went to Dharma and 1inch etc in the first place and help to propose the necessary
How is giving free tokens going to help to "understand why they don't use Uniswap directly"?
Dharma's users use Dharma because Dharma subsidised gas fees by taking a cut of all trades, 1inch offered a dex aggregation service that sometimes went to Uniswap and sometimes not, they also took a cut.
Do we need to pay 40m USD to get that information?
Because behind the company is users and those users could end up being very valuable to helping to understand why they went to Dharma and 1inch etc in the first place and help to understand and propose the necessary changes to claw back some of them to Uniswap.
I'm looking at the bigger picture not sure what you're looking at in this
Where do you get it being a free ride do you personally know these people getting the airdrops… you’re very quick to judge others just be aware not everyone is a bad actor like you assume them to so clearly be
Where do you get it being a free ride do you personally know these people getting the airdrops… you’re very quick to judge others just be aware not everyone is a bad actor like you assume them to so clearly be
I am talking about the VC backed companies doing these requests, neglecting their users and asking another company to take an enormous loss for their product
Where do you get it being a free ride do you personally know these people getting the airdrops... you're very quick to judge others just be aware not everyone is a bad actor like you assume them to so clearly be.
Your account is 54 minutes old I could make a lot of assumptions from that
Why exactly should they be subject to a 30 year vesting period and not the original airdrop holders.
Because you are repeating over and over that this airdrop is only intended to allow Uniswap competitors users to be part of the governance (something that makes no sense). But the reality is that it's even worse, the only intention of this second airdrop is to free-ride Uniswap success and sell these tokens
How what have Uniswap used done that’s associated with any of these platforms? 1inch for example is a DEX aggregator and uses other exchanges to find the best price Uniswap is a DEX using it’s own smart contracts you would be entitled to nothing from these other companies as Uniswap uses nothing related to them compared to vice versa where they are using Uniswap, any notion of even thinking you were entitled to anything is wrong.
How what have Uniswap used done that’s associated with any of these platforms? 1inch for example is a DEX aggregator and uses other exchanges to find the best price Uniswap is a DEX using it’s own smart contracts you would be entitled to nothing from these other companies as Uniswap uses nothing related to them compared to vice versa where they are using Uniswap, any notion of even thinking you were entitled to anything is wrong.
So dex aggregators are entitled to Uniswap, but Uniswap it's not entitled to dex aggregator tokens? That's really convenient for dex aggregators.
Without Uniswap liquidity providers all of those companies wouldn't been able to provider their dex aggregator service, in any case, lps are more entitled to get something from them than the other way around.
Uniswap liquidity provider took a ton of risk by providing liquidity, dex and wallets took none (they even used contracts that automatically routed the trade elsewhere if the return wasn't good enough), how is that a "real" Uniswap user?
If Hellmann's does a giveaway to all their customers, are the guests of a restaurant also entitled to that giveaway just because the restaurant also used Hellmann's? Not really, they probably didn't even know that Hellmann's existed until the giveaway was announced
Why should we all work in your interest this is a community token for governnace not a money grab no one should benefit or everyone should benefit end of story IMO
If that's the case, what do you think of including a 30 year vesting period for all receivers of this second airdrop, they can vote but tokens cannot be sold.
How what have Uniswap used done that's associated with any of these platforms? 1inch for example is a DEX aggregator and uses other exchanges to find the best price Uniswap is a DEX using it's own smart contracts you would be entitled to nothing from these other companies as Uniswap uses nothing related to them compared to vice versa where they are using Uniswap, any notion of even thinking you were entitled to anything is wrong.
Its sad that I have now seen 2 posts that could be labelled propaganda by people who are clearly working in their own interests and it's very worrying to see. Why should we all work in your interest this is a community token for governnace not a money grab no one should benefit or everyone should benefit end of story IMO
This proposal makes zero sense, it's a literal takeover of the Uniswap governance by their competing projects, in order to use Uniswap reserves to reward their own users.
Every single one of those projects it's a well funded, for profit company. Most of them can be considered competitors, some even tried to persuade liquidity providers to move to their platforms instead of Uniswap. They are now pushing for a "one big DeFi family" just because this proposal allows them to gift millions of dollars to their users without spending a single dime.
This proposal makes zero sense, it's a literal takeover of the Uniswap governance by their competing projects, in order to use Uniswap reserves to reward their own users.
Every single one of those projects it's a well funded, for profit company. Most of them can be considered competitors, some even tried to persuade liquidity providers to move to their platforms instead of Uniswap. They are now pushing for a "one big DeFi family" just because this proposal allows them to gift millions of dollars to their users without spending a single dime.
The primary beneficiaries of this proposal are the Uniswap competitors, in two main ways:
a) Their users got rewarded for using their app, this increases loyalty to their brand, for most users Dharma/1Inch/Kyber will be the ones that gave them "free money". These users can expect these companies to keep doing the same.
b) Most of these companies are VC backed, so they have a very strong pressure to show ever growing numbers. Wouldn't be surprising to find hundreds or thousands of fake accounts owned by the team, these account would enable these companies to effectively highjack Uniswap governance.
In my opinion, for a proposal like this one to make sense, these companies have to offer something of similar value to UNI holders / Uniswap liquidity providers. Most of these companies have tokens, offering to airdrop / gift a similar amount of their tokens to Uniswap would demonstrate that they have good intentions, and this is not just a cash grab.
Based on that information now could you come up with a recommendation and to a change that could be implemented (*cough subsidise gas fees or even better introduce a L2 solution (which they're doing) to incentivise people to use Uniswap again)
See not that hard to use the forum correctly took me 30 seconds to come up with that idea think if people instead of making up nonsense used their brains to come up with ways to govern how great Uniswap could be
Where is proof that its VC's unless you have evidence going forward I would suggest you stop posting lies and nonsense let people vote on factual information not lies and conspiracy to protect your not investment
Your account is 54 minutes old I could make a lot of assumptions from that
What's more likely, fake accounts defending the value of UNI or fake accounts trying to convince UNI holders to dilute themselves?
Thanks for linking. I think nitpicking is something I hope UNI voters are doing because this is potentially a $20mm decision.
I don't see why they are in phase 1. Clearly they included it with DEX aggregation services to offer the user the best rate from a bunch of different services. That's clear from the medium article picture which they supplied as evidence to qualify for the Dharma proposal. I'm already a big No for DEX aggregator users getting airdrops. @nadav_dharma please scrutinise the list more closely before you submit this proposal. MEW does not belong in Phase 1.
If that’s the case, what do you think of including a 30 year vesting period for all receivers of this second airdrop, they can vote but tokens cannot be sold.
These protocol integrations have advertised that they use Uniswap
Can you tell me where MEW advertises it considering they are making up the biggest address cohort claim? 
I haven't used nearly all of these apps before, but roughly for a start, can someone help me fill out this:
The user was aware they were using Uniswap using the following app:
I haven't used nearly all of these apps before, but roughly for a start, can someone help me fill out this:
The user was aware they were using Uniswap using the following app:
|Argent |3418 (27.13%)| -> No (judging from a comment from an Argent user above) |DeFi Saver |890 (7.06%)| -> ? |Dharma |2833 (22.48%)| -> Yes (judging from an online tutorial) |eidoo |301 (2.39%)| -> No (Read it happened in the backend, user unaware) |FURUCOMBO |57 (0.45%)| -> ? |MEW |4278 (33.95%)| -> No |Nuo |740 (5.87%)| -> ? |Opyn |79 (0.63%)| -? |rebalance |4 (0.03%)| -?
I had a quick look at MEW since it has the most addresses and why are they not in the DEX aggregation section? I found a comment from one of their representatives from a month ago say this:
"At the moment, there is no way to connect directly to Uniswap or Balancer with MEW (although it IS included in our DEX aggregator for swaps). "
source: https://www.reddit.com/r/MyEtherWallet/comments/ibay5j/connect_to_uniswap_or_balencer_with_mew/
Every single company behind this request it's a for-profit company with some VC funding, some even have their own token! How that's fair that UNI token holders have to dilute themselves while they don't spend a single dime on this?
In case of Dharma’s list - a large share of addresses I see are contracts. Are you telling me that each contract would end up receiving an airdrop?
As far as I know these are all smart contract wallets. Same as Argent accounts which are smart contract wallets.
And same applies to DeFi Saver "Smart Wallets" (also known as DSProxies) which are smart contract wallets. We provided more context in terms of this in the readme file of our submitted list, as well as here on the forums previously.
For all intents and purposes the Smart Wallet/DSProxy is the user's account when using DeFi Saver.
Did you pay for any uni outside of the airdrop? Did you pay for the uni airdropped to you?
Yes, I bought UNI, I wasn't entitled and I didn't cry until someone gifted it to me
Did you pay for any uni outside of the airdrop? Did you pay for the uni airdropped to you?
Yes, I bought UNI, I wasn't entitled and I didn't cry until someone gifted it to me
And you don't have any argument to defend this cash grab, this is why now you decided to attack me personally. Most likely you don't own any UNI and you want this proposal to pass in order to get some free money out of it.
Did you pay for any uni outside of the airdrop? Did you pay for the uni airdropped to you?
You haven't paid for anything Uniswap paid to create the token and that's about as far as that line goes
It's implicitly going to the company, for them it's like spending all of this money on marketing and brand reputation, without actually spending the money. It's like Uniswap paying for Kyber billboards
Their users don't "rightfully deserve some UNI", by your own words:
an airdrop Uniswap wasnt required to airdrop you tokens.
It's implicitly going to the company, for them it's like spending all of this money on marketing and brand reputation, without actually spending the money. It's like Uniswap paying for Kyber billboards
Their users don't "rightfully deserve some UNI", by your own words:
an airdrop Uniswap wasnt required to airdrop you tokens.
In any case Kyber users "deserve" Kyber tokens, 1inch users deserve "Moon" tokens and etc. Why do we have to pay for that, only because Kyber and 1inch had so few liquidity that they had to use ours? WTF
It's not going to the company its going to the companies users where is your evidence it stops at the company? Provide a link unless you have no evidence and are making something up to try and allude these companies as something they're not and steal from their users who rightfully deserve some UNI
Dharma's users are theirs, they are only using Uniswap because it's the better deal for them. If tomorrow Sushiswap has a better deal they will switch providers without a second tought. Uniswap has absolutely no way of retaining those users, because they belong to another company!
understand why they went to Dharma and 1inch etc in the first place and help to propose the necessary
Dharma's users are theirs, they are only using Uniswap because it's the better deal for them. If tomorrow Sushiswap has a better deal they will switch providers without a second tought. Uniswap has absolutely no way of retaining those users, because they belong to another company!
understand why they went to Dharma and 1inch etc in the first place and help to propose the necessary
How is giving free tokens going to help to "understand why they don't use Uniswap directly"?
Dharma's users use Dharma because Dharma subsidised gas fees by taking a cut of all trades, 1inch offered a dex aggregation service that sometimes went to Uniswap and sometimes not, they also took a cut.
Do we need to pay 40m USD to get that information?
Because behind the company is users and those users could end up being very valuable to helping to understand why they went to Dharma and 1inch etc in the first place and help to understand and propose the necessary changes to claw back some of them to Uniswap.
I'm looking at the bigger picture not sure what you're looking at in this
Where do you get it being a free ride do you personally know these people getting the airdrops… you’re very quick to judge others just be aware not everyone is a bad actor like you assume them to so clearly be
Where do you get it being a free ride do you personally know these people getting the airdrops… you’re very quick to judge others just be aware not everyone is a bad actor like you assume them to so clearly be
I am talking about the VC backed companies doing these requests, neglecting their users and asking another company to take an enormous loss for their product
Where do you get it being a free ride do you personally know these people getting the airdrops... you're very quick to judge others just be aware not everyone is a bad actor like you assume them to so clearly be.
Your account is 54 minutes old I could make a lot of assumptions from that
Why exactly should they be subject to a 30 year vesting period and not the original airdrop holders.
Because you are repeating over and over that this airdrop is only intended to allow Uniswap competitors users to be part of the governance (something that makes no sense). But the reality is that it's even worse, the only intention of this second airdrop is to free-ride Uniswap success and sell these tokens
How what have Uniswap used done that’s associated with any of these platforms? 1inch for example is a DEX aggregator and uses other exchanges to find the best price Uniswap is a DEX using it’s own smart contracts you would be entitled to nothing from these other companies as Uniswap uses nothing related to them compared to vice versa where they are using Uniswap, any notion of even thinking you were entitled to anything is wrong.
How what have Uniswap used done that’s associated with any of these platforms? 1inch for example is a DEX aggregator and uses other exchanges to find the best price Uniswap is a DEX using it’s own smart contracts you would be entitled to nothing from these other companies as Uniswap uses nothing related to them compared to vice versa where they are using Uniswap, any notion of even thinking you were entitled to anything is wrong.
So dex aggregators are entitled to Uniswap, but Uniswap it's not entitled to dex aggregator tokens? That's really convenient for dex aggregators.
Without Uniswap liquidity providers all of those companies wouldn't been able to provider their dex aggregator service, in any case, lps are more entitled to get something from them than the other way around.
Uniswap liquidity provider took a ton of risk by providing liquidity, dex and wallets took none (they even used contracts that automatically routed the trade elsewhere if the return wasn't good enough), how is that a "real" Uniswap user?
If Hellmann's does a giveaway to all their customers, are the guests of a restaurant also entitled to that giveaway just because the restaurant also used Hellmann's? Not really, they probably didn't even know that Hellmann's existed until the giveaway was announced
Why should we all work in your interest this is a community token for governnace not a money grab no one should benefit or everyone should benefit end of story IMO
If that's the case, what do you think of including a 30 year vesting period for all receivers of this second airdrop, they can vote but tokens cannot be sold.
How what have Uniswap used done that's associated with any of these platforms? 1inch for example is a DEX aggregator and uses other exchanges to find the best price Uniswap is a DEX using it's own smart contracts you would be entitled to nothing from these other companies as Uniswap uses nothing related to them compared to vice versa where they are using Uniswap, any notion of even thinking you were entitled to anything is wrong.
Its sad that I have now seen 2 posts that could be labelled propaganda by people who are clearly working in their own interests and it's very worrying to see. Why should we all work in your interest this is a community token for governnace not a money grab no one should benefit or everyone should benefit end of story IMO
This proposal makes zero sense, it's a literal takeover of the Uniswap governance by their competing projects, in order to use Uniswap reserves to reward their own users.
Every single one of those projects it's a well funded, for profit company. Most of them can be considered competitors, some even tried to persuade liquidity providers to move to their platforms instead of Uniswap. They are now pushing for a "one big DeFi family" just because this proposal allows them to gift millions of dollars to their users without spending a single dime.
This proposal makes zero sense, it's a literal takeover of the Uniswap governance by their competing projects, in order to use Uniswap reserves to reward their own users.
Every single one of those projects it's a well funded, for profit company. Most of them can be considered competitors, some even tried to persuade liquidity providers to move to their platforms instead of Uniswap. They are now pushing for a "one big DeFi family" just because this proposal allows them to gift millions of dollars to their users without spending a single dime.
The primary beneficiaries of this proposal are the Uniswap competitors, in two main ways:
a) Their users got rewarded for using their app, this increases loyalty to their brand, for most users Dharma/1Inch/Kyber will be the ones that gave them "free money". These users can expect these companies to keep doing the same.
b) Most of these companies are VC backed, so they have a very strong pressure to show ever growing numbers. Wouldn't be surprising to find hundreds or thousands of fake accounts owned by the team, these account would enable these companies to effectively highjack Uniswap governance.
In my opinion, for a proposal like this one to make sense, these companies have to offer something of similar value to UNI holders / Uniswap liquidity providers. Most of these companies have tokens, offering to airdrop / gift a similar amount of their tokens to Uniswap would demonstrate that they have good intentions, and this is not just a cash grab.
Based on that information now could you come up with a recommendation and to a change that could be implemented (*cough subsidise gas fees or even better introduce a L2 solution (which they're doing) to incentivise people to use Uniswap again)
See not that hard to use the forum correctly took me 30 seconds to come up with that idea think if people instead of making up nonsense used their brains to come up with ways to govern how great Uniswap could be
Where is proof that its VC's unless you have evidence going forward I would suggest you stop posting lies and nonsense let people vote on factual information not lies and conspiracy to protect your not investment
Your account is 54 minutes old I could make a lot of assumptions from that
What's more likely, fake accounts defending the value of UNI or fake accounts trying to convince UNI holders to dilute themselves?
Thanks for linking. I think nitpicking is something I hope UNI voters are doing because this is potentially a $20mm decision.
I don't see why they are in phase 1. Clearly they included it with DEX aggregation services to offer the user the best rate from a bunch of different services. That's clear from the medium article picture which they supplied as evidence to qualify for the Dharma proposal. I'm already a big No for DEX aggregator users getting airdrops. @nadav_dharma please scrutinise the list more closely before you submit this proposal. MEW does not belong in Phase 1.
If that’s the case, what do you think of including a 30 year vesting period for all receivers of this second airdrop, they can vote but tokens cannot be sold.
These protocol integrations have advertised that they use Uniswap
Can you tell me where MEW advertises it considering they are making up the biggest address cohort claim?
I haven't used nearly all of these apps before, but roughly for a start, can someone help me fill out this:
The user was aware they were using Uniswap using the following app:
I haven't used nearly all of these apps before, but roughly for a start, can someone help me fill out this:
The user was aware they were using Uniswap using the following app:
|Argent |3418 (27.13%)| -> No (judging from a comment from an Argent user above) |DeFi Saver |890 (7.06%)| -> ? |Dharma |2833 (22.48%)| -> Yes (judging from an online tutorial) |eidoo |301 (2.39%)| -> No (Read it happened in the backend, user unaware) |FURUCOMBO |57 (0.45%)| -> ? |MEW |4278 (33.95%)| -> No |Nuo |740 (5.87%)| -> ? |Opyn |79 (0.63%)| -? |rebalance |4 (0.03%)| -?
I had a quick look at MEW since it has the most addresses and why are they not in the DEX aggregation section? I found a comment from one of their representatives from a month ago say this:
"At the moment, there is no way to connect directly to Uniswap or Balancer with MEW (although it IS included in our DEX aggregator for swaps). "
source: https://www.reddit.com/r/MyEtherWallet/comments/ibay5j/connect_to_uniswap_or_balencer_with_mew/
Every single company behind this request it's a for-profit company with some VC funding, some even have their own token! How that's fair that UNI token holders have to dilute themselves while they don't spend a single dime on this?
If that’s the case, what do you think of including a 30 year vesting period for all receivers of this second airdrop, they can vote but tokens cannot be sold.
Why exactly should they be subject to a 30 year vesting period and not the original airdrop holders. If you're gonna propose something like that surely it should apply to everyone who recieved tokens other than those buying them.
Just remember you were privileged to recieve an airdrop Uniswap wasnt required to airdrop you tokens.
It's a governance token over everything in my opinion so if the token goes to $0.03 all the better it would probably be great as it would stop all the other from continuing to come onto this forum to talk about Airdrops and Price.
Again the purpose is not whether someone benefited from it, it allows the people who have used Uniswap through an agregator to get tokens to have a voice so they can help mould Uniswap into a better platform god maybe they could even influence some change in the areas that drove them to a DEX aggregator so they no longer need to use the DEX aggregator and feel like they can go back to Uniswap directly again.
It's a governance token over everything in my opinion so if the token goes to $0.03 all the better it would probably be great as it would stop all the other from continuing to come onto this forum to talk about Airdrops and Price.
Again the purpose is not whether someone benefited from it, it allows the people who have used Uniswap through an agregator to get tokens to have a voice so they can help mould Uniswap into a better platform god maybe they could even influence some change in the areas that drove them to a DEX aggregator so they no longer need to use the DEX aggregator and feel like they can go back to Uniswap directly again.
I would vote yes under the basis that this airdrop is fair these people would have all been inside the original snapshot rules I assume (not sure where you're getting the people abusing the system part of your comment, whether it is an assumption or fact) as they were users of Uniswap as much as anyone else who got that airdrop directly from Uniswap.
I'm not sure if you are being influenced by outside factors such as maybe you purchased tokens at their high and now you're seeing the prospect of never getting that money back (and if that is the case I'm so sorry) but let's keep it rational nowhere has Dharma said they are rewarding users after the original 1st cut off more than they are rearding everyone who wasny in the original snapshot but used Uniswap through one of the platforms listed
They have labelled themselves as a DEX aggregator. That is coming straight from them.
"At the moment, there is no way to connect directly to Uniswap or Balancer with MEW (although it IS included in our DEX aggregator for swaps). "
@Dewp my concern stated above is that bots/contracts actually take up a large part of the pools, versus actual users like "you".
One of the reasons why I asked for your wallet - is your story somewhat doesn't make sense. Uniswap has the same easy UI just like Kyber does, and its super easy to convert from USD-C to BAND.
@Dewp my concern stated above is that bots/contracts actually take up a large part of the pools, versus actual users like "you".
One of the reasons why I asked for your wallet - is your story somewhat doesn't make sense. Uniswap has the same easy UI just like Kyber does, and its super easy to convert from USD-C to BAND.
Anyway, I think I've stated my opinion enough, no need to get off-topic - I'd love to hear other people further discuss this thread.
AFAIK this is the list of ALL addresses, unfiltered.
I wanted to see the filtered and "final" version of the addresses.
One of my fears, is that there's little "control" how the addresses are being suggested.
I would appreciate if @nadav_dharma would share the list of all wallet addresses that would receive the airdrop, if this policy ends up being voted as a YES.
I can understand your view of a risk of false sense persuading people in the wrong direction but I also think openness is as important and voting upon facts not accounts something I would hope evryone here voting would do.
Honestly, I’d love to learn how the “average” profile of kyber user looks like. If he’s done 100 of trades on Kyber to Uniswap, I may reconsider my opinion on the airdrop, because now I think most addresses have only made a few trades and are mostly trying to exploit the situation (i.e. one person owning 5 wallets, etc.)
I can understand your view of a risk of false sense persuading people in the wrong direction but I also think openness is as important and voting upon facts not accounts something I would hope evryone here voting would do.
Honestly, I’d love to learn how the “average” profile of kyber user looks like. If he’s done 100 of trades on Kyber to Uniswap, I may reconsider my opinion on the airdrop, because now I think most addresses have only made a few trades and are mostly trying to exploit the situation (i.e. one person owning 5 wallets, etc.)
To address this part of your comment no one could willingly and knowingly abuse the system by creating more wallets so long as it stays withing the original terms i.e. only reward users who used a DEX aggregator or exchange listed on the list of exchanges before the cut off of 1st september (Something I feel very important to maintain to keep a level field unless regular people after that date were also going to get another airdrop (a can of worms I think shouldn't be opened right now))
In saying that many people even on the regular airdrop have come out and said they had multiple addresses they claimed on already so if people on the regular airdrop who happened to have multiple addresses could claim multiple claims why should people who used Dharma before the 1st September who also happen to have multiple wallets be treated any differently?
In terms of the list of addresses being included I think @nadav_dharma collected them in another post and included it somewhere before but again not sure if it was in this post or another but I'm sure they should be able to produce a list again of all wallets as they will need it anyway to know who to allow to claim if this is passed.
The risk is that this "false sense" with fake accounts can persuade many people in the wrong direction - that's the goal behind people acting this way.
I respect everyone's opinion, and since I had doubts, I asked if one can prove their claims. Honestly, I'd love to learn how the "average" profile of kyber user looks like. If he's done 100 of trades on Kyber to Uniswap, I may reconsider my opinion on the airdrop, because now I think most addresses have only made a few trades and are mostly trying to exploit the situation (i.e. one person owning 5 wallets, etc.)
The risk is that this "false sense" with fake accounts can persuade many people in the wrong direction - that's the goal behind people acting this way.
I respect everyone's opinion, and since I had doubts, I asked if one can prove their claims. Honestly, I'd love to learn how the "average" profile of kyber user looks like. If he's done 100 of trades on Kyber to Uniswap, I may reconsider my opinion on the airdrop, because now I think most addresses have only made a few trades and are mostly trying to exploit the situation (i.e. one person owning 5 wallets, etc.)
P.S. Is it possible to see the list of addresses that are being included in this airdrop? I'd love to analyze and compile a list of an average wallet.
Can someone explain the developer punishment side of this to me? I thought the purpose of the proposal was to reward users of apps the devs created that in some way used Uniswap as part of their product offering, not the devs themselves?
You say there are 12,600 accounts in phase one.
If we distribute 400 UNI Tokens to each, that would be over 5 million UNI tokens (worth over $17 mln at the time of writing this post).
You keep playing this "precedence for developer support" card, but I don't think 17 million reward is adequate.
You say there are 12,600 accounts in phase one.
If we distribute 400 UNI Tokens to each, that would be over 5 million UNI tokens (worth over $17 mln at the time of writing this post).
You keep playing this "precedence for developer support" card, but I don't think 17 million reward is adequate.
As I mentioned before, nobody here is saying that developers shouldn't be supported and rewarded. We don't know how many of those wallets belong to developers (because maybe they used hundreds for testing purposes, etc..?).
If you want developer rewards - it would be more fair if you created a separate proposal asking for rewards, for building tools to the ecosystem.
17 million dollar selling pressure is very unhealthy to the token price. I will vote no.
I am not a Dharma user but as a user of Argent and with multiple 1inch accounts this proposal would benefit me. But in my opinion it is not in the spirit of the original airdrop.
Why airdrop to users that weren't aware they were using Uniswap? To quote from the UNI launch post:
I am not a Dharma user but as a user of Argent and with multiple 1inch accounts this proposal would benefit me. But in my opinion it is not in the spirit of the original airdrop.
Why airdrop to users that weren't aware they were using Uniswap? To quote from the UNI launch post:
Uniswap owes its success to the thousands of community members that have joined its journey over the past two years. These early community members will naturally serve as responsible stewards of Uniswap.
Trading through a proxy contract was not joining the Uniswap journey. It was using the Uniswap protocol without engaging with it. To proxy users, Uniswap itself was an inconvenience or a tool to partially route a larger trade.
These users were not engaged with Uniswap in the same way as Uniswap app users.
I would vote NO on this proposal, but would be interested for modifications and may be more willing to vote YES if the amount airdropped was reduced to reflect the alignment differences between app users and proxy users.
To: TragedyStruck
In case of Dharma's list - a large share of addresses I see are contracts. Are you telling me that each contract would end up receiving an airdrop?
Kyber's list has 24k (!) addresses. I don't expect all of them to receive the airdrop, so I wanted to see the final list of addresses.
To: Dewp
Hi buddy,
Its interesting how you registered just before writing this post.
We would love to see your particular case with more depth - could you be so kind and share your ETH wallet address so that the rest of the community can witness your particular case with more detail?
Hi buddy,
Its interesting how you registered just before writing this post.
We would love to see your particular case with more depth - could you be so kind and share your ETH wallet address so that the rest of the community can witness your particular case with more detail?
Otherwise, words coming from a freshly registered account, particularly supporting a much-disapproved suggestion look a little bit odd :slight_smile:
Doesnt matter anyway based on comments made by Marco a moderator who made a post on instructions on how to claim the airdrop there are no more planned airdrops and most importantly that this forum moves on to the correct thing of talking about governance discussions going forward rather than focusing on the past airdrop.
Very well put. Pretty much think the same. Fully agree about the point of the user knowing being an important distinction. For Dharma my understanding was that the user did know they were directly using Uniswap through their interface, but have also never used it myself. I hope that Dharma do not make a proposal with a load of apps bunched in. If I disagree with even one of the apps claiming the airdrop I will vote no on the entire proposal.
My hypothesis might be wrong but I find it hard to believe it is: If someone used a DEX aggregator they were highly likely to also have used Uniswap independently. All of the DEX aggregators I did use and I probably would receive some additional UNI if this proposal passed from them. However, anyone that is using a DEX aggregator and didn't independently use Uniswap; I have to think we are talking about a niche segment of users there. I'm not sure the intention of the distribution was to reward users that used multiples addresses. Sorry if it is resolved already somewhere in the thread, but did anyone from the Uniswap team comment on this? It may well be that DEX aggregators were intentionally left out. I would want to have a look through the addresses to investigate how much recycling of addresses was happening and how many links to trading with Uniswap independently there were with addresses.
Every point of view should be considered in this particular matter and everyone should be able to voice their opinion as this could be the one and only case where an airdrop of significance could happen.
The question at hand is a vital one which is should people who used Uniswap and its contracts through other means such as a DEX aggregator get UNI to which I would vote yes so long as they are within the original terms i.e. used the platform before the cut off of Septmeber 1st @ 12 and that their address was not also originally on the original list and they have not already claimed through app.uniswap.org.
Every point of view should be considered in this particular matter and everyone should be able to voice their opinion as this could be the one and only case where an airdrop of significance could happen.
The question at hand is a vital one which is should people who used Uniswap and its contracts through other means such as a DEX aggregator get UNI to which I would vote yes so long as they are within the original terms i.e. used the platform before the cut off of Septmeber 1st @ 12 and that their address was not also originally on the original list and they have not already claimed through app.uniswap.org.
I think using the age of an account to draw doubt upon someone's character should not be used a way to discriminate against someone. Yes it's very evident that some people are abusing the system and creating multiple accounts to bring a false sense to this forum but really it doesnt matter as what matters are the people who hold UNI who are the ones voting on it and really getting the final say on whether this goes through or not not the people making multiple accounts on the forum unless they are holding UNI in which cases they are as entitled to voice their opinion and vote as anyone else in this forum.
Let's not descend this forum into some sort of dictatorship let's try to maintain open conversation and talk about the topic at hand so that people voting can have a clear idea on a whole view of the situation to vote on :slight_smile:
To close my view is
Future Airdrops in general = No Dharma Airdrop so long as they're within the terms = Yes
so I think there would be no harm to the community and no considerable price impact if those tokens are considered burned and new tokens issued to the contract owners. Why is that such a big issue?
Oh, I see your point now.
The thing is that my issue in particular is not the proxy one. On my case I simply locked the Liquidity tokens on a vault so that the team can't pull the rug- that's it. We are talking about a minimal quantity of tokens that are locked there considering the airdrop.
Oh, I see your point now.
The thing is that my issue in particular is not the proxy one. On my case I simply locked the Liquidity tokens on a vault so that the team can't pull the rug- that's it. We are talking about a minimal quantity of tokens that are locked there considering the airdrop.
https://etherscan.io/address/0x376b512ccd0704ccc4153870918c6dca2c0ee1c5 these tokens can never be used :slight_smile:
You could also be in the segment of users that used it beyond sep 1st for which there is another thread wanting another airdrop for the time between then an launch. 90% of the addresses are associated with Kyber. I don't think your story is really representative of the question being posed here. I think the community needs to consider the Kyber end user solely; just the way the proposal is layed out. Everything else is just along for the ride with what the community thinks happened with Kyber end users. Wouldn't really make sense in my view to assess the smaller aggregators and use that to make a decision when Kyber is 9/10th of the substance.
I can be more sympathetic towards the application integrations where I think there would be less overlap, but even then, not sure. Think the OP is making a big assumption that these cohorts were left out unintentionally. Think it's a very valid point that if you didn't use Uniswap directly you were primarily using some other service. Like lets say 1inch releases a governance token distribution to it's users, are Uniswap users conversely going to get rewarded for being used by 1inch? I think it's reasonable that the lines had to be drawn somewhere.
If that’s the case, what do you think of including a 30 year vesting period for all receivers of this second airdrop, they can vote but tokens cannot be sold.
Why exactly should they be subject to a 30 year vesting period and not the original airdrop holders. If you're gonna propose something like that surely it should apply to everyone who recieved tokens other than those buying them.
Just remember you were privileged to recieve an airdrop Uniswap wasnt required to airdrop you tokens.
It's a governance token over everything in my opinion so if the token goes to $0.03 all the better it would probably be great as it would stop all the other from continuing to come onto this forum to talk about Airdrops and Price.
Again the purpose is not whether someone benefited from it, it allows the people who have used Uniswap through an agregator to get tokens to have a voice so they can help mould Uniswap into a better platform god maybe they could even influence some change in the areas that drove them to a DEX aggregator so they no longer need to use the DEX aggregator and feel like they can go back to Uniswap directly again.
It's a governance token over everything in my opinion so if the token goes to $0.03 all the better it would probably be great as it would stop all the other from continuing to come onto this forum to talk about Airdrops and Price.
Again the purpose is not whether someone benefited from it, it allows the people who have used Uniswap through an agregator to get tokens to have a voice so they can help mould Uniswap into a better platform god maybe they could even influence some change in the areas that drove them to a DEX aggregator so they no longer need to use the DEX aggregator and feel like they can go back to Uniswap directly again.
I would vote yes under the basis that this airdrop is fair these people would have all been inside the original snapshot rules I assume (not sure where you're getting the people abusing the system part of your comment, whether it is an assumption or fact) as they were users of Uniswap as much as anyone else who got that airdrop directly from Uniswap.
I'm not sure if you are being influenced by outside factors such as maybe you purchased tokens at their high and now you're seeing the prospect of never getting that money back (and if that is the case I'm so sorry) but let's keep it rational nowhere has Dharma said they are rewarding users after the original 1st cut off more than they are rearding everyone who wasny in the original snapshot but used Uniswap through one of the platforms listed
They have labelled themselves as a DEX aggregator. That is coming straight from them.
"At the moment, there is no way to connect directly to Uniswap or Balancer with MEW (although it IS included in our DEX aggregator for swaps). "
@Dewp my concern stated above is that bots/contracts actually take up a large part of the pools, versus actual users like "you".
One of the reasons why I asked for your wallet - is your story somewhat doesn't make sense. Uniswap has the same easy UI just like Kyber does, and its super easy to convert from USD-C to BAND.
@Dewp my concern stated above is that bots/contracts actually take up a large part of the pools, versus actual users like "you".
One of the reasons why I asked for your wallet - is your story somewhat doesn't make sense. Uniswap has the same easy UI just like Kyber does, and its super easy to convert from USD-C to BAND.
Anyway, I think I've stated my opinion enough, no need to get off-topic - I'd love to hear other people further discuss this thread.
AFAIK this is the list of ALL addresses, unfiltered.
I wanted to see the filtered and "final" version of the addresses.
One of my fears, is that there's little "control" how the addresses are being suggested.
I would appreciate if @nadav_dharma would share the list of all wallet addresses that would receive the airdrop, if this policy ends up being voted as a YES.
I can understand your view of a risk of false sense persuading people in the wrong direction but I also think openness is as important and voting upon facts not accounts something I would hope evryone here voting would do.
Honestly, I’d love to learn how the “average” profile of kyber user looks like. If he’s done 100 of trades on Kyber to Uniswap, I may reconsider my opinion on the airdrop, because now I think most addresses have only made a few trades and are mostly trying to exploit the situation (i.e. one person owning 5 wallets, etc.)
I can understand your view of a risk of false sense persuading people in the wrong direction but I also think openness is as important and voting upon facts not accounts something I would hope evryone here voting would do.
Honestly, I’d love to learn how the “average” profile of kyber user looks like. If he’s done 100 of trades on Kyber to Uniswap, I may reconsider my opinion on the airdrop, because now I think most addresses have only made a few trades and are mostly trying to exploit the situation (i.e. one person owning 5 wallets, etc.)
To address this part of your comment no one could willingly and knowingly abuse the system by creating more wallets so long as it stays withing the original terms i.e. only reward users who used a DEX aggregator or exchange listed on the list of exchanges before the cut off of 1st september (Something I feel very important to maintain to keep a level field unless regular people after that date were also going to get another airdrop (a can of worms I think shouldn't be opened right now))
In saying that many people even on the regular airdrop have come out and said they had multiple addresses they claimed on already so if people on the regular airdrop who happened to have multiple addresses could claim multiple claims why should people who used Dharma before the 1st September who also happen to have multiple wallets be treated any differently?
In terms of the list of addresses being included I think @nadav_dharma collected them in another post and included it somewhere before but again not sure if it was in this post or another but I'm sure they should be able to produce a list again of all wallets as they will need it anyway to know who to allow to claim if this is passed.
The risk is that this "false sense" with fake accounts can persuade many people in the wrong direction - that's the goal behind people acting this way.
I respect everyone's opinion, and since I had doubts, I asked if one can prove their claims. Honestly, I'd love to learn how the "average" profile of kyber user looks like. If he's done 100 of trades on Kyber to Uniswap, I may reconsider my opinion on the airdrop, because now I think most addresses have only made a few trades and are mostly trying to exploit the situation (i.e. one person owning 5 wallets, etc.)
The risk is that this "false sense" with fake accounts can persuade many people in the wrong direction - that's the goal behind people acting this way.
I respect everyone's opinion, and since I had doubts, I asked if one can prove their claims. Honestly, I'd love to learn how the "average" profile of kyber user looks like. If he's done 100 of trades on Kyber to Uniswap, I may reconsider my opinion on the airdrop, because now I think most addresses have only made a few trades and are mostly trying to exploit the situation (i.e. one person owning 5 wallets, etc.)
P.S. Is it possible to see the list of addresses that are being included in this airdrop? I'd love to analyze and compile a list of an average wallet.
Can someone explain the developer punishment side of this to me? I thought the purpose of the proposal was to reward users of apps the devs created that in some way used Uniswap as part of their product offering, not the devs themselves?
You say there are 12,600 accounts in phase one.
If we distribute 400 UNI Tokens to each, that would be over 5 million UNI tokens (worth over $17 mln at the time of writing this post).
You keep playing this "precedence for developer support" card, but I don't think 17 million reward is adequate.
You say there are 12,600 accounts in phase one.
If we distribute 400 UNI Tokens to each, that would be over 5 million UNI tokens (worth over $17 mln at the time of writing this post).
You keep playing this "precedence for developer support" card, but I don't think 17 million reward is adequate.
As I mentioned before, nobody here is saying that developers shouldn't be supported and rewarded. We don't know how many of those wallets belong to developers (because maybe they used hundreds for testing purposes, etc..?).
If you want developer rewards - it would be more fair if you created a separate proposal asking for rewards, for building tools to the ecosystem.
17 million dollar selling pressure is very unhealthy to the token price. I will vote no.
I am not a Dharma user but as a user of Argent and with multiple 1inch accounts this proposal would benefit me. But in my opinion it is not in the spirit of the original airdrop.
Why airdrop to users that weren't aware they were using Uniswap? To quote from the UNI launch post:
I am not a Dharma user but as a user of Argent and with multiple 1inch accounts this proposal would benefit me. But in my opinion it is not in the spirit of the original airdrop.
Why airdrop to users that weren't aware they were using Uniswap? To quote from the UNI launch post:
Uniswap owes its success to the thousands of community members that have joined its journey over the past two years. These early community members will naturally serve as responsible stewards of Uniswap.
Trading through a proxy contract was not joining the Uniswap journey. It was using the Uniswap protocol without engaging with it. To proxy users, Uniswap itself was an inconvenience or a tool to partially route a larger trade.
These users were not engaged with Uniswap in the same way as Uniswap app users.
I would vote NO on this proposal, but would be interested for modifications and may be more willing to vote YES if the amount airdropped was reduced to reflect the alignment differences between app users and proxy users.
To: TragedyStruck
In case of Dharma's list - a large share of addresses I see are contracts. Are you telling me that each contract would end up receiving an airdrop?
Kyber's list has 24k (!) addresses. I don't expect all of them to receive the airdrop, so I wanted to see the final list of addresses.
To: Dewp
Hi buddy,
Its interesting how you registered just before writing this post.
We would love to see your particular case with more depth - could you be so kind and share your ETH wallet address so that the rest of the community can witness your particular case with more detail?
Hi buddy,
Its interesting how you registered just before writing this post.
We would love to see your particular case with more depth - could you be so kind and share your ETH wallet address so that the rest of the community can witness your particular case with more detail?
Otherwise, words coming from a freshly registered account, particularly supporting a much-disapproved suggestion look a little bit odd :slight_smile:
Doesnt matter anyway based on comments made by Marco a moderator who made a post on instructions on how to claim the airdrop there are no more planned airdrops and most importantly that this forum moves on to the correct thing of talking about governance discussions going forward rather than focusing on the past airdrop.
Very well put. Pretty much think the same. Fully agree about the point of the user knowing being an important distinction. For Dharma my understanding was that the user did know they were directly using Uniswap through their interface, but have also never used it myself. I hope that Dharma do not make a proposal with a load of apps bunched in. If I disagree with even one of the apps claiming the airdrop I will vote no on the entire proposal.
My hypothesis might be wrong but I find it hard to believe it is: If someone used a DEX aggregator they were highly likely to also have used Uniswap independently. All of the DEX aggregators I did use and I probably would receive some additional UNI if this proposal passed from them. However, anyone that is using a DEX aggregator and didn't independently use Uniswap; I have to think we are talking about a niche segment of users there. I'm not sure the intention of the distribution was to reward users that used multiples addresses. Sorry if it is resolved already somewhere in the thread, but did anyone from the Uniswap team comment on this? It may well be that DEX aggregators were intentionally left out. I would want to have a look through the addresses to investigate how much recycling of addresses was happening and how many links to trading with Uniswap independently there were with addresses.
Every point of view should be considered in this particular matter and everyone should be able to voice their opinion as this could be the one and only case where an airdrop of significance could happen.
The question at hand is a vital one which is should people who used Uniswap and its contracts through other means such as a DEX aggregator get UNI to which I would vote yes so long as they are within the original terms i.e. used the platform before the cut off of Septmeber 1st @ 12 and that their address was not also originally on the original list and they have not already claimed through app.uniswap.org.
Every point of view should be considered in this particular matter and everyone should be able to voice their opinion as this could be the one and only case where an airdrop of significance could happen.
The question at hand is a vital one which is should people who used Uniswap and its contracts through other means such as a DEX aggregator get UNI to which I would vote yes so long as they are within the original terms i.e. used the platform before the cut off of Septmeber 1st @ 12 and that their address was not also originally on the original list and they have not already claimed through app.uniswap.org.
I think using the age of an account to draw doubt upon someone's character should not be used a way to discriminate against someone. Yes it's very evident that some people are abusing the system and creating multiple accounts to bring a false sense to this forum but really it doesnt matter as what matters are the people who hold UNI who are the ones voting on it and really getting the final say on whether this goes through or not not the people making multiple accounts on the forum unless they are holding UNI in which cases they are as entitled to voice their opinion and vote as anyone else in this forum.
Let's not descend this forum into some sort of dictatorship let's try to maintain open conversation and talk about the topic at hand so that people voting can have a clear idea on a whole view of the situation to vote on :slight_smile:
To close my view is
Future Airdrops in general = No Dharma Airdrop so long as they're within the terms = Yes
so I think there would be no harm to the community and no considerable price impact if those tokens are considered burned and new tokens issued to the contract owners. Why is that such a big issue?
Oh, I see your point now.
The thing is that my issue in particular is not the proxy one. On my case I simply locked the Liquidity tokens on a vault so that the team can't pull the rug- that's it. We are talking about a minimal quantity of tokens that are locked there considering the airdrop.
Oh, I see your point now.
The thing is that my issue in particular is not the proxy one. On my case I simply locked the Liquidity tokens on a vault so that the team can't pull the rug- that's it. We are talking about a minimal quantity of tokens that are locked there considering the airdrop.
https://etherscan.io/address/0x376b512ccd0704ccc4153870918c6dca2c0ee1c5 these tokens can never be used :slight_smile:
You could also be in the segment of users that used it beyond sep 1st for which there is another thread wanting another airdrop for the time between then an launch. 90% of the addresses are associated with Kyber. I don't think your story is really representative of the question being posed here. I think the community needs to consider the Kyber end user solely; just the way the proposal is layed out. Everything else is just along for the ride with what the community thinks happened with Kyber end users. Wouldn't really make sense in my view to assess the smaller aggregators and use that to make a decision when Kyber is 9/10th of the substance.
I can be more sympathetic towards the application integrations where I think there would be less overlap, but even then, not sure. Think the OP is making a big assumption that these cohorts were left out unintentionally. Think it's a very valid point that if you didn't use Uniswap directly you were primarily using some other service. Like lets say 1inch releases a governance token distribution to it's users, are Uniswap users conversely going to get rewarded for being used by 1inch? I think it's reasonable that the lines had to be drawn somewhere.
To: TragedyStruck
In case of Dharma's list - a large share of addresses I see are contracts. Are you telling me that each contract would end up receiving an airdrop?
Kyber's list has 24k (!) addresses. I don't expect all of them to receive the airdrop, so I wanted to see the final list of addresses.
To: Dewp
Uniswap allows straight conversion from USD-C to BAND, automatically taking care of ETH, wETH conversion, etc. You made the decision to end up using Kyberswap for your trading needs - all of which because of "higher time savings". I don't see why you should be rewarded with the airdop, if you didn't intend on using Uniswap.
The airdrop that happened originally was fair - it rewarded anyone who used the DEX directly. If you made a conscious decision of not trading on Uniswap, I'm not seeing a reason why you should be rewarded.
my point is: ALL token providers were rewarder. No exception, but those who were locking their liquidity on a vaul for the benefit of the buyers can't withdraw. I think the team can be sensible to the topic.
You keep talking about money incentives. For us, UNI is nothing more than a voting slip
Developers building products on UNI have other economical incentives in the first place - that's why they go for building products on it, etc.
I don't see a reason why you should get the airdrop, considering that's not the purpose of it. The purpose of the airdrop is to create initial buzz, not to get someone wealthy (even though there were singular cases).
Developers building products on UNI have other economical incentives in the first place - that's why they go for building products on it, etc.
I don't see a reason why you should get the airdrop, considering that's not the purpose of it. The purpose of the airdrop is to create initial buzz, not to get someone wealthy (even though there were singular cases).
I don't see a problem if we decide to take all these unclaimed $UNI and put it in a pool, where token holders get to vote which developers should get what $UNI amount, for providing help in the ecosystem.
I don't believe you should be rewarded by the initial rules of the airdrop though.
I don't see a problem in your particular case, if they would be burned and re-issued.
I see a problem, however, rewarding other excluded wallets, as the first post suggests.
I think you are not considering the implications the price has on a project.
A successful token price leaves a large community with big interest. The moment price goes to shit, the community leaves and everyone loses interest.
I think you are not considering the implications the price has on a project.
A successful token price leaves a large community with big interest. The moment price goes to shit, the community leaves and everyone loses interest.
I'm not saying we should speculate, but distributing 40M USD worth of $UNI today may have a much bigger (negative) price impact rather than it was distributed on a day one, because of reduced volumes.
If it was the voting slip for you, you'd be providing liquidity on Uniswap already and getting the free UNI.
I don't see a reason why arbitrage addresses should get free UNI, etc. Moreover, I don't think a developer needs to have more tokens because he's building products on UNI.
I treat UNI like stock - it gives us voting power, and I wouldn't want people who have received large quantities of free UNI tokens to vote for decisions that benefit them (or don't make sense), where I, who put hundreds of thousands of dollars into UNI should pay for it.
It is my understanding, that as long as you bought or sold on UNI prior to Sept 1, you should have received the tokens. If you provided liquidity other than in Uniswap, you didn't get free UNI tokens, and it's your own fault that you didn't provide directly with Uniswap. What's the issue?
devs, unite - and give power to the people!
Why would a UniSwap token holder vote for this? You are essentially voting with your money, that you want someone else to get free money.
What is someone else going to do when they get a free airdrop? Obviously dump it on the market.
This proposal is no way beneficial to $UNI token holders.
Why would a UniSwap token holder vote for this? You are essentially voting with your money, that you want someone else to get free money.
What is someone else going to do when they get a free airdrop? Obviously dump it on the market.
This proposal is no way beneficial to $UNI token holders.
The idea behind the first airdrop was to broadcast to crypto community about the $UNI token. Now it doesn't make sense to airdrop, as everyone know about it already.
This is indeed amazing, and just to be clear - this claim is not because we think it's our "right" but we believe it's the right thing to do since as a community we are protecting each other and solely this feeling of belonging is already positive for the ecosystem as a whole.
I hope Uniswap and other users find it legitimate.
Kindest regards, EasySwap
Cant confirm why but Paraswap would have probably been excluded for a reason. Dharma made a forum post a while back and asked affected exchanges to reach out with proof and verified figures along with contract addresses that interactedwith Uniswap... a lot of exchanges that submitted were vetted and weren't included on the final list I'm sure for good reasons.
I'm sure if a verified team member from Paraswap reached out to Dharma on here a discussion could be had but I would think it's unlikely they'll be included as it would be unfair to exchanges who met the deadlines
Just wanted to provide a bit of context on any overlap between addresses that we submitted vs what 0x submitted in terms of swaps made on Uniswap by DeFi Saver users.
The list of accounts we submitted as the accounts affected at DeFi Saver are only accounts that interacted with Uniswap via our UniswapWrapper. (Meaning the chain of accounts and contracts within the transaction that goes TxSender > UserDSProxy > DFS UniswapWrapper > Uniswap.)
Just wanted to provide a bit of context on any overlap between addresses that we submitted vs what 0x submitted in terms of swaps made on Uniswap by DeFi Saver users.
The list of accounts we submitted as the accounts affected at DeFi Saver are only accounts that interacted with Uniswap via our UniswapWrapper. (Meaning the chain of accounts and contracts within the transaction that goes TxSender > UserDSProxy > DFS UniswapWrapper > Uniswap.)
Any list of accounts provided by 0x would have been from transactions that were TxSender > UserDSProxy > DFS 0xWraper > 0x > Uniswap. And we've also seen some DeFi Saver user accounts included by Kyber for transactions that were TxSender > UserDSproxy > DFS KyberWrapper > Kyber > Uniswap, for example.
While we didn't consider these other cases eligible, it is definitely true that these, too, were initiated from an app integration, though there was additional routing involved.
If there's any additional information that we can provide to help in drawing a better line we're definitely available.
Each of these still have to go through the proposal stage and have enough UNI holders agree to another distribution thus why the OG mentioned
You see $UNI as money - we, product providers see as voting power and a way to benefit other users by protecting their funds against RUG PULLING, I see quite a benefit here but I understand it's a hard battle to win.
Just want to point out that Argent wallet users were able to get their airdrop, isn't that right?
It might have been convoluted but they had a page about it.
Let me know if I'm on the wrong page here, it's definitely unfortunate that so many people were excluded.
Yes the uni token is 18 decimal places you can usually find details like those on Etherscan
To: TragedyStruck
In case of Dharma's list - a large share of addresses I see are contracts. Are you telling me that each contract would end up receiving an airdrop?
Kyber's list has 24k (!) addresses. I don't expect all of them to receive the airdrop, so I wanted to see the final list of addresses.
To: Dewp
Uniswap allows straight conversion from USD-C to BAND, automatically taking care of ETH, wETH conversion, etc. You made the decision to end up using Kyberswap for your trading needs - all of which because of "higher time savings". I don't see why you should be rewarded with the airdop, if you didn't intend on using Uniswap.
The airdrop that happened originally was fair - it rewarded anyone who used the DEX directly. If you made a conscious decision of not trading on Uniswap, I'm not seeing a reason why you should be rewarded.
my point is: ALL token providers were rewarder. No exception, but those who were locking their liquidity on a vaul for the benefit of the buyers can't withdraw. I think the team can be sensible to the topic.
You keep talking about money incentives. For us, UNI is nothing more than a voting slip
Developers building products on UNI have other economical incentives in the first place - that's why they go for building products on it, etc.
I don't see a reason why you should get the airdrop, considering that's not the purpose of it. The purpose of the airdrop is to create initial buzz, not to get someone wealthy (even though there were singular cases).
Developers building products on UNI have other economical incentives in the first place - that's why they go for building products on it, etc.
I don't see a reason why you should get the airdrop, considering that's not the purpose of it. The purpose of the airdrop is to create initial buzz, not to get someone wealthy (even though there were singular cases).
I don't see a problem if we decide to take all these unclaimed $UNI and put it in a pool, where token holders get to vote which developers should get what $UNI amount, for providing help in the ecosystem.
I don't believe you should be rewarded by the initial rules of the airdrop though.
I don't see a problem in your particular case, if they would be burned and re-issued.
I see a problem, however, rewarding other excluded wallets, as the first post suggests.
I think you are not considering the implications the price has on a project.
A successful token price leaves a large community with big interest. The moment price goes to shit, the community leaves and everyone loses interest.
I think you are not considering the implications the price has on a project.
A successful token price leaves a large community with big interest. The moment price goes to shit, the community leaves and everyone loses interest.
I'm not saying we should speculate, but distributing 40M USD worth of $UNI today may have a much bigger (negative) price impact rather than it was distributed on a day one, because of reduced volumes.
If it was the voting slip for you, you'd be providing liquidity on Uniswap already and getting the free UNI.
I don't see a reason why arbitrage addresses should get free UNI, etc. Moreover, I don't think a developer needs to have more tokens because he's building products on UNI.
I treat UNI like stock - it gives us voting power, and I wouldn't want people who have received large quantities of free UNI tokens to vote for decisions that benefit them (or don't make sense), where I, who put hundreds of thousands of dollars into UNI should pay for it.
It is my understanding, that as long as you bought or sold on UNI prior to Sept 1, you should have received the tokens. If you provided liquidity other than in Uniswap, you didn't get free UNI tokens, and it's your own fault that you didn't provide directly with Uniswap. What's the issue?
devs, unite - and give power to the people!
Why would a UniSwap token holder vote for this? You are essentially voting with your money, that you want someone else to get free money.
What is someone else going to do when they get a free airdrop? Obviously dump it on the market.
This proposal is no way beneficial to $UNI token holders.
Why would a UniSwap token holder vote for this? You are essentially voting with your money, that you want someone else to get free money.
What is someone else going to do when they get a free airdrop? Obviously dump it on the market.
This proposal is no way beneficial to $UNI token holders.
The idea behind the first airdrop was to broadcast to crypto community about the $UNI token. Now it doesn't make sense to airdrop, as everyone know about it already.
This is indeed amazing, and just to be clear - this claim is not because we think it's our "right" but we believe it's the right thing to do since as a community we are protecting each other and solely this feeling of belonging is already positive for the ecosystem as a whole.
I hope Uniswap and other users find it legitimate.
Kindest regards, EasySwap
Cant confirm why but Paraswap would have probably been excluded for a reason. Dharma made a forum post a while back and asked affected exchanges to reach out with proof and verified figures along with contract addresses that interactedwith Uniswap... a lot of exchanges that submitted were vetted and weren't included on the final list I'm sure for good reasons.
I'm sure if a verified team member from Paraswap reached out to Dharma on here a discussion could be had but I would think it's unlikely they'll be included as it would be unfair to exchanges who met the deadlines
Just wanted to provide a bit of context on any overlap between addresses that we submitted vs what 0x submitted in terms of swaps made on Uniswap by DeFi Saver users.
The list of accounts we submitted as the accounts affected at DeFi Saver are only accounts that interacted with Uniswap via our UniswapWrapper. (Meaning the chain of accounts and contracts within the transaction that goes TxSender > UserDSProxy > DFS UniswapWrapper > Uniswap.)
Just wanted to provide a bit of context on any overlap between addresses that we submitted vs what 0x submitted in terms of swaps made on Uniswap by DeFi Saver users.
The list of accounts we submitted as the accounts affected at DeFi Saver are only accounts that interacted with Uniswap via our UniswapWrapper. (Meaning the chain of accounts and contracts within the transaction that goes TxSender > UserDSProxy > DFS UniswapWrapper > Uniswap.)
Any list of accounts provided by 0x would have been from transactions that were TxSender > UserDSProxy > DFS 0xWraper > 0x > Uniswap. And we've also seen some DeFi Saver user accounts included by Kyber for transactions that were TxSender > UserDSproxy > DFS KyberWrapper > Kyber > Uniswap, for example.
While we didn't consider these other cases eligible, it is definitely true that these, too, were initiated from an app integration, though there was additional routing involved.
If there's any additional information that we can provide to help in drawing a better line we're definitely available.
Each of these still have to go through the proposal stage and have enough UNI holders agree to another distribution thus why the OG mentioned
You see $UNI as money - we, product providers see as voting power and a way to benefit other users by protecting their funds against RUG PULLING, I see quite a benefit here but I understand it's a hard battle to win.
Just want to point out that Argent wallet users were able to get their airdrop, isn't that right?
It might have been convoluted but they had a page about it.
Let me know if I'm on the wrong page here, it's definitely unfortunate that so many people were excluded.
Yes the uni token is 18 decimal places you can usually find details like those on Etherscan
Each of these still have to go through the proposal stage and have enough UNI holders agree to another distribution thus why the OG mentioned
So it could still go to proposal and face rejection in which case none of these people would be compensated or it could go to proposal and pass meaning they would receive tokens from the Community Treasury
Each of these still have to go through the proposal stage and have enough UNI holders agree to another distribution thus why the OG mentioned
So it could still go to proposal and face rejection in which case none of these people would be compensated or it could go to proposal and pass meaning they would receive tokens from the Community Treasury
This proposal has been in discussion ad nauseam on these forums, on Twitter, and in the broader community for well over 5 weeks at this point.
There are legitimate, philosophical reasons to take issue with this proposal — the idea that this is being "rushed" is not one of those.
This proposal brings to a formal vote the Retroactive Distribution, discussed at length in the above links.
This proposal retroactively distributes 400 UNI to 12,619 distinct addresses who interacted with Uniswap via a proxy contract. These 12,619 users are "Phase 1" of the Retroactive Distribution, encompassing users of application-integrations. All of these 12619 addresses were excluded from the original airdrop.
The Phase determination was made based on how easy it is to programmatically hook a trading bot into them, as this is a proxy for what portion of these cohorts risk representing multiple addresses per end-user. Phase 1 is the less programmatically accessible cohort, indicating a lower likelihood of multiple addresses per end-user.
Specifically, this proposal distributes 5,047,600 UNI in total in 400-UNI increments to accounts held by users of the following projects:
| Project | Accounts | % of total |
|---|---|---|
| Argent | 3418 | 27.09% |
| DeFi Saver | 890 | 7.05% |
| Dharma | 2833 | 22.45% |
| eidoo | 301 | 2.39% |
| FURUCOMBO | 57 | 0.45% |
| MEW | 4278 | 33.90% |
| Monolith | 19 | 0.15% |
| Nuo | 740 | 5.86% |
| Opyn | 79 | 0.63% |
| rebalance | 4 | 0.03% |
Dharma is committed to carrying out the Retroactive Airdrop proposal. This includes proposing Phase 1, and, if Phase 1 is successful, proposing Phase 2. If either Phase fails, we will accept that as the final determination of the Uniswap community. Should both Phases pass, we will not vote in favor of any further retroactive airdops.
Dharma is committed to being an active, engaged member of Uniswap governance, just as we have been in the Compound community. As a signal of this commitment, if this proposal passes, we will commit to:
Hi all :wave: Seems like this conversation has...escalated.
Folks are entitled to vigorous debate and I think there are reasonable arguments against this proposal; please let's keep ad hominems at a minimum and try to stay high-signal in this discussion.
Hi all :wave: Seems like this conversation has...escalated.
Folks are entitled to vigorous debate and I think there are reasonable arguments against this proposal; please let's keep ad hominems at a minimum and try to stay high-signal in this discussion.
In trying to sift through the above, I've picked out a few misconceptions I just want to clarify. If I'm missing any questions that I've not answered, please ping me more directly and I'm happy to answer.
First — the proposal is technically not dilutive to UNI holders any more than the status quo. The UNI would be taken out of the community treasury in which UNI is vesting for purposes of investing in the Uniswap ecosystem and its success. There is a fair argument to be had over whether this proposal meets the community treasury's mandate, but it is not accurate to say that this is dilutive (i.e. no more UNI would be in existence in the world where this proposal fails than if this proposal passes)
Re: @Pipo-Mandarina concerns on whether or not the Dharma web-page made reference to Uniswap prior to the date of the UNI drop — I feel a little silly entertaining this assertion, as I'm not sure to what extent it should even matter whether or not the word Uniswap was on our website, but it seems to have spooked some folks, so let me be clear: this is false. We deploy our website very frequently and part of the deploy script re-uploads images. The copy screenshotted has been on our website since we launched the feature, and, more concretely, the app itself made pretty explicit, visual reference to its sourcing liquidity from Uniswap well-before this time.
Happy to answer any more questions as need be — please keep discussion civil, and assume positive intent.
On a more practical note...
It appears that the Univalent delegation has its sole priority set on lowering the delegation thresholds required for proposal submission / quorum, and is not comfortable voting on matters unrelated to that. We at Dharma are supportive of lowering the delegation thresholds and empathize with Univalent's desire to abstain from involvement in unrelated proposals.
Given that we will not be able to reach the 40m quorum without the UNI delegated to Univalent in active participation on the vote, we will need to wait for the Univalent delegation to submit their proposal and pass it through governance before we move this proposal forward.
We are supportive of their proposal at a conceptual level (pending the proposed threshold numbers) and will likely be casting a vote in a favor.
TL;DR — it will be quite difficult to pass anything through governance until the quorum / proposal thresholds are lowered, so we're shifting our attention to supporting the Univalent delegation in their efforts before we move forward with this proposal.
The delegate distribution, however, is fairly concentrated amongst the top 3 delegates: Dharma, Gauntlet, and Univalent.
The delegate distribution, however, is fairly concentrated amongst the top 3 delegates: Dharma, Gauntlet, and Univalent.
Before we go and bring the proposal to a vote, we want to invite our colleagues at Gauntlet and Univalent to air any blocking concerns with this proposal in this thread. We'd rather surface and address concerns in the open before the vote is started. @tarun @andre.cronje
The following links, in sequence, will give you the background, community discussion, and process we've undertaken around the proposal thus far:
This proposal has been in discussion ad nauseam on these forums, on Twitter, and in the broader community for well over 5 weeks at this point.
There are legitimate, philosophical reasons to take issue with this proposal — the idea that this is being "rushed" is not one of those.
This proposal brings to a formal vote the Retroactive Distribution, discussed at length in the above links.
This proposal retroactively distributes 400 UNI to 12,619 distinct addresses who interacted with Uniswap via a proxy contract. These 12,619 users are "Phase 1" of the Retroactive Distribution, encompassing users of application-integrations. All of these 12619 addresses were excluded from the original airdrop.
The Phase determination was made based on how easy it is to programmatically hook a trading bot into them, as this is a proxy for what portion of these cohorts risk representing multiple addresses per end-user. Phase 1 is the less programmatically accessible cohort, indicating a lower likelihood of multiple addresses per end-user.
Specifically, this proposal distributes 5,047,600 UNI in total in 400-UNI increments to accounts held by users of the following projects:
| Project | Accounts | % of total |
|---|---|---|
| Argent | 3418 | 27.09% |
| DeFi Saver | 890 | 7.05% |
| Dharma | 2833 | 22.45% |
| eidoo | 301 | 2.39% |
| FURUCOMBO | 57 | 0.45% |
| MEW | 4278 | 33.90% |
| Monolith | 19 | 0.15% |
| Nuo | 740 | 5.86% |
| Opyn | 79 | 0.63% |
| rebalance | 4 | 0.03% |
Dharma is committed to carrying out the Retroactive Airdrop proposal. This includes proposing Phase 1, and, if Phase 1 is successful, proposing Phase 2. If either Phase fails, we will accept that as the final determination of the Uniswap community. Should both Phases pass, we will not vote in favor of any further retroactive airdops.
Dharma is committed to being an active, engaged member of Uniswap governance, just as we have been in the Compound community. As a signal of this commitment, if this proposal passes, we will commit to:
Hi all :wave: Seems like this conversation has...escalated.
Folks are entitled to vigorous debate and I think there are reasonable arguments against this proposal; please let's keep ad hominems at a minimum and try to stay high-signal in this discussion.
Hi all :wave: Seems like this conversation has...escalated.
Folks are entitled to vigorous debate and I think there are reasonable arguments against this proposal; please let's keep ad hominems at a minimum and try to stay high-signal in this discussion.
In trying to sift through the above, I've picked out a few misconceptions I just want to clarify. If I'm missing any questions that I've not answered, please ping me more directly and I'm happy to answer.
First — the proposal is technically not dilutive to UNI holders any more than the status quo. The UNI would be taken out of the community treasury in which UNI is vesting for purposes of investing in the Uniswap ecosystem and its success. There is a fair argument to be had over whether this proposal meets the community treasury's mandate, but it is not accurate to say that this is dilutive (i.e. no more UNI would be in existence in the world where this proposal fails than if this proposal passes)
Re: @Pipo-Mandarina concerns on whether or not the Dharma web-page made reference to Uniswap prior to the date of the UNI drop — I feel a little silly entertaining this assertion, as I'm not sure to what extent it should even matter whether or not the word Uniswap was on our website, but it seems to have spooked some folks, so let me be clear: this is false. We deploy our website very frequently and part of the deploy script re-uploads images. The copy screenshotted has been on our website since we launched the feature, and, more concretely, the app itself made pretty explicit, visual reference to its sourcing liquidity from Uniswap well-before this time.
Happy to answer any more questions as need be — please keep discussion civil, and assume positive intent.
On a more practical note...
It appears that the Univalent delegation has its sole priority set on lowering the delegation thresholds required for proposal submission / quorum, and is not comfortable voting on matters unrelated to that. We at Dharma are supportive of lowering the delegation thresholds and empathize with Univalent's desire to abstain from involvement in unrelated proposals.
Given that we will not be able to reach the 40m quorum without the UNI delegated to Univalent in active participation on the vote, we will need to wait for the Univalent delegation to submit their proposal and pass it through governance before we move this proposal forward.
We are supportive of their proposal at a conceptual level (pending the proposed threshold numbers) and will likely be casting a vote in a favor.
TL;DR — it will be quite difficult to pass anything through governance until the quorum / proposal thresholds are lowered, so we're shifting our attention to supporting the Univalent delegation in their efforts before we move forward with this proposal.
The delegate distribution, however, is fairly concentrated amongst the top 3 delegates: Dharma, Gauntlet, and Univalent.
The delegate distribution, however, is fairly concentrated amongst the top 3 delegates: Dharma, Gauntlet, and Univalent.
Before we go and bring the proposal to a vote, we want to invite our colleagues at Gauntlet and Univalent to air any blocking concerns with this proposal in this thread. We'd rather surface and address concerns in the open before the vote is started. @tarun @andre.cronje
The following links, in sequence, will give you the background, community discussion, and process we've undertaken around the proposal thus far: