10M UNIs are required to submit governance proposals, that's insanely high. That's like ~$65M worth by today's price.
Proposal: reduce it to 10k. The community is already wanting to make proposals but they won't go anywhere with this limit.
It's understandable there are risks given the airdrop, but the team, their backers, and the wider community can surely thwart any obvious attempts to weaponize governance.
10M UNIs are required to submit governance proposals, that's insanely high. That's like ~$65M worth by today's price.
Proposal: reduce it to 10k. The community is already wanting to make proposals but they won't go anywhere with this limit.
It's understandable there are risks given the airdrop, but the team, their backers, and the wider community can surely thwart any obvious attempts to weaponize governance.
I am agree with this proposal of reducing
I am totally agree with this proposal
I am agree with this proposal of reducing
I am totally agree with this proposal
agreed ill delegate my votes to him as well
agreed ill delegate my votes to him as well
yeah 100k uni seems better than 10k (i also think its too low)
I support this. It is known that some UNI are held within wallet and cannot be withdrawn. This can decrease the opportunity to make a governance decision. I believe it is better that the number reduced. If 10k is considered too low, there should be a proposal to vote how many should the number be.
I vote yes.😉 This is very important for the long term governance impact.
yeah 100k uni seems better than 10k (i also think its too low)
I support this. It is known that some UNI are held within wallet and cannot be withdrawn. This can decrease the opportunity to make a governance decision. I believe it is better that the number reduced. If 10k is considered too low, there should be a proposal to vote how many should the number be.
I vote yes.😉 This is very important for the long term governance impact.
Only if we increase the amount required to pass a quorum.
at least it represents change. It represents movement. We have something to learn from it, and i’m more interesting in learning than in making sure we don’t get it wrong.
at least it represents change. It represents movement. We have something to learn from it, and i’m more interesting in learning than in making sure we don’t get it wrong.
Wrong. The fact is that this proposal changes nothing as per the initial idea of reducing the amount of UNIs required to submit the governance proposal.
With the current threshold of 10M only 3 delegates can submit a proposal. With the new threshold of 3M votes it's much different - 5 delegates will be able to submit a proposal. Out of almost 90,000 token holders. So more decentralised, very win.
The fact is that Dharma & co don't give a shit about community governance, they don't want 90K holders to speak, they want to push the dangerous lower quorum proposal, so they can grab the money from the table.
Shame. Shame. Shame.
I must say, I am in favor of reducing the number of required votes to make a proposal, but I am not in favor of reducing the quorum.
This should've been handled using two different proposals.
Shameless self post: https://ondkloss.github.io/uniswapdelegates/#/proposal/1
Where andrecronje now supports it with his personal address (Address source: https://twitter.com/AndreCronjeTech/status/1308689086375497728)
Please show the link where Univalent proposed these numbers 3M and 30M thresholds.
Probably because Dharma tried to attack the governance and take the full control of it. Did anyone ask Univalent if they agree with the proposed limits? Why 3M votes to submit a proposal, how is it better than 10M since only few stakeholders can reach any of these 2 limits.
This proposal solves nothing, but gives the full control to Dharma.
Can you please point us to the discussion of the current proposal and its threats between Dharma and Univalent?
Did anyone asked Univalent what do they think about this specific proposal? Is there any public discussion of it?
The draft proposal was posted here by @tarun and soon after that it was submitted onchain. With no discussion, and even with different thresholds.
Why would anyone support that?
Only if we increase the amount required to pass a quorum.
at least it represents change. It represents movement. We have something to learn from it, and i’m more interesting in learning than in making sure we don’t get it wrong.
at least it represents change. It represents movement. We have something to learn from it, and i’m more interesting in learning than in making sure we don’t get it wrong.
Wrong. The fact is that this proposal changes nothing as per the initial idea of reducing the amount of UNIs required to submit the governance proposal.
With the current threshold of 10M only 3 delegates can submit a proposal. With the new threshold of 3M votes it's much different - 5 delegates will be able to submit a proposal. Out of almost 90,000 token holders. So more decentralised, very win.
The fact is that Dharma & co don't give a shit about community governance, they don't want 90K holders to speak, they want to push the dangerous lower quorum proposal, so they can grab the money from the table.
Shame. Shame. Shame.
I must say, I am in favor of reducing the number of required votes to make a proposal, but I am not in favor of reducing the quorum.
This should've been handled using two different proposals.
Shameless self post: https://ondkloss.github.io/uniswapdelegates/#/proposal/1
Where andrecronje now supports it with his personal address (Address source: https://twitter.com/AndreCronjeTech/status/1308689086375497728)
Please show the link where Univalent proposed these numbers 3M and 30M thresholds.
Probably because Dharma tried to attack the governance and take the full control of it. Did anyone ask Univalent if they agree with the proposed limits? Why 3M votes to submit a proposal, how is it better than 10M since only few stakeholders can reach any of these 2 limits.
This proposal solves nothing, but gives the full control to Dharma.
Can you please point us to the discussion of the current proposal and its threats between Dharma and Univalent?
Did anyone asked Univalent what do they think about this specific proposal? Is there any public discussion of it?
The draft proposal was posted here by @tarun and soon after that it was submitted onchain. With no discussion, and even with different thresholds.
Why would anyone support that?
It is not a good first proposal, I am excited as well to see the first proposal to go through but please let's not make it one that says "let's make proposals easier". They would have put some thought in coming up with the numbers required to propose and pass, if these turn out to be not ideal, the community can vote on changed (ideally in individual proposals for proposal and pass desperately) at a later point in time when the current thresholds have proved to be not ideal.
How? Because the deadline was September 1, 2020, at 12:00 UTC. How Dharma (and others) could create 'thousands of fake accounts'? That don't make sense.
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:
I think it's worth clarifying the rationale behind performing multiple parameter changes at once (which is certainly a better process in general) — both modifications require deploying a new GovernorAlpha contract. Voting interfaces, both frontends and integrating contracts like autonomous proposals, need to be pointed to the new contract, which takes coordinated effort!
Thanks for correcting me. I think I confused it with another project where a simple majority wins.
So voting NO is a good way to go.
The problem is that by voting against this proposal, we will help Dharma to reach the 40M quorum they need. We cannot beat their 30M votes already because a total of 47M votes were delegated and governance portal says:
Only UNI votes that were self delegated or delegated to another address before block 11042288 are eligible for voting.
The problem is that by voting against this proposal, we will help Dharma to reach the 40M quorum they need. We cannot beat their 30M votes already because a total of 47M votes were delegated and governance portal says:
Only UNI votes that were self delegated or delegated to another address before block 11042288 are eligible for voting.
So at this point the best strategy is to do nothing and wait for it to fail. Hopefully Andre Cronje, the third whale in the list, reads us and won't do anything at all (votes NO as dangerous as YES at this point)
It is not a good first proposal, I am excited as well to see the first proposal to go through but please let's not make it one that says "let's make proposals easier". They would have put some thought in coming up with the numbers required to propose and pass, if these turn out to be not ideal, the community can vote on changed (ideally in individual proposals for proposal and pass desperately) at a later point in time when the current thresholds have proved to be not ideal.
How? Because the deadline was September 1, 2020, at 12:00 UTC. How Dharma (and others) could create 'thousands of fake accounts'? That don't make sense.
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:
I think it's worth clarifying the rationale behind performing multiple parameter changes at once (which is certainly a better process in general) — both modifications require deploying a new GovernorAlpha contract. Voting interfaces, both frontends and integrating contracts like autonomous proposals, need to be pointed to the new contract, which takes coordinated effort!
Thanks for correcting me. I think I confused it with another project where a simple majority wins.
So voting NO is a good way to go.
The problem is that by voting against this proposal, we will help Dharma to reach the 40M quorum they need. We cannot beat their 30M votes already because a total of 47M votes were delegated and governance portal says:
Only UNI votes that were self delegated or delegated to another address before block 11042288 are eligible for voting.
The problem is that by voting against this proposal, we will help Dharma to reach the 40M quorum they need. We cannot beat their 30M votes already because a total of 47M votes were delegated and governance portal says:
Only UNI votes that were self delegated or delegated to another address before block 11042288 are eligible for voting.
So at this point the best strategy is to do nothing and wait for it to fail. Hopefully Andre Cronje, the third whale in the list, reads us and won't do anything at all (votes NO as dangerous as YES at this point)
I totally agree with this. We should first have a voting about lowering the threshold to submit proposal. Once it's accepted, many parties will be able to submit competitive proposals and own visions about the quorum thresholds.
I'm not a big fan of the analysis made by tarum because as a starting point he considered Binance's wallet balance, which in reality can easily double if they start some liquidity farming, trading competitions on UNI pairs or 0-fee incentives.
I totally agree with this. We should first have a voting about lowering the threshold to submit proposal. Once it's accepted, many parties will be able to submit competitive proposals and own visions about the quorum thresholds.
I'm not a big fan of the analysis made by tarum because as a starting point he considered Binance's wallet balance, which in reality can easily double if they start some liquidity farming, trading competitions on UNI pairs or 0-fee incentives.
To me it seems more reasonable to analyse UNI's supply curve and release schedules when we talk about quorum threshold. Right now only 12% of UNI are circulating, but in 4 years we will reach 100%, so the inflation will be big and we can even consider to actually vote for a higher quorum limits in the near future.
Anyway, I do agree that these must be 2 separate votings: first on limit to submit proposal, and later hopefully we can get many different proposals and analysis on quorum.
I'm going to vote against this proposal. It's actually worse than as is because it gives more power to only 2 stakeholders Dharma + Gauntlet.
Right now at least 4 big stakeholders required to achieve consensus on proposals. The new threshold of 30M adds twice more centralisation because two and only two (Dharma + Gauntlet) can approve or veto any proposals (assuming core devs stay neutral)
Autonomous proposals are a great mechanism to have available, but they also draw delegation away from other delegators so that it can only be utilized for that specific proposal for the duration. It's preferable to make proposals directly so that other proposals can be voted on as well!
I totally agree with this. We should first have a voting about lowering the threshold to submit proposal. Once it's accepted, many parties will be able to submit competitive proposals and own visions about the quorum thresholds.
I'm not a big fan of the analysis made by tarum because as a starting point he considered Binance's wallet balance, which in reality can easily double if they start some liquidity farming, trading competitions on UNI pairs or 0-fee incentives.
I totally agree with this. We should first have a voting about lowering the threshold to submit proposal. Once it's accepted, many parties will be able to submit competitive proposals and own visions about the quorum thresholds.
I'm not a big fan of the analysis made by tarum because as a starting point he considered Binance's wallet balance, which in reality can easily double if they start some liquidity farming, trading competitions on UNI pairs or 0-fee incentives.
To me it seems more reasonable to analyse UNI's supply curve and release schedules when we talk about quorum threshold. Right now only 12% of UNI are circulating, but in 4 years we will reach 100%, so the inflation will be big and we can even consider to actually vote for a higher quorum limits in the near future.
Anyway, I do agree that these must be 2 separate votings: first on limit to submit proposal, and later hopefully we can get many different proposals and analysis on quorum.
I'm going to vote against this proposal. It's actually worse than as is because it gives more power to only 2 stakeholders Dharma + Gauntlet.
Right now at least 4 big stakeholders required to achieve consensus on proposals. The new threshold of 30M adds twice more centralisation because two and only two (Dharma + Gauntlet) can approve or veto any proposals (assuming core devs stay neutral)
Autonomous proposals are a great mechanism to have available, but they also draw delegation away from other delegators so that it can only be utilized for that specific proposal for the duration. It's preferable to make proposals directly so that other proposals can be voted on as well!
Voting is live on this proposal: https://app.uniswap.org/#/vote/1
This analysis is great, @tarun — thanks for sharing.
One additional consideration that needs to be taken into account is that cUNI currently has ~4.4M UNI available for borrowing... If a large UNI holder like Binance were to borrow this UNI just before submitting a proposal (potentially even via flash loan) and pay it back right after proposing, they would be able to exceed the proposed safe quorum threshold. (It does seem likely that this UNI would quickly be eaten up by borrowers or pulled by suppliers if the available amount became too large.)
This analysis is great, @tarun — thanks for sharing.
One additional consideration that needs to be taken into account is that cUNI currently has ~4.4M UNI available for borrowing... If a large UNI holder like Binance were to borrow this UNI just before submitting a proposal (potentially even via flash loan) and pay it back right after proposing, they would be able to exceed the proposed safe quorum threshold. (It does seem likely that this UNI would quickly be eaten up by borrowers or pulled by suppliers if the available amount became too large.)
How about padding your proposed quorum threshold a bit to account for this possibility? Say, 3M to propose and 30M for quorum?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
That's a good question! I do think you're right that they'd probably do best at aggregating more balances via some incentive-like this. One thing I don't think they can do is compete on a UNI basis with UNI's incentives (e.g. deciding which pools get UNI, % of UNI inflation) --- so they'll need to convince UNI lenders looking for yield to either
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
That's a good question! I do think you're right that they'd probably do best at aggregating more balances via some incentive-like this. One thing I don't think they can do is compete on a UNI basis with UNI's incentives (e.g. deciding which pools get UNI, % of UNI inflation) --- so they'll need to convince UNI lenders looking for yield to either
The former works, but is likely to cause a lot of friction as BNB is a standalone Tendermint chain (so the UX is not, well, farmer friendly) and the latter is likely to make market makers move away from Binance. So it might (but is not impossible!) be hard for them to incentivize users in an easy manner.
That being said, having a cross-chain DEX like Serum does make the second choice more palatable and FTX in the future might be able to pull this off more easily.
One other thing I wanted to add: In A1, we use UNI balances to rank exchanges and not volumes. Why?
Ansatz: If a user generally uses exchange G and puts UNI on it, then they were willing to move liquidity from G to Uniswap, farm it, then bring it back to G
Thesis: These 'flight risk to UNI' users are the ones who CEXs want to ensure don't leave, so exchanges with higher balances UNI balances will be more afraid of Uniswap's market share growth as they have more users who aren't sticky -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEEJAuhmVduSEVN8uPKIPJySxksQ8FAl+BzygACgkQKIPJySxk sQ/+fQ/+N4b3W5w7hCuM2B2i0YJs3RdNIGdQ2V8mWZ0VpBbwJCKfmCCLzyAHj88N NVZssJ1E5UItC9HsKdPpODwzhQBz8y8E8/A8yvHZLEJPL7YPtSR43BXWJI9ERyJM xCVD5s3QnvTL6WfrDpR5ALi3eyzNGm7FWgFeLcqqy7rSUTNrd6ZCQEouI01dIM9s bK11N5NVVmRhQHMtIqFJHRarQ1aEXnXc07+umnDtRkLMekZf6tcQjWMbHuO31oyg gmEJLIkyrzcYT043B/rfvB6b7iEgdVM7gw2T5RzSB6sauEjZ8cngXnNu5yjc5NLr TVquloXdn3Nn489rIETuLkIBgz7QF47doVmSx4hioWvn9xqVorhYZo0jYUDd76ZA d8wA5hVsTRbDLJsJO6JpMijLAIcwPuO5nQxsf+QFDed93t66NxK9GhVJ6wXzGhXw 5qLL+j0GMtKwBzqzSbTF4kTh7bUeKTN/s6UgeR1NZAZuU3n6Rnj3F1NP60kD/Cx7 UTCNkwkBhtW/XnX7h9sqrc0glKPQiKRvX6ty4QD2N5pFd62QwuRKU+5awh8N4VU7 49UrAvMfHAUNLVfbyO1ckicHfJH8FnL+2o5iUcBQF+2g5ifG/CZAO/xfz8QGBLIW wN9RqH6AcyIsZP+lg0OpfCA2Q1Au/6XGFJLW2mZKnkREciwRmPs= =21P2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
In order to analyze this proposal a bit more seriously, we need a security framework for reasoning about quorum sizes. We propose the following de minimus threat model which aims to reason about quorum sizes as a function of the quantity of UNI needed for a set of negative actors to perform actions harmful to UNI holders and LPs. While there isn't an purely objective definition for what the set of negative actors looks like, I will focus on actors that I believe are generally agreed upon to be negative participants should they unilaterally form a cartel to pass proposals through governance. Gauntlet would very much appreciate feedback on whether you think this definition is too aggressive, however.
In order to quantify optimal quorum sizes, we first have to define a threat model that prescribes how much UNI colluding adversarial actors would need to accrete to perform a deleterious action. In the remainder of this post, we consider a deleterious action to be one that:
Given that these are qualitative objectives, we will need to introduce simplifying assumptions to create a data-driven model.
We first make the following assumption about an adversary that necessarily satisfies the above criteria:
A0. The set of deleterious adversaries is non-empty and at least includes the following three actors
a. On-Chain Lending Pools (Compound [0], Aave [1], PowerPool) b. Competitive Automated Market Makers with Governance (e.g. SushiSwap) c. Centralized Exchanges
The first category is nascent and quite small, so we will focus on analyzing the threat posed by exchanges. According to Nansen, we have the following top UNI holding exchanges:
From these balances, it is quite clear that the main exchanges that we need to consider as threats to governance are Binance and Huobi. Even if every non-Uniswap UNI exchange colluded to try to achieve quorum, they would barely be able to do so. The high cost of coordination amongst competing adversaries behooves us to make the next model assumption:
A1. Only exchanges with balances higher than Uniswap are likely to collude to reach quorum
Now that we have restricted ourselves to analyzing exchanges with higher balances than Uniswap, it is natural to ask about quorum size relative to their total balance. Given that the two exchanges that meet this criteria are fiduciaries and strident competitors, we believe that it is reasonable to assume that they will not collude.
A2. Competing centralized exchanges will not collude to take over Uniswap
This assumption, which is the strongest one that we make within this threat model, is likely to be controversial as the cryptocurrency space has historically had collusion of this form (e.g. Bitcoin's New York Agreement). However, we believe that competing exchanges forming an anti-UNI holder cartel (to drive liquidity and volume back to centralized venues) will inevitably be an unstable alliance as the form of UNI manipulation chosen will likely only benefit the largest member of the cartel. In particular, we do not believe that they will be able to make progress on omnibus proposals that require multiple governance votes without running to a point where their cartel spontaneously breaks apart.
Given these assumptions, we can define the safe quorum threshold to be the least upper bound on the most capitalized deleterious actor's UNI balance. This captures the minimum amount of UNI that a deleterious actor that satisfies assumptions A0-A2 would need to perform a governance action unilaterally.
How do we estimate the safe quorum threshold? Given that exchange balances fluctuate daily, one simple upper bounded heuristic for the safe quorum threshold is the estimator (written inefficiently as a quadratic algorithm, but with an eye towards clarity using Python notation)
safe_quorum_threshold_ub = max([max_balance[t] + abs(max_delta[tp])
for t in range(start_date, end_date)
for tp in range(start_date, end_date)])
where
balance[exchange, t] is an array of the balances at exchange exchange indexed by a date tmax_balance[t] = max(balance[exchange, t] for exchange in exchanges)delta[exchange, t] = max_balance[exchange, t] - max_balance[exchange, t-1]max_delta[t] = max(delta[e, t] for e in exchanges).This finds the max balance plus the maximum [in,out]flow that an exchange has in a single day. By using the maximum flow (regardless of direction) and the maximum balance, we're constructing a best unbiased estimate of how large the largest exchange could get if it a) had the maximum known exchange balance and b) the largest inflow day possible.
Using the Nansen, we can first see that Binance has always been the maximum balance exchange, hovering around 25M UNI.
Therefore, we center our analysis around Binance. In this Google Sheet, we use daily balance data from Nansen to compute a number of quantities related to the safe_quorum_threshold. If we exclude max_delta from the first day of UNI issuance (which is an outlier, as illustrated in the spreadsheet), we see that:
max(max_delta[t] for t in range(start_date, end_date)) = 1'212'017.65max(max_balance[t] for t in range(start_date, end_date)) = 28'904'174.60However, we note that Uniswap's market share in terms of UNI markets has increased over time, whereas Binance and Huobi have been decreasing in UNI holdings. As such, we think a weaker but still acceptable estimator for safe_quorum_threshold is:
safe_quorum_threshold_ub2[exchange] = max([avg_balance[exchange] + abs(max_delta[t])
for t in range(start_date, end_date)])
Why do we think this is reasonable?
Using this bound gives us a final number that we believe could be in a proposal:
safe_quorum_threshold_ub2["binance"] = 26'930'326.78
Thus, we believe that a quorum amount of roughly 27M UNI should suffice to prevent a unilateral deleterious act.
[0] Compound has borrow caps enabled as of Compound governance proposal 22, which mitigates the size of borrow that an adversary can
[1] Aave has a community sentiment poll for adding Uniswap to the protocol -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEEJAuhmVduSEVN8uPKIPJySxksQ8FAl+BQmYACgkQKIPJySxk sQ/FrQ/+JXWalAXCNIEEvJqFZHdp0wLQWlCxWQ7ctCMkM96wU9Q2SHdIPOrK8NjD Q7g/2AX6Ho/+RKw+J/XjeSbulaEz6RCIpo0xbD4xHmQfZe15P/fo5aAQnHbm1tJ1 KKXqFv2Bx6/Z66sdiobDSZLik4W/f1mhHtiuyr4XRGR6Az1AgmYQlICwrpNKakCm oak3X/tcgntiX7ff0yMWjKMmsAmGkkwHerr42i8o4ZtkSigy62u5WcRCpugAT0V/ guytgpuiuOZf0oTw3r5yWrdRBDVYIwWxw/9PYbQ1Rebl1aKj/C2rpOqBUkOMn+YV sMNfCYMQFUPJHXtavjlwpdV48le7Qb6zGFT6ZSLAVQ8gOKW8Rv7R1C1eVrrMobC/ F5WqGwEkiUQ/DrdEZrF+EQp5TCOOeqwjyAZS5k24P8yQBxQhQJUxo7QT4Yph14xz WPgVqB1we4jy5R0zg8V2df27zVXFu1Oye2Ovlk3WKiodk3d5sk2K6WhJ5D4P0dNU W/oQYCwBVtI/mWdkv9DJ3odto7Z+pw+Rc/kh4WcOIdT4J+OSMPE6iO+Txz9xfnxH jyDn0hawFmSEChABnubqkDlPv/SNEXPOCafq/Uf+f5octktFsp4ieQdVB5JUGx92 kEycSzthvAgc/8x6cwjlY+9vT70ZvlPs3T8GOLO/AUgPle2J6XA= =coIU -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Wow thats a really high price for a PROPOSAL
10K might be too little-- don't forget the amount of users that are on uni-swap but cutting the 10M to 5M might work. if it only took 10K new proposals could get voted on way way too quickly
I very much agree, 2-5m Uni should be the very lowest requirement, otherwise the proposal area will be spammed with low quality proposals and people will get jaded.
The delegation systems exists for this reason.
Andre Cronje has 10m uni delegated to him and is proposing this,
personally I thnk it's not a bad system, stops the system being cluttered from hundreds of repeated and poorly thought out submissions.
Maybe a 2m UNI limit would be better, certainly no less that 1m.
Delegate to me and let us get that 1% of UNI voting power. I pledge to represent all constituents not just by holding town halls but using a voting mechanism to reach optimal consensus. Let us unite and bring forth what the community desires. If you are not familiar with how to delegate I have posted an instructional.
In my opinion the treshold of uni for submitting a proposal should be high, because there should be major support for the proposal and not a lack of interest to vote from the community. At the same time uniswap needs to keep innovating and therefore change with the support of the community. How high the treshold should be exactly is a point of discussion. We could introduce a rule that if none of the proposals have reached the minimum treshold of 10 mil UNI in a single month. The three proposals with the highest number of votes will be submitted as a governance proposal
Support this. Obviously need to decrease
Voting is live on this proposal: https://app.uniswap.org/#/vote/1
This analysis is great, @tarun — thanks for sharing.
One additional consideration that needs to be taken into account is that cUNI currently has ~4.4M UNI available for borrowing... If a large UNI holder like Binance were to borrow this UNI just before submitting a proposal (potentially even via flash loan) and pay it back right after proposing, they would be able to exceed the proposed safe quorum threshold. (It does seem likely that this UNI would quickly be eaten up by borrowers or pulled by suppliers if the available amount became too large.)
This analysis is great, @tarun — thanks for sharing.
One additional consideration that needs to be taken into account is that cUNI currently has ~4.4M UNI available for borrowing... If a large UNI holder like Binance were to borrow this UNI just before submitting a proposal (potentially even via flash loan) and pay it back right after proposing, they would be able to exceed the proposed safe quorum threshold. (It does seem likely that this UNI would quickly be eaten up by borrowers or pulled by suppliers if the available amount became too large.)
How about padding your proposed quorum threshold a bit to account for this possibility? Say, 3M to propose and 30M for quorum?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
That's a good question! I do think you're right that they'd probably do best at aggregating more balances via some incentive-like this. One thing I don't think they can do is compete on a UNI basis with UNI's incentives (e.g. deciding which pools get UNI, % of UNI inflation) --- so they'll need to convince UNI lenders looking for yield to either
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
That's a good question! I do think you're right that they'd probably do best at aggregating more balances via some incentive-like this. One thing I don't think they can do is compete on a UNI basis with UNI's incentives (e.g. deciding which pools get UNI, % of UNI inflation) --- so they'll need to convince UNI lenders looking for yield to either
The former works, but is likely to cause a lot of friction as BNB is a standalone Tendermint chain (so the UX is not, well, farmer friendly) and the latter is likely to make market makers move away from Binance. So it might (but is not impossible!) be hard for them to incentivize users in an easy manner.
That being said, having a cross-chain DEX like Serum does make the second choice more palatable and FTX in the future might be able to pull this off more easily.
One other thing I wanted to add: In A1, we use UNI balances to rank exchanges and not volumes. Why?
Ansatz: If a user generally uses exchange G and puts UNI on it, then they were willing to move liquidity from G to Uniswap, farm it, then bring it back to G
Thesis: These 'flight risk to UNI' users are the ones who CEXs want to ensure don't leave, so exchanges with higher balances UNI balances will be more afraid of Uniswap's market share growth as they have more users who aren't sticky -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEEJAuhmVduSEVN8uPKIPJySxksQ8FAl+BzygACgkQKIPJySxk sQ/+fQ/+N4b3W5w7hCuM2B2i0YJs3RdNIGdQ2V8mWZ0VpBbwJCKfmCCLzyAHj88N NVZssJ1E5UItC9HsKdPpODwzhQBz8y8E8/A8yvHZLEJPL7YPtSR43BXWJI9ERyJM xCVD5s3QnvTL6WfrDpR5ALi3eyzNGm7FWgFeLcqqy7rSUTNrd6ZCQEouI01dIM9s bK11N5NVVmRhQHMtIqFJHRarQ1aEXnXc07+umnDtRkLMekZf6tcQjWMbHuO31oyg gmEJLIkyrzcYT043B/rfvB6b7iEgdVM7gw2T5RzSB6sauEjZ8cngXnNu5yjc5NLr TVquloXdn3Nn489rIETuLkIBgz7QF47doVmSx4hioWvn9xqVorhYZo0jYUDd76ZA d8wA5hVsTRbDLJsJO6JpMijLAIcwPuO5nQxsf+QFDed93t66NxK9GhVJ6wXzGhXw 5qLL+j0GMtKwBzqzSbTF4kTh7bUeKTN/s6UgeR1NZAZuU3n6Rnj3F1NP60kD/Cx7 UTCNkwkBhtW/XnX7h9sqrc0glKPQiKRvX6ty4QD2N5pFd62QwuRKU+5awh8N4VU7 49UrAvMfHAUNLVfbyO1ckicHfJH8FnL+2o5iUcBQF+2g5ifG/CZAO/xfz8QGBLIW wN9RqH6AcyIsZP+lg0OpfCA2Q1Au/6XGFJLW2mZKnkREciwRmPs= =21P2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
In order to analyze this proposal a bit more seriously, we need a security framework for reasoning about quorum sizes. We propose the following de minimus threat model which aims to reason about quorum sizes as a function of the quantity of UNI needed for a set of negative actors to perform actions harmful to UNI holders and LPs. While there isn't an purely objective definition for what the set of negative actors looks like, I will focus on actors that I believe are generally agreed upon to be negative participants should they unilaterally form a cartel to pass proposals through governance. Gauntlet would very much appreciate feedback on whether you think this definition is too aggressive, however.
In order to quantify optimal quorum sizes, we first have to define a threat model that prescribes how much UNI colluding adversarial actors would need to accrete to perform a deleterious action. In the remainder of this post, we consider a deleterious action to be one that:
Given that these are qualitative objectives, we will need to introduce simplifying assumptions to create a data-driven model.
We first make the following assumption about an adversary that necessarily satisfies the above criteria:
A0. The set of deleterious adversaries is non-empty and at least includes the following three actors
a. On-Chain Lending Pools (Compound [0], Aave [1], PowerPool) b. Competitive Automated Market Makers with Governance (e.g. SushiSwap) c. Centralized Exchanges
The first category is nascent and quite small, so we will focus on analyzing the threat posed by exchanges. According to Nansen, we have the following top UNI holding exchanges:
From these balances, it is quite clear that the main exchanges that we need to consider as threats to governance are Binance and Huobi. Even if every non-Uniswap UNI exchange colluded to try to achieve quorum, they would barely be able to do so. The high cost of coordination amongst competing adversaries behooves us to make the next model assumption:
A1. Only exchanges with balances higher than Uniswap are likely to collude to reach quorum
Now that we have restricted ourselves to analyzing exchanges with higher balances than Uniswap, it is natural to ask about quorum size relative to their total balance. Given that the two exchanges that meet this criteria are fiduciaries and strident competitors, we believe that it is reasonable to assume that they will not collude.
A2. Competing centralized exchanges will not collude to take over Uniswap
This assumption, which is the strongest one that we make within this threat model, is likely to be controversial as the cryptocurrency space has historically had collusion of this form (e.g. Bitcoin's New York Agreement). However, we believe that competing exchanges forming an anti-UNI holder cartel (to drive liquidity and volume back to centralized venues) will inevitably be an unstable alliance as the form of UNI manipulation chosen will likely only benefit the largest member of the cartel. In particular, we do not believe that they will be able to make progress on omnibus proposals that require multiple governance votes without running to a point where their cartel spontaneously breaks apart.
Given these assumptions, we can define the safe quorum threshold to be the least upper bound on the most capitalized deleterious actor's UNI balance. This captures the minimum amount of UNI that a deleterious actor that satisfies assumptions A0-A2 would need to perform a governance action unilaterally.
How do we estimate the safe quorum threshold? Given that exchange balances fluctuate daily, one simple upper bounded heuristic for the safe quorum threshold is the estimator (written inefficiently as a quadratic algorithm, but with an eye towards clarity using Python notation)
safe_quorum_threshold_ub = max([max_balance[t] + abs(max_delta[tp])
for t in range(start_date, end_date)
for tp in range(start_date, end_date)])
where
balance[exchange, t] is an array of the balances at exchange exchange indexed by a date tmax_balance[t] = max(balance[exchange, t] for exchange in exchanges)delta[exchange, t] = max_balance[exchange, t] - max_balance[exchange, t-1]max_delta[t] = max(delta[e, t] for e in exchanges).This finds the max balance plus the maximum [in,out]flow that an exchange has in a single day. By using the maximum flow (regardless of direction) and the maximum balance, we're constructing a best unbiased estimate of how large the largest exchange could get if it a) had the maximum known exchange balance and b) the largest inflow day possible.
Using the Nansen, we can first see that Binance has always been the maximum balance exchange, hovering around 25M UNI.
Therefore, we center our analysis around Binance. In this Google Sheet, we use daily balance data from Nansen to compute a number of quantities related to the safe_quorum_threshold. If we exclude max_delta from the first day of UNI issuance (which is an outlier, as illustrated in the spreadsheet), we see that:
max(max_delta[t] for t in range(start_date, end_date)) = 1'212'017.65max(max_balance[t] for t in range(start_date, end_date)) = 28'904'174.60However, we note that Uniswap's market share in terms of UNI markets has increased over time, whereas Binance and Huobi have been decreasing in UNI holdings. As such, we think a weaker but still acceptable estimator for safe_quorum_threshold is:
safe_quorum_threshold_ub2[exchange] = max([avg_balance[exchange] + abs(max_delta[t])
for t in range(start_date, end_date)])
Why do we think this is reasonable?
Using this bound gives us a final number that we believe could be in a proposal:
safe_quorum_threshold_ub2["binance"] = 26'930'326.78
Thus, we believe that a quorum amount of roughly 27M UNI should suffice to prevent a unilateral deleterious act.
[0] Compound has borrow caps enabled as of Compound governance proposal 22, which mitigates the size of borrow that an adversary can
[1] Aave has a community sentiment poll for adding Uniswap to the protocol -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEEJAuhmVduSEVN8uPKIPJySxksQ8FAl+BQmYACgkQKIPJySxk sQ/FrQ/+JXWalAXCNIEEvJqFZHdp0wLQWlCxWQ7ctCMkM96wU9Q2SHdIPOrK8NjD Q7g/2AX6Ho/+RKw+J/XjeSbulaEz6RCIpo0xbD4xHmQfZe15P/fo5aAQnHbm1tJ1 KKXqFv2Bx6/Z66sdiobDSZLik4W/f1mhHtiuyr4XRGR6Az1AgmYQlICwrpNKakCm oak3X/tcgntiX7ff0yMWjKMmsAmGkkwHerr42i8o4ZtkSigy62u5WcRCpugAT0V/ guytgpuiuOZf0oTw3r5yWrdRBDVYIwWxw/9PYbQ1Rebl1aKj/C2rpOqBUkOMn+YV sMNfCYMQFUPJHXtavjlwpdV48le7Qb6zGFT6ZSLAVQ8gOKW8Rv7R1C1eVrrMobC/ F5WqGwEkiUQ/DrdEZrF+EQp5TCOOeqwjyAZS5k24P8yQBxQhQJUxo7QT4Yph14xz WPgVqB1we4jy5R0zg8V2df27zVXFu1Oye2Ovlk3WKiodk3d5sk2K6WhJ5D4P0dNU W/oQYCwBVtI/mWdkv9DJ3odto7Z+pw+Rc/kh4WcOIdT4J+OSMPE6iO+Txz9xfnxH jyDn0hawFmSEChABnubqkDlPv/SNEXPOCafq/Uf+f5octktFsp4ieQdVB5JUGx92 kEycSzthvAgc/8x6cwjlY+9vT70ZvlPs3T8GOLO/AUgPle2J6XA= =coIU -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Wow thats a really high price for a PROPOSAL
10K might be too little-- don't forget the amount of users that are on uni-swap but cutting the 10M to 5M might work. if it only took 10K new proposals could get voted on way way too quickly
I very much agree, 2-5m Uni should be the very lowest requirement, otherwise the proposal area will be spammed with low quality proposals and people will get jaded.
The delegation systems exists for this reason.
Andre Cronje has 10m uni delegated to him and is proposing this,
personally I thnk it's not a bad system, stops the system being cluttered from hundreds of repeated and poorly thought out submissions.
Maybe a 2m UNI limit would be better, certainly no less that 1m.
Delegate to me and let us get that 1% of UNI voting power. I pledge to represent all constituents not just by holding town halls but using a voting mechanism to reach optimal consensus. Let us unite and bring forth what the community desires. If you are not familiar with how to delegate I have posted an instructional.
In my opinion the treshold of uni for submitting a proposal should be high, because there should be major support for the proposal and not a lack of interest to vote from the community. At the same time uniswap needs to keep innovating and therefore change with the support of the community. How high the treshold should be exactly is a point of discussion. We could introduce a rule that if none of the proposals have reached the minimum treshold of 10 mil UNI in a single month. The three proposals with the highest number of votes will be submitted as a governance proposal
Support this. Obviously need to decrease
Agreed, the lower the threshold to have proposal the lower the quality of proposals will be!! In my opinion this is what will make changes hard to implement and will give stability to the project. If changes are made easy and there is low quality proposals that get promoted through attack vectors it just makes people loose confidence in the whole ecosystem. I think its best to leave governance the way it was meant to be and see how the community evolves before starting to change it.
Does delegated UNI count towards the threshold to create proposals or will voting power be the only ability? I would think it is better to have a higher UNI threshold for creating proposals to drive the communities need to participate in larger goals and avoid proposals made by people who only plan to hold their UNI until the effects of governing have ended. There should be more requirements on who can participate and vote if they lower the necessary UNI such as an approval by 33% of verified holders. Do we want every vote to count or every voice? :money_mouth_face:
The reason for having it be so large is to stop people from making awful proposals.
The lowest id like to see it go is 7 million.
Honestly I think you have to reduce the number of UNIs required to submit a proposal once you have a system that is a bit more stable. I think for now we are barely figuring out how do do things, it's all very new, so I think for now it is okay to have it high in order to maintain stability.
Though it might be an unnecessarily large amount.
The Compound way is a good solution h/t @mak
Eliminates delegation while at the same time ensuring only proposals that eventually gather quorum and obtain majority vote pass through.
Effective and fair.
+1 to this - needing 10M UNI, ~$65M worth of tokens to make a proposal doesn't make sense.
Maybe 10k UNI is a little too low? (This only 25 claimable addresses). But 100k UNI again seems like an unreasonable amount at $650k. Middle ground of 50k UNI to submit governance proposal
But also +1 to the idea of making proposals with any token balance if that's being rolled out.
Good idea. Post your address so we can delegate our votes to you so you can formally create it. EDIT: Just saw this. We might not need to lower the proposal creation threshold at all. https://twitter.com/rleshner/status/1307162893683548160
Barrier of entry is too high. Let’s get more voices in the mix.
Agreed, the lower the threshold to have proposal the lower the quality of proposals will be!! In my opinion this is what will make changes hard to implement and will give stability to the project. If changes are made easy and there is low quality proposals that get promoted through attack vectors it just makes people loose confidence in the whole ecosystem. I think its best to leave governance the way it was meant to be and see how the community evolves before starting to change it.
Does delegated UNI count towards the threshold to create proposals or will voting power be the only ability? I would think it is better to have a higher UNI threshold for creating proposals to drive the communities need to participate in larger goals and avoid proposals made by people who only plan to hold their UNI until the effects of governing have ended. There should be more requirements on who can participate and vote if they lower the necessary UNI such as an approval by 33% of verified holders. Do we want every vote to count or every voice? :money_mouth_face:
The reason for having it be so large is to stop people from making awful proposals.
The lowest id like to see it go is 7 million.
Honestly I think you have to reduce the number of UNIs required to submit a proposal once you have a system that is a bit more stable. I think for now we are barely figuring out how do do things, it's all very new, so I think for now it is okay to have it high in order to maintain stability.
Though it might be an unnecessarily large amount.
The Compound way is a good solution h/t @mak
Eliminates delegation while at the same time ensuring only proposals that eventually gather quorum and obtain majority vote pass through.
Effective and fair.
+1 to this - needing 10M UNI, ~$65M worth of tokens to make a proposal doesn't make sense.
Maybe 10k UNI is a little too low? (This only 25 claimable addresses). But 100k UNI again seems like an unreasonable amount at $650k. Middle ground of 50k UNI to submit governance proposal
But also +1 to the idea of making proposals with any token balance if that's being rolled out.
Good idea. Post your address so we can delegate our votes to you so you can formally create it. EDIT: Just saw this. We might not need to lower the proposal creation threshold at all. https://twitter.com/rleshner/status/1307162893683548160
Barrier of entry is too high. Let’s get more voices in the mix.
No. 10k is too low. Keep it a 10 million for now. We can always delegate. More than enough coins are circulating in the community to do so. Your proposal doesn’t even meet in the middle.
I support this 100%.
Another suggestion would be that proposals go through these steps like they go in Yearn finance- Forum Post & discussion > Mods create Poll if decent amount of interest > Governance Vote This works beautifully.
Agreed it is unreasonably high. Another thing that can help is if Uniswap implemented Compound's Autonomous Proposals: https://medium.com/compound-finance/compound-autonomous-proposals-354e7a2ad6b7
No. 10k is too low. Keep it a 10 million for now. We can always delegate. More than enough coins are circulating in the community to do so. Your proposal doesn’t even meet in the middle.
I support this 100%.
Another suggestion would be that proposals go through these steps like they go in Yearn finance- Forum Post & discussion > Mods create Poll if decent amount of interest > Governance Vote This works beautifully.
Agreed it is unreasonably high. Another thing that can help is if Uniswap implemented Compound's Autonomous Proposals: https://medium.com/compound-finance/compound-autonomous-proposals-354e7a2ad6b7
Lol, nice comparison. But really, how would nothing ever pass? Maybe I worded what I said wrong, but if we put a cap on votes wouldn't that, level the playing field for everyone in uniswap? Darma would no longer have 15 million votes, no one would, maybe we would have to change the Amount of votes needed And the quorum so that it worked with what ever we decide to cap it off at, but I'm not seeing how something like that wouldnt be possible, or how nothing would pass if we decided to do something like this. Unless we proposed it and the propsal failed of course would raise almost confirmed suspicion if there was any.
Lol, nice comparison. But really, how would nothing ever pass? Maybe I worded what I said wrong, but if we put a cap on votes wouldn't that, level the playing field for everyone in uniswap? Darma would no longer have 15 million votes, no one would, maybe we would have to change the Amount of votes needed And the quorum so that it worked with what ever we decide to cap it off at, but I'm not seeing how something like that wouldnt be possible, or how nothing would pass if we decided to do something like this. Unless we proposed it and the propsal failed of course would raise almost confirmed suspicion if there was any.
Thank God It did fail I was confusha there for a sec. And I'm on the uni side.. that proposal was junk, and I definitely had no idea we could of had that coming. I thought it was open discussion on what the uni swap community would propose, that one was slipped in the rear!! Like I'll vote yes right now for drama to not be able to propose anything yes since they just wasted our time, and or cap on amount of votes, I mean how many votes would the average person actually have anyways or be willing to spend.
Can confirm the proposal failed. Confusion is due to variations between actual block time (Defeated) and Uniswap's estimated block time.
Not sure why it says defeated...there is still 12 hours left....
Whatever side you are on, this is fucking really weird and dodgy. This whole thing has been a complete mess.
then nothing would ever pass
it's kinda like looking at roadkill and wondering when it will eventually cross the road
What about simply putting a cap on the amount of votes one entity can use. Like 1000 votes per either you have 1000 or ya don't.
I see that you have a problem the way it went. What do you try to achieve by calling others conspiracy theorist? Did you know that science is full of theories until proven wrong or right? Heck life is full of assumptions and theories. You are using it in a very inflating way. What are you trying to achieve with these allegations? My feeling about it is, that you are trying to divide.
By the way...I am happy that the team did their homework with these initial settings. Personally, I see no reason for any rush. My best guess is, that many people are here because they like the project, and they took part in it without any tokens. This is a new situation, and we will find a way to make more out of it ... more than personal profit. I am mainly altruistic and somewhat emotionally attached to the project, not profit from a token. It seems you have a different motivation. Anyway, lowering the required amount of UNI for proposals might be good, but I see no reason to rush anything.
Voting says defeated so does that mean they wasted our proposal and its not going through plus there aren't going to be able to pull some shit like that again ?
TLDR: <vote yes and don't reply that this post was too long>
Looks like the voting system is working exactly as intended, which is also having the expected impact on the dominant narratives here.
TLDR: <vote yes and don't reply that this post was too long>
Looks like the voting system is working exactly as intended, which is also having the expected impact on the dominant narratives here.
Camp #1: Crypto-anarchist ideologues tapping the "decentralized governance" drum, and using a value-based justification that is focused around anti-establishment norms. I like these guys. They stick to their beliefs at least.
Camp #2: Dharma and Gauntlet based conspiracy that chooses to vilify these entities with elaborate accusations of attempting to 'overthrow' Uniswap. Despite having no evidence, they have gathered support from other crypto-natives that enjoy fictionalizing their thoughts to fit their internal view of the world. When the only possible explanation you can come up with is absent of evidence, you have lost all objectivity. When you consider Cronje's 'yes' vote and support from the Uniswap founder, you have to wonder how far this camp is willing to go with their moral campaign.
Camp #3: There is a contingent here that fears Uniswap Governance may be rendered ineffective, due to the voting constraints that were prematurely designed into the contract without understanding the impact. The narrative here is focused on making 'governance' work, by whatever means necessary.
Camp #4: The silent majority who frankly don't care. This is a well studied phenomenon in politics, and with anonymity, the problem may be worse for us because you can't even vote-signal here. There is no lawn to place your party's candidate sign.
The conspiracy camp is the loudest because Kahneman (nobel prize in behavioural economics) taught us through his cognitive heuristics, that a negative narrative is 4x more impactful than the equivalent positive narrative. The fear stoking has a predictable chemical impact on the brain, and we fall prey to it because, well, we are human and risk-averse. However, the brittleness of the argument is apparent in the outcome of the vote thusfar, especially when you consider that a lot of small wallets are voting 'yes'.
The idealogues seem to be led by Hiturunk. The dedicated pursuit of a specific moral philosophy is commendable. However, to gain a stronger presence they need to make this ideology count with votes, and that is proving to be an insurmountable challenge for now. I personally don't agree with their viewpoint but i respect aspects of it. 'Plutocracies' are used euphemistically to represent their existential fear that big money will just come in and control everything. Well, we have created a governance structure that incentivizes that behaviour, but for now, we can't assume that plutocracy is evil until we understand the intentions of those wealthy players. Assuming that 'establishments' are all evil, which is central to anarchist belief systems, is naive and will always marginalize your opinion.
Camp 3 is boring. All that chatter about governance structures is tedious, technical, and doesn't help me get emotionally engaged in the argument.
Camp 4 is what will kill us unless things change quickly, and continue changing as this space evolves underneath us. The moment we seek balance, we become complacent, and we'll lose whatever edge we've managed to establish in this market. Successfull endeavours survive because of their ability to roll with the punches, not find better gloves, a weaker partner, or bribing the ref. This is the essence of systems science and self-organized criticality (Bak). I'm not suggesting we need to fabricate the interests and passions of this camp, but we definitely need to accomodate the silent uncaring apathetic element to our system. Do a poll to prove this. Send out a question to every UNI holder and ask them if they understand what governance means.
Whatever governance structure we pick, it needs to 'nudge' the system in the direction we want to go. NOT establish an ideological end-state. Roadmaps that focus incessantly on the future at the expense of the present, FAIL miserably. This is why i am in Favour of this proposal, because at least it represents change. It represents movement. We have something to learn from it, and i'm more interesting in learning than in making sure we don't get it wrong.
I just noticed this proposal; as I have been checking about once a week. Not a huge bag holder, but am a long term uniswap user. If anything the fact that you want to LOWER this amount right off the bat before the 60 day first vesting period is over, shows to me at least, a power grab. If anything I thought the current proposal limit was too low as well as quorum.
This literally being the biggest AMM dex in ethereum history, it has been doing quite well without the extreme changes other defi instruments have been going through with governance. Additionally, with how easy it is to delegate votes here as opposed to other governance structures I've seen I actually see the original requirements quite low especially after the over 2 million uni tokens they are distributing a week currently. Again reading the (quite few) comments here when compared to the actual users of uniswap on a day to day basis (thousands) you cannot accurately state there is any sort of "wide consensus" with the uniswap community whatsoever.
If anything they should post about big votes like this on the front page like they do uniswap scrolling market cap. Then and only then would people even know this is going on alot of my friends thought voting wasn't even allowed till after the 60 day initial eth-stablecoin was over.
P.S.- sorry for my longwindedness but I really liked using uni, and unfortunately I don't see this not turning into a quick dictatorship with such low thresholds, so i voted against this proposal.
"in here" and "generally gets strong support" ... You are literally talking about a handful of people; not the thousands that use uniswap or probably don't even know what's going on in these forums because they don't advertise it on the front page like they do token prices or market caps..
Unilavent were the ones who had initially come up with the numbers in the first place. Have you even done any research?
The current numbers obviously don't work because they can get only get 32 million total yes/no votes.
No governance proposals will go through in 2020 if this doesn't go through.
Kolten nailed it. Don't understand why Unilavent said this was their only priority and then seem to have ended up not even voting. I think they saw some of the bad press Dharma was getting and backed out. This wasn't even Dharma's proposal initially and they are the ones taking the heat for it.
I believe this is what @Joshuawakefield is referring to: https://twitter.com/NadavAHollander/status/1314720831751110656
They were the ones working with Dharma initially to get it proposed. Dharma's priority was the airdrop, whereas Unilavent wanted the quorum reduced, and proposal threshold reduced.
I feel like I dont have much to add so I will stop here myself but just to reiterate as reading through my own post it was long my stance is.
I plan on respecting the vote whatever way it goes.
We should use the outcome regardless to unite to something everyone can agree on using this forum as a discussion board to bounce ideas and views back and forth before going to vote again.
I feel like I dont have much to add so I will stop here myself but just to reiterate as reading through my own post it was long my stance is.
I plan on respecting the vote whatever way it goes.
We should use the outcome regardless to unite to something everyone can agree on using this forum as a discussion board to bounce ideas and views back and forth before going to vote again.
That's my 2 cent on the topic anyway if it interests anyone
It is pretty sad that it seems that Unilavent haven't actually delivered and voted when they were the ones proposing the change in the first place. There are more than enough delegates, but people are sitting on the fence and not voting.
I agree and I think this is something people arent recognising, if Dharma, Gauntlet and co can't get a proposal through as 3 of the major Uni holders how do others expect to ever get any proposal through?
Even with deligation they're unlikely to ever hit the 40M quorum even if they somehow got ever Uni holder to delegate/vote without making this change.
I agree and I think this is something people arent recognising, if Dharma, Gauntlet and co can't get a proposal through as 3 of the major Uni holders how do others expect to ever get any proposal through?
Even with deligation they're unlikely to ever hit the 40M quorum even if they somehow got ever Uni holder to delegate/vote without making this change.
In saying that I can see both sides of this with the current proposal and putting the vote through as 2 seperate proposals
I think once people realise this and come to their senses they will be kicking themselves for the way they voted imo but we will see.
That's not to say there isnt another way, if anything I think this shows we need to all come together if anything and agree to something we all agree to whales and small holders before putting it to a vote to prevent the same thing from happening again.
Either way I will respect the vote whatever way it goes and hopefully this will strengthen us all to unite more for the greater good of governance.
EDIT: In saying that again removing 30M votes which has now been proven to be more than what is owned between Dharma, Gauntlet etc the current vote is still very much in favour with
656,919 For 643,922 Against
I think if anything it's important to respect whichever side wins and not turn this forum into a battle field of one side vs the other and start to work together.
Moral of the story is we're unlikely to hit the 40M Quorum to pass this at this point but we do need to see that this narrative of "oh well if Dharma's votes were taken off more people are against this" because they're just not true. Again more important to work together
Governance is currently broken. No one can even get to quorum.
Thank God It did fail I was confusha there for a sec. And I'm on the uni side.. that proposal was junk, and I definitely had no idea we could of had that coming. I thought it was open discussion on what the uni swap community would propose, that one was slipped in the rear!! Like I'll vote yes right now for drama to not be able to propose anything yes since they just wasted our time, and or cap on amount of votes, I mean how many votes would the average person actually have anyways or be willing to spend.
Can confirm the proposal failed. Confusion is due to variations between actual block time (Defeated) and Uniswap's estimated block time.
Not sure why it says defeated...there is still 12 hours left....
Whatever side you are on, this is fucking really weird and dodgy. This whole thing has been a complete mess.
then nothing would ever pass
it's kinda like looking at roadkill and wondering when it will eventually cross the road
What about simply putting a cap on the amount of votes one entity can use. Like 1000 votes per either you have 1000 or ya don't.
I see that you have a problem the way it went. What do you try to achieve by calling others conspiracy theorist? Did you know that science is full of theories until proven wrong or right? Heck life is full of assumptions and theories. You are using it in a very inflating way. What are you trying to achieve with these allegations? My feeling about it is, that you are trying to divide.
By the way...I am happy that the team did their homework with these initial settings. Personally, I see no reason for any rush. My best guess is, that many people are here because they like the project, and they took part in it without any tokens. This is a new situation, and we will find a way to make more out of it ... more than personal profit. I am mainly altruistic and somewhat emotionally attached to the project, not profit from a token. It seems you have a different motivation. Anyway, lowering the required amount of UNI for proposals might be good, but I see no reason to rush anything.
Voting says defeated so does that mean they wasted our proposal and its not going through plus there aren't going to be able to pull some shit like that again ?
TLDR: <vote yes and don't reply that this post was too long>
Looks like the voting system is working exactly as intended, which is also having the expected impact on the dominant narratives here.
TLDR: <vote yes and don't reply that this post was too long>
Looks like the voting system is working exactly as intended, which is also having the expected impact on the dominant narratives here.
Camp #1: Crypto-anarchist ideologues tapping the "decentralized governance" drum, and using a value-based justification that is focused around anti-establishment norms. I like these guys. They stick to their beliefs at least.
Camp #2: Dharma and Gauntlet based conspiracy that chooses to vilify these entities with elaborate accusations of attempting to 'overthrow' Uniswap. Despite having no evidence, they have gathered support from other crypto-natives that enjoy fictionalizing their thoughts to fit their internal view of the world. When the only possible explanation you can come up with is absent of evidence, you have lost all objectivity. When you consider Cronje's 'yes' vote and support from the Uniswap founder, you have to wonder how far this camp is willing to go with their moral campaign.
Camp #3: There is a contingent here that fears Uniswap Governance may be rendered ineffective, due to the voting constraints that were prematurely designed into the contract without understanding the impact. The narrative here is focused on making 'governance' work, by whatever means necessary.
Camp #4: The silent majority who frankly don't care. This is a well studied phenomenon in politics, and with anonymity, the problem may be worse for us because you can't even vote-signal here. There is no lawn to place your party's candidate sign.
The conspiracy camp is the loudest because Kahneman (nobel prize in behavioural economics) taught us through his cognitive heuristics, that a negative narrative is 4x more impactful than the equivalent positive narrative. The fear stoking has a predictable chemical impact on the brain, and we fall prey to it because, well, we are human and risk-averse. However, the brittleness of the argument is apparent in the outcome of the vote thusfar, especially when you consider that a lot of small wallets are voting 'yes'.
The idealogues seem to be led by Hiturunk. The dedicated pursuit of a specific moral philosophy is commendable. However, to gain a stronger presence they need to make this ideology count with votes, and that is proving to be an insurmountable challenge for now. I personally don't agree with their viewpoint but i respect aspects of it. 'Plutocracies' are used euphemistically to represent their existential fear that big money will just come in and control everything. Well, we have created a governance structure that incentivizes that behaviour, but for now, we can't assume that plutocracy is evil until we understand the intentions of those wealthy players. Assuming that 'establishments' are all evil, which is central to anarchist belief systems, is naive and will always marginalize your opinion.
Camp 3 is boring. All that chatter about governance structures is tedious, technical, and doesn't help me get emotionally engaged in the argument.
Camp 4 is what will kill us unless things change quickly, and continue changing as this space evolves underneath us. The moment we seek balance, we become complacent, and we'll lose whatever edge we've managed to establish in this market. Successfull endeavours survive because of their ability to roll with the punches, not find better gloves, a weaker partner, or bribing the ref. This is the essence of systems science and self-organized criticality (Bak). I'm not suggesting we need to fabricate the interests and passions of this camp, but we definitely need to accomodate the silent uncaring apathetic element to our system. Do a poll to prove this. Send out a question to every UNI holder and ask them if they understand what governance means.
Whatever governance structure we pick, it needs to 'nudge' the system in the direction we want to go. NOT establish an ideological end-state. Roadmaps that focus incessantly on the future at the expense of the present, FAIL miserably. This is why i am in Favour of this proposal, because at least it represents change. It represents movement. We have something to learn from it, and i'm more interesting in learning than in making sure we don't get it wrong.
I just noticed this proposal; as I have been checking about once a week. Not a huge bag holder, but am a long term uniswap user. If anything the fact that you want to LOWER this amount right off the bat before the 60 day first vesting period is over, shows to me at least, a power grab. If anything I thought the current proposal limit was too low as well as quorum.
This literally being the biggest AMM dex in ethereum history, it has been doing quite well without the extreme changes other defi instruments have been going through with governance. Additionally, with how easy it is to delegate votes here as opposed to other governance structures I've seen I actually see the original requirements quite low especially after the over 2 million uni tokens they are distributing a week currently. Again reading the (quite few) comments here when compared to the actual users of uniswap on a day to day basis (thousands) you cannot accurately state there is any sort of "wide consensus" with the uniswap community whatsoever.
If anything they should post about big votes like this on the front page like they do uniswap scrolling market cap. Then and only then would people even know this is going on alot of my friends thought voting wasn't even allowed till after the 60 day initial eth-stablecoin was over.
P.S.- sorry for my longwindedness but I really liked using uni, and unfortunately I don't see this not turning into a quick dictatorship with such low thresholds, so i voted against this proposal.
"in here" and "generally gets strong support" ... You are literally talking about a handful of people; not the thousands that use uniswap or probably don't even know what's going on in these forums because they don't advertise it on the front page like they do token prices or market caps..
Unilavent were the ones who had initially come up with the numbers in the first place. Have you even done any research?
The current numbers obviously don't work because they can get only get 32 million total yes/no votes.
No governance proposals will go through in 2020 if this doesn't go through.
Kolten nailed it. Don't understand why Unilavent said this was their only priority and then seem to have ended up not even voting. I think they saw some of the bad press Dharma was getting and backed out. This wasn't even Dharma's proposal initially and they are the ones taking the heat for it.
I believe this is what @Joshuawakefield is referring to: https://twitter.com/NadavAHollander/status/1314720831751110656
They were the ones working with Dharma initially to get it proposed. Dharma's priority was the airdrop, whereas Unilavent wanted the quorum reduced, and proposal threshold reduced.
I feel like I dont have much to add so I will stop here myself but just to reiterate as reading through my own post it was long my stance is.
I plan on respecting the vote whatever way it goes.
We should use the outcome regardless to unite to something everyone can agree on using this forum as a discussion board to bounce ideas and views back and forth before going to vote again.
I feel like I dont have much to add so I will stop here myself but just to reiterate as reading through my own post it was long my stance is.
I plan on respecting the vote whatever way it goes.
We should use the outcome regardless to unite to something everyone can agree on using this forum as a discussion board to bounce ideas and views back and forth before going to vote again.
That's my 2 cent on the topic anyway if it interests anyone
It is pretty sad that it seems that Unilavent haven't actually delivered and voted when they were the ones proposing the change in the first place. There are more than enough delegates, but people are sitting on the fence and not voting.
I agree and I think this is something people arent recognising, if Dharma, Gauntlet and co can't get a proposal through as 3 of the major Uni holders how do others expect to ever get any proposal through?
Even with deligation they're unlikely to ever hit the 40M quorum even if they somehow got ever Uni holder to delegate/vote without making this change.
I agree and I think this is something people arent recognising, if Dharma, Gauntlet and co can't get a proposal through as 3 of the major Uni holders how do others expect to ever get any proposal through?
Even with deligation they're unlikely to ever hit the 40M quorum even if they somehow got ever Uni holder to delegate/vote without making this change.
In saying that I can see both sides of this with the current proposal and putting the vote through as 2 seperate proposals
I think once people realise this and come to their senses they will be kicking themselves for the way they voted imo but we will see.
That's not to say there isnt another way, if anything I think this shows we need to all come together if anything and agree to something we all agree to whales and small holders before putting it to a vote to prevent the same thing from happening again.
Either way I will respect the vote whatever way it goes and hopefully this will strengthen us all to unite more for the greater good of governance.
EDIT: In saying that again removing 30M votes which has now been proven to be more than what is owned between Dharma, Gauntlet etc the current vote is still very much in favour with
656,919 For 643,922 Against
I think if anything it's important to respect whichever side wins and not turn this forum into a battle field of one side vs the other and start to work together.
Moral of the story is we're unlikely to hit the 40M Quorum to pass this at this point but we do need to see that this narrative of "oh well if Dharma's votes were taken off more people are against this" because they're just not true. Again more important to work together
Governance is currently broken. No one can even get to quorum.
I am not asking to be handed 40m USD, I think the burden of the proof relies on who is actually asking for something like that... using deceptive techniques, as shown multiple times
You can literally go look at each address proposed and see the transactions that took place...do some research will you.
Because they could have done it before the 1st of September, it's not uncommon that some companies inflate their own numbers to better appeal to investors
The retroactive distribution proposal is fair and lower risk than the initial distribution, since we know there is a 1:1 user:address relationship.
The retroactive distribution proposal is fair and lower risk than the initial distribution, since we know there is a 1:1 user:address relationship.
We don't know that, Dharma (and the other companies that are advocating for the second drop), could have created thousands of fake accounts in order to inflate their numbers in the face of their investors...
I agree, Gauntlet and Dharma collectively have 30m votes, they are proposing a 30m quorum so that they can push through any proposal they like. (Dharma might feel strongly about one particular proposal)
We can only hope that people that haven’t voted yet see this as the attack on governance that it is and
VOTE NO!
This proposal has put Dharma´s cards on the table. Their only goal is to reduce quorum so they could pass their cash grab proposal at OUR expense. Thankfully, their charade is hopefully at its end.
Voting on two independent changes in one proposal undermines the integrity of the vote.
Each change made by governance has potentially huge ramifications, wrapping several proposals into one because it saves 5 dev hours is not the way to go.
Riding of this Unicorn should be condemned by the community. This kills the 'corn.
Vote against. Split it up!
This is not true, you need 40m votes on "yes" to reach quorum, not 40m total, as per the UNI blog post.
Voting against is the way to go. Even if it's just to send a message
This was originally about proposals, the quorum stuff was thrown in and is where I understand Uni0 issue to be.
As uni0 said the Quorum question maybe should have been a separate proposal. Either way not much can be done now as even if another proposal is put in unless the original proposal is somehow cancelled or voted majority against it will take precedence.
This was originally about proposals, the quorum stuff was thrown in and is where I understand Uni0 issue to be.
As uni0 said the Quorum question maybe should have been a separate proposal. Either way not much can be done now as even if another proposal is put in unless the original proposal is somehow cancelled or voted majority against it will take precedence.
Either way this is a lesson for next time and possibly even a proposal for votes to be kept as worded (if there were a way to do that). Regardless people are still voting for the proposal which would make me think they're ok with both being changed or haven't noticed the subtle entry but hey either way a lesson for future votes if thats what people want.
If we are worried about a centralised exchange taking control of the governance... we should increase the quorum, not decrease it :sweat_smile:
I agree in terms of maybe voting on them separately would have been a good idea as it wasn't mentioned in the original conversation and its a lesson for the next time but voting is already happening hard to go back and not even sure if there is a way for the Proposer to withdraw the proposal once its been made and people have started to vote on it but I get where you're coming from 100%
The analysis only focuses on what Gauntlet @Tarun thinks the quorum threshold should be. Not what the proposal threshold should be. On a proposal discussion that only mentions proposal threshold. This is clearly trying to steal this proposal to get something else through.
I am for reducing the proposal threshold and against reducing quorum threshold.
The analysis only focuses on what Gauntlet @Tarun thinks the quorum threshold should be. Not what the proposal threshold should be. On a proposal discussion that only mentions proposal threshold. This is clearly trying to steal this proposal to get something else through.
I am for reducing the proposal threshold and against reducing quorum threshold.
I am STRONGLY against voting on multiple changes like this. We should have fair voting on every issue. This is such a farce. @tarun care to comment?
Yes the fact the Quorum isn't mentioned here is a bit suspicious but maybe the person proposing felt they were in fact linked after the fact i'm sure the OP would be happy to clarify if they see this as to why quorum was also proposed for change last minute
Also if you take 30M off the agree (assuming that was Dharma's 30M as some here claim) the vote would still be
For 266,825 Against 37,563
Yes the fact the Quorum isn't mentioned here is a bit suspicious but maybe the person proposing felt they were in fact linked after the fact i'm sure the OP would be happy to clarify if they see this as to why quorum was also proposed for change last minute
Also if you take 30M off the agree (assuming that was Dharma's 30M as some here claim) the vote would still be
For 266,825 Against 37,563
Showing the majority of holders still are for the proposal by a pretty large margin
Exactly is suspicious, mostly because a large sum of money is going to be soon controlled by the treasury. Lowering the quorum makes the job of someone trying to get control of that money a far lot easier.
At this point of the project I think it's better to make proposals a hard thing to do
Each proposal is individual and should be considered on its own merits with its own vote when the time comes.
I agree completely.
This vote should only be about reducing the amount of UNI’s required to submit a governance proposal. Bundling it in with a lowering of quorum is just weird. And frankly suspicious. Just my opinion.
You don’t find this suspicious at all? I don’t know much about Gauntlet and Dharma but considering they might have some other proposals they want to push though, i don’t think it’s farfetched to think that “they” are trying to change the governance to suit their own interests…
I am not asking to be handed 40m USD, I think the burden of the proof relies on who is actually asking for something like that... using deceptive techniques, as shown multiple times
You can literally go look at each address proposed and see the transactions that took place...do some research will you.
Because they could have done it before the 1st of September, it's not uncommon that some companies inflate their own numbers to better appeal to investors
The retroactive distribution proposal is fair and lower risk than the initial distribution, since we know there is a 1:1 user:address relationship.
The retroactive distribution proposal is fair and lower risk than the initial distribution, since we know there is a 1:1 user:address relationship.
We don't know that, Dharma (and the other companies that are advocating for the second drop), could have created thousands of fake accounts in order to inflate their numbers in the face of their investors...
I agree, Gauntlet and Dharma collectively have 30m votes, they are proposing a 30m quorum so that they can push through any proposal they like. (Dharma might feel strongly about one particular proposal)
We can only hope that people that haven’t voted yet see this as the attack on governance that it is and
VOTE NO!
This proposal has put Dharma´s cards on the table. Their only goal is to reduce quorum so they could pass their cash grab proposal at OUR expense. Thankfully, their charade is hopefully at its end.
Voting on two independent changes in one proposal undermines the integrity of the vote.
Each change made by governance has potentially huge ramifications, wrapping several proposals into one because it saves 5 dev hours is not the way to go.
Riding of this Unicorn should be condemned by the community. This kills the 'corn.
Vote against. Split it up!
This is not true, you need 40m votes on "yes" to reach quorum, not 40m total, as per the UNI blog post.
Voting against is the way to go. Even if it's just to send a message
This was originally about proposals, the quorum stuff was thrown in and is where I understand Uni0 issue to be.
As uni0 said the Quorum question maybe should have been a separate proposal. Either way not much can be done now as even if another proposal is put in unless the original proposal is somehow cancelled or voted majority against it will take precedence.
This was originally about proposals, the quorum stuff was thrown in and is where I understand Uni0 issue to be.
As uni0 said the Quorum question maybe should have been a separate proposal. Either way not much can be done now as even if another proposal is put in unless the original proposal is somehow cancelled or voted majority against it will take precedence.
Either way this is a lesson for next time and possibly even a proposal for votes to be kept as worded (if there were a way to do that). Regardless people are still voting for the proposal which would make me think they're ok with both being changed or haven't noticed the subtle entry but hey either way a lesson for future votes if thats what people want.
If we are worried about a centralised exchange taking control of the governance... we should increase the quorum, not decrease it :sweat_smile:
I agree in terms of maybe voting on them separately would have been a good idea as it wasn't mentioned in the original conversation and its a lesson for the next time but voting is already happening hard to go back and not even sure if there is a way for the Proposer to withdraw the proposal once its been made and people have started to vote on it but I get where you're coming from 100%
The analysis only focuses on what Gauntlet @Tarun thinks the quorum threshold should be. Not what the proposal threshold should be. On a proposal discussion that only mentions proposal threshold. This is clearly trying to steal this proposal to get something else through.
I am for reducing the proposal threshold and against reducing quorum threshold.
The analysis only focuses on what Gauntlet @Tarun thinks the quorum threshold should be. Not what the proposal threshold should be. On a proposal discussion that only mentions proposal threshold. This is clearly trying to steal this proposal to get something else through.
I am for reducing the proposal threshold and against reducing quorum threshold.
I am STRONGLY against voting on multiple changes like this. We should have fair voting on every issue. This is such a farce. @tarun care to comment?
Yes the fact the Quorum isn't mentioned here is a bit suspicious but maybe the person proposing felt they were in fact linked after the fact i'm sure the OP would be happy to clarify if they see this as to why quorum was also proposed for change last minute
Also if you take 30M off the agree (assuming that was Dharma's 30M as some here claim) the vote would still be
For 266,825 Against 37,563
Yes the fact the Quorum isn't mentioned here is a bit suspicious but maybe the person proposing felt they were in fact linked after the fact i'm sure the OP would be happy to clarify if they see this as to why quorum was also proposed for change last minute
Also if you take 30M off the agree (assuming that was Dharma's 30M as some here claim) the vote would still be
For 266,825 Against 37,563
Showing the majority of holders still are for the proposal by a pretty large margin
Exactly is suspicious, mostly because a large sum of money is going to be soon controlled by the treasury. Lowering the quorum makes the job of someone trying to get control of that money a far lot easier.
At this point of the project I think it's better to make proposals a hard thing to do
Each proposal is individual and should be considered on its own merits with its own vote when the time comes.
I agree completely.
This vote should only be about reducing the amount of UNI’s required to submit a governance proposal. Bundling it in with a lowering of quorum is just weird. And frankly suspicious. Just my opinion.
You don’t find this suspicious at all? I don’t know much about Gauntlet and Dharma but considering they might have some other proposals they want to push though, i don’t think it’s farfetched to think that “they” are trying to change the governance to suit their own interests…
You don’t find this suspicious at all? I don’t know much about Gauntlet and Dharma but considering they might have some other proposals they want to push though, i don’t think it’s farfetched to think that “they” are trying to change the governance to suit their own interests…
Again you would have to look at separate proposals on an individual basis trying to make a decision for one proposal basis of many other proposals that could or couldn't happen and or get passes/not passed is a bit silly. Each proposal is individual and should be considered on its own merits with its own vote when the time comes.
Yeah I do think it's a tad suspicious that 30M landed instantly on yes but at the same time where you there to see if it was 30M in 1 go or was it built up over multiple votes or was it 30M which was not fully owned by Dharma but somewhat delegated to Dharma (Dharma maybe owned less and the 30M they got was also through delegation).
To fault the team for a single figure is a bit harsh isn't it the team choose figures they thought were appropriate for Proposals and Quorum at the time. There have been many conversations on here about it both being too high, too low and just right this vote is giving people another figure and saying is this alright? I'm sure the team was well aware at some point in time someone was going to challenge their figure and vote to change it, someone had to choose a starting figure and it was always undoubtedly going to be contested.
In response to the Binance voting again no one knows whether Binance would work with or against the community interest one would hope they consider informing and asking the community before proposing something but again no proof behind whether they are for good or bad either way it's unlikely the community would ever be able to overthrow a centralised body (maybe this is where it was a mistake to ever let centralised exchanges list the token something that can't really be changed now unless possibly a proposal could be put through to forcer the teams hand to start contacting central exchanges to de-list the UNI token)
EDIT: all in all we just have to hope these whales/centralised bodies with tons of UNI are working in the community and token holders interest far from that there isn't much we can really do as they hold the tokens and there's no way of removing them from them unless they choose to sell which would still put an immense sell pressure on the token.
EDIT 2: as we speak I can see the votes for the proposal increasing suggesting it is more than Dharma for this proposal right now and backing up support for the proposal
I think it is pretty self explanatory.. It requires 10m votes to propose, We know that Gauntlet has voted to pass this proposal (they said so). 30m was Yeet'ed on the "yes" vote very quickly, funnily enough this proposal wants to reduce quorum to 30m votes.
Also their entire "analysis" tries to argue for a 30m quorum based off the fact that binance might have 25m available currently? This is a pretty weird argument. shouldn't quorum be quite a bit higher than what we know a single entity (that isn't team or vc's) should have? why wasn't 40m pretty decent in the first place?
I think it is pretty self explanatory.. It requires 10m votes to propose, We know that Gauntlet has voted to pass this proposal (they said so). 30m was Yeet'ed on the "yes" vote very quickly, funnily enough this proposal wants to reduce quorum to 30m votes.
Also their entire "analysis" tries to argue for a 30m quorum based off the fact that binance might have 25m available currently? This is a pretty weird argument. shouldn't quorum be quite a bit higher than what we know a single entity (that isn't team or vc's) should have? why wasn't 40m pretty decent in the first place?
EDIT: This whole proposal discussion revolves around reducing the amount of UNI's required to submit a proposal. it doesn't propose to reduce quorum, Gauntlet added that in there for seemingly no reason.
You don't find this suspicious at all? I don't know much about Gauntlet and Dharma but considering they might have some other proposals they want to push though, i don't think it's farfetched to think that "they" are trying to change the governance to suit their own interests..
Ok, in that case where is yours (or anyone's for that matter's) evidence that a single entity has voted here and not that a single entity has collected delegation votes or for that matter multiple entities have voted so far?
My point is someone is yet to prove evidence of foul play otherwise the statement made above are all null and void and just look bad and even possibly like some other party is trying to manipulate this in their direction which is as bad.
Ok, in that case where is yours (or anyone's for that matter's) evidence that a single entity has voted here and not that a single entity has collected delegation votes or for that matter multiple entities have voted so far?
My point is someone is yet to prove evidence of foul play otherwise the statement made above are all null and void and just look bad and even possibly like some other party is trying to manipulate this in their direction which is as bad.
Just a FYI I'm all about equality and getting the best result for everyone here and for that to work potential false information needs to be called out to allow facts to be seen I never carry out my actions with the intent to cause conflict or draw conversation away but to gain facts and information for others to vote on.
And where does this assumption of Dharma being a bad actor come from?
I don't think it's a question of whether Dharma is a bad actor, but more that no single entity (other than team and vc's maybe) should be able to reach quorum like this.
Again a statement without evidence, where is your evidence that Dharma are using their tokens/delegated tokens to “gain full control” you play it across as if Dharma are trying to manipulate the vote against the interest of the community.
The proposer of this has very clearly said
Again a statement without evidence, where is your evidence that Dharma are using their tokens/delegated tokens to “gain full control” you play it across as if Dharma are trying to manipulate the vote against the interest of the community.
The proposer of this has very clearly said
Having followed these discussions from the beginning, Dharma has prepared a proposal that we think achieves the goal of making governance more accessible, while still ensuring that Uniswap governance is not subject to unilateral deleterious actors. We propose a threshold of 3m UNI for proposal submission, and 30m UNI as quorum.
This proposal is based off discussions in here where it appears to generally get strong support which would suggest it’s going in the interest of the community.
This is also unrelated to the Airdrop forum where we had our other discussion but it would potentially have an impact but the airdrop discussion should be kept completely separate from this in my opinion with both topics looked at on an individual basis based on order in this case being this 1st
This proposal has the sole objetive of giving full control of the governance to two current players that together hold >30m UNI in voting power, the "accessibility" argument is not valid since autonomous proposals exist.
And where does this assumption of Dharma being a bad actor come from? There have been some very damaging and misleading claims already in this forum which Dharma have had to disclaimed as false. Unless you have proof of a previous event of Dharma’s where they made a bad actor decision (Which I’d love to see after so many claims to them being the bad guys) I would be careful making statements like you have.
We should be working together as a community and token holders to stop the spread of misinformation in the forum and instead help the spread of correct information based on facts and evidence not lies.
And where does this assumption of Dharma being a bad actor come from? There have been some very damaging and misleading claims already in this forum which Dharma have had to disclaimed as false. Unless you have proof of a previous event of Dharma’s where they made a bad actor decision (Which I’d love to see after so many claims to them being the bad guys) I would be careful making statements like you have.
We should be working together as a community and token holders to stop the spread of misinformation in the forum and instead help the spread of correct information based on facts and evidence not lies.
Personally I look forward to this first ever proposal going through and for the 2nd airdrop (Which doesn’t benefit me for the record as people tried to claim without proof that but would benefit the token/platform at large in the long run thus why I’m in support of it) for those who used Uniswap through DEX aggregators.
Here's a reality check.
If this proposal gets passed, Dharma will use their 30M votes to give themselves and its users the free airdrop they were "supposed" to get on Sept 1st (their other proposal), which will create big selling pressure on the token.
Not only that, but they will be essentially able to vote for anything they want.
Good luck.
Autonomous proposals may draw delegators away from large centralized ideologue pools. I see this as a good thing.
Autonomous proposals increase decentralization, the 40 million quorum will be easier achieved over long term.
Long term over short term thinking.
I agree with you here. Thanks for the swift follow up!
Thus, we believe that a quorum amount of roughly 27M UNI should suffice to prevent a unilateral deleterious act.
Thanks for this in depth analysis! One question regarding:
Thus, we believe that a quorum amount of roughly 27M UNI should suffice to prevent a unilateral deleterious act.
Thanks for this in depth analysis! One question regarding:
The increase in Uniswap market share is extremely promising as the number of UNI held in Uniswap pools more than doubled from the minimum (3.4M) to the maximum (8M) whereas Binance and Huobi had far more anemic growth
I don't have Nansen access, but does Binance announcing lending support (or some other feature) reverse this trend for other tokens on the platform?
Agree it is too high, but it is too low at 10k. You don't want some troll spamming the governance since there isn't a cost to posting a proposal. It is too excluding as high as it is however. If only a few people have the delegated votes what happens when they are creating two different proposals where you agree with one but not the other. You end up in a dilemma, more participation needed.
I just posted this on another similar topic, so I'll share my personal (again, I'm not a team member) opinion here:
''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.'' - from the blog post
I just posted this on another similar topic, so I'll share my personal (again, I'm not a team member) opinion here:
''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.'' - from the blog post
That being said, I'm pretty sure the team has thought of this before implementing the minimum thresholds. There are very many suggestions/proposals that seem to not be approved by the majority of the community, as proven by the lack of support on certain suggestions.
That's not an opinion or comment towards a specific proposal. It's a fact based on what I'm seeing right now. I'm not necessarily sure that's a bad thing, it's an interesting situation.
I personally as a community member would vote no on a proposal to reduce this number. I strongly believe the most important proposals will find their support.
I support this very much. I don't know if 10,000 is the right number, but I'm happy to adjust it upwards if it becomes chaotic at this level.
damn i was thinking i was good with 1k...
Keep it the way it is. Most people here have no idea yet how any of this works. 10m is a very high amount, yet as stated above, the team has mechanism in place for this. lets give them the benefit of the doubt that they didn't just randomly go for this number and see where it brings us. besides, 10k is waaaaay too low. thats not even whale level holdings. really don't feel like sifting through a ton of spam proposals for bigger airdrops while the real issues get ignored.
Agreed. 10K seems like a happy medium, worth looking into creative governance systems too!
You don’t find this suspicious at all? I don’t know much about Gauntlet and Dharma but considering they might have some other proposals they want to push though, i don’t think it’s farfetched to think that “they” are trying to change the governance to suit their own interests…
Again you would have to look at separate proposals on an individual basis trying to make a decision for one proposal basis of many other proposals that could or couldn't happen and or get passes/not passed is a bit silly. Each proposal is individual and should be considered on its own merits with its own vote when the time comes.
Yeah I do think it's a tad suspicious that 30M landed instantly on yes but at the same time where you there to see if it was 30M in 1 go or was it built up over multiple votes or was it 30M which was not fully owned by Dharma but somewhat delegated to Dharma (Dharma maybe owned less and the 30M they got was also through delegation).
To fault the team for a single figure is a bit harsh isn't it the team choose figures they thought were appropriate for Proposals and Quorum at the time. There have been many conversations on here about it both being too high, too low and just right this vote is giving people another figure and saying is this alright? I'm sure the team was well aware at some point in time someone was going to challenge their figure and vote to change it, someone had to choose a starting figure and it was always undoubtedly going to be contested.
In response to the Binance voting again no one knows whether Binance would work with or against the community interest one would hope they consider informing and asking the community before proposing something but again no proof behind whether they are for good or bad either way it's unlikely the community would ever be able to overthrow a centralised body (maybe this is where it was a mistake to ever let centralised exchanges list the token something that can't really be changed now unless possibly a proposal could be put through to forcer the teams hand to start contacting central exchanges to de-list the UNI token)
EDIT: all in all we just have to hope these whales/centralised bodies with tons of UNI are working in the community and token holders interest far from that there isn't much we can really do as they hold the tokens and there's no way of removing them from them unless they choose to sell which would still put an immense sell pressure on the token.
EDIT 2: as we speak I can see the votes for the proposal increasing suggesting it is more than Dharma for this proposal right now and backing up support for the proposal
I think it is pretty self explanatory.. It requires 10m votes to propose, We know that Gauntlet has voted to pass this proposal (they said so). 30m was Yeet'ed on the "yes" vote very quickly, funnily enough this proposal wants to reduce quorum to 30m votes.
Also their entire "analysis" tries to argue for a 30m quorum based off the fact that binance might have 25m available currently? This is a pretty weird argument. shouldn't quorum be quite a bit higher than what we know a single entity (that isn't team or vc's) should have? why wasn't 40m pretty decent in the first place?
I think it is pretty self explanatory.. It requires 10m votes to propose, We know that Gauntlet has voted to pass this proposal (they said so). 30m was Yeet'ed on the "yes" vote very quickly, funnily enough this proposal wants to reduce quorum to 30m votes.
Also their entire "analysis" tries to argue for a 30m quorum based off the fact that binance might have 25m available currently? This is a pretty weird argument. shouldn't quorum be quite a bit higher than what we know a single entity (that isn't team or vc's) should have? why wasn't 40m pretty decent in the first place?
EDIT: This whole proposal discussion revolves around reducing the amount of UNI's required to submit a proposal. it doesn't propose to reduce quorum, Gauntlet added that in there for seemingly no reason.
You don't find this suspicious at all? I don't know much about Gauntlet and Dharma but considering they might have some other proposals they want to push though, i don't think it's farfetched to think that "they" are trying to change the governance to suit their own interests..
Ok, in that case where is yours (or anyone's for that matter's) evidence that a single entity has voted here and not that a single entity has collected delegation votes or for that matter multiple entities have voted so far?
My point is someone is yet to prove evidence of foul play otherwise the statement made above are all null and void and just look bad and even possibly like some other party is trying to manipulate this in their direction which is as bad.
Ok, in that case where is yours (or anyone's for that matter's) evidence that a single entity has voted here and not that a single entity has collected delegation votes or for that matter multiple entities have voted so far?
My point is someone is yet to prove evidence of foul play otherwise the statement made above are all null and void and just look bad and even possibly like some other party is trying to manipulate this in their direction which is as bad.
Just a FYI I'm all about equality and getting the best result for everyone here and for that to work potential false information needs to be called out to allow facts to be seen I never carry out my actions with the intent to cause conflict or draw conversation away but to gain facts and information for others to vote on.
And where does this assumption of Dharma being a bad actor come from?
I don't think it's a question of whether Dharma is a bad actor, but more that no single entity (other than team and vc's maybe) should be able to reach quorum like this.
Again a statement without evidence, where is your evidence that Dharma are using their tokens/delegated tokens to “gain full control” you play it across as if Dharma are trying to manipulate the vote against the interest of the community.
The proposer of this has very clearly said
Again a statement without evidence, where is your evidence that Dharma are using their tokens/delegated tokens to “gain full control” you play it across as if Dharma are trying to manipulate the vote against the interest of the community.
The proposer of this has very clearly said
Having followed these discussions from the beginning, Dharma has prepared a proposal that we think achieves the goal of making governance more accessible, while still ensuring that Uniswap governance is not subject to unilateral deleterious actors. We propose a threshold of 3m UNI for proposal submission, and 30m UNI as quorum.
This proposal is based off discussions in here where it appears to generally get strong support which would suggest it’s going in the interest of the community.
This is also unrelated to the Airdrop forum where we had our other discussion but it would potentially have an impact but the airdrop discussion should be kept completely separate from this in my opinion with both topics looked at on an individual basis based on order in this case being this 1st
This proposal has the sole objetive of giving full control of the governance to two current players that together hold >30m UNI in voting power, the "accessibility" argument is not valid since autonomous proposals exist.
And where does this assumption of Dharma being a bad actor come from? There have been some very damaging and misleading claims already in this forum which Dharma have had to disclaimed as false. Unless you have proof of a previous event of Dharma’s where they made a bad actor decision (Which I’d love to see after so many claims to them being the bad guys) I would be careful making statements like you have.
We should be working together as a community and token holders to stop the spread of misinformation in the forum and instead help the spread of correct information based on facts and evidence not lies.
And where does this assumption of Dharma being a bad actor come from? There have been some very damaging and misleading claims already in this forum which Dharma have had to disclaimed as false. Unless you have proof of a previous event of Dharma’s where they made a bad actor decision (Which I’d love to see after so many claims to them being the bad guys) I would be careful making statements like you have.
We should be working together as a community and token holders to stop the spread of misinformation in the forum and instead help the spread of correct information based on facts and evidence not lies.
Personally I look forward to this first ever proposal going through and for the 2nd airdrop (Which doesn’t benefit me for the record as people tried to claim without proof that but would benefit the token/platform at large in the long run thus why I’m in support of it) for those who used Uniswap through DEX aggregators.
Here's a reality check.
If this proposal gets passed, Dharma will use their 30M votes to give themselves and its users the free airdrop they were "supposed" to get on Sept 1st (their other proposal), which will create big selling pressure on the token.
Not only that, but they will be essentially able to vote for anything they want.
Good luck.
Autonomous proposals may draw delegators away from large centralized ideologue pools. I see this as a good thing.
Autonomous proposals increase decentralization, the 40 million quorum will be easier achieved over long term.
Long term over short term thinking.
I agree with you here. Thanks for the swift follow up!
Thus, we believe that a quorum amount of roughly 27M UNI should suffice to prevent a unilateral deleterious act.
Thanks for this in depth analysis! One question regarding:
Thus, we believe that a quorum amount of roughly 27M UNI should suffice to prevent a unilateral deleterious act.
Thanks for this in depth analysis! One question regarding:
The increase in Uniswap market share is extremely promising as the number of UNI held in Uniswap pools more than doubled from the minimum (3.4M) to the maximum (8M) whereas Binance and Huobi had far more anemic growth
I don't have Nansen access, but does Binance announcing lending support (or some other feature) reverse this trend for other tokens on the platform?
Agree it is too high, but it is too low at 10k. You don't want some troll spamming the governance since there isn't a cost to posting a proposal. It is too excluding as high as it is however. If only a few people have the delegated votes what happens when they are creating two different proposals where you agree with one but not the other. You end up in a dilemma, more participation needed.
I just posted this on another similar topic, so I'll share my personal (again, I'm not a team member) opinion here:
''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.'' - from the blog post
I just posted this on another similar topic, so I'll share my personal (again, I'm not a team member) opinion here:
''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.'' - from the blog post
That being said, I'm pretty sure the team has thought of this before implementing the minimum thresholds. There are very many suggestions/proposals that seem to not be approved by the majority of the community, as proven by the lack of support on certain suggestions.
That's not an opinion or comment towards a specific proposal. It's a fact based on what I'm seeing right now. I'm not necessarily sure that's a bad thing, it's an interesting situation.
I personally as a community member would vote no on a proposal to reduce this number. I strongly believe the most important proposals will find their support.
I support this very much. I don't know if 10,000 is the right number, but I'm happy to adjust it upwards if it becomes chaotic at this level.
damn i was thinking i was good with 1k...
Keep it the way it is. Most people here have no idea yet how any of this works. 10m is a very high amount, yet as stated above, the team has mechanism in place for this. lets give them the benefit of the doubt that they didn't just randomly go for this number and see where it brings us. besides, 10k is waaaaay too low. thats not even whale level holdings. really don't feel like sifting through a ton of spam proposals for bigger airdrops while the real issues get ignored.
Agreed. 10K seems like a happy medium, worth looking into creative governance systems too!
increase the number of personnel
What do you mean? Like the protocol employ people (I'm for it btw just not easy to do)? Or do you mean like grant work? I think the Grants program is pretty active.
Yes, it is time to increase the number of personnel. Uniswap and cross chain functions need to be deployed on more L2.
increase the number of personnel
What do you mean? Like the protocol employ people (I'm for it btw just not easy to do)? Or do you mean like grant work? I think the Grants program is pretty active.
Yes, it is time to increase the number of personnel. Uniswap and cross chain functions need to be deployed on more L2.
What ideas do you think are ripe for implementation? The main one I'm thinking of is cross-chain governance and updates to other deployments of Uniswap.
Separately, I'm game to lower the proposal threshold but I don't think that is the limiting factor right now. I think it is developers and teams' time.
Support this proposal. At present, uni has many very good ideas in community governance, and there is no way to successfully propose. It is suggested to reduce the proposal standard.
What ideas do you think are ripe for implementation? The main one I'm thinking of is cross-chain governance and updates to other deployments of Uniswap.
Separately, I'm game to lower the proposal threshold but I don't think that is the limiting factor right now. I think it is developers and teams' time.
Support this proposal. At present, uni has many very good ideas in community governance, and there is no way to successfully propose. It is suggested to reduce the proposal standard.
I'm not sure it makes sense to lower the proposal threshold. Those who don't have 10M UNI at hand can always submit an autonomous proposal, so the proposal threshold isn't a blocker for governance like the quorum threshold.
I believe at this point in time, lowering the threshold to 10k would do much more harm than good .
Lowering the threshold this much would just have a spam effect .
Like, for example, we could get 200 proposals a la “Give UNI distributions towards MyBag/ETH pair!”
And we would probably have to vote against it , as we don’t know if people who offer it can reach the quorum at the last second.
I believe at this point in time, lowering the threshold to 10k would do much more harm than good .
Lowering the threshold this much would just have a spam effect .
Like, for example, we could get 200 proposals a la “Give UNI distributions towards MyBag/ETH pair!”
And we would probably have to vote against it , as we don’t know if people who offer it can reach the quorum at the last second.
This would effectively discourage participation in protocol governance, as it would cost a lot of money and time to the UNI community with no feasible benefit, just protecting the protocol against spam attacks over and over again.
==
For what it’s worth, you can make autonomous proposals with only 10k already . But this way, you wouldn’t make people waste their time, attention, and gas fees on voting against your proposal if it doesn’t reach 1%.
You need to reach 4% to get quorum anyways , so if you can’t get 1% of UNI to vote for your proposal, how do you intend to win?
==
I do think that there’s room to lower the threshold without compromising the governance of the protocol. But it would have to be of a different magnitude . Like 5 or 7.5 million UNI instead of 10 million to start with, definitely not 10k instead of 10 mils.
Fair. We could introduce the proposal with a time delay (maybe 3 months or further?)
Still think that $65 mil (at the current price!!) is still a unnecessarily large amount. I agree with @Jamesabout 50k threshold. I'm happy to delegate 800 UNI to you to create this proposal.
I'm not sure it makes sense to lower the proposal threshold. Those who don't have 10M UNI at hand can always submit an autonomous proposal, so the proposal threshold isn't a blocker for governance like the quorum threshold.
I believe at this point in time, lowering the threshold to 10k would do much more harm than good .
Lowering the threshold this much would just have a spam effect .
Like, for example, we could get 200 proposals a la “Give UNI distributions towards MyBag/ETH pair!”
And we would probably have to vote against it , as we don’t know if people who offer it can reach the quorum at the last second.
I believe at this point in time, lowering the threshold to 10k would do much more harm than good .
Lowering the threshold this much would just have a spam effect .
Like, for example, we could get 200 proposals a la “Give UNI distributions towards MyBag/ETH pair!”
And we would probably have to vote against it , as we don’t know if people who offer it can reach the quorum at the last second.
This would effectively discourage participation in protocol governance, as it would cost a lot of money and time to the UNI community with no feasible benefit, just protecting the protocol against spam attacks over and over again.
==
For what it’s worth, you can make autonomous proposals with only 10k already . But this way, you wouldn’t make people waste their time, attention, and gas fees on voting against your proposal if it doesn’t reach 1%.
You need to reach 4% to get quorum anyways , so if you can’t get 1% of UNI to vote for your proposal, how do you intend to win?
==
I do think that there’s room to lower the threshold without compromising the governance of the protocol. But it would have to be of a different magnitude . Like 5 or 7.5 million UNI instead of 10 million to start with, definitely not 10k instead of 10 mils.
Fair. We could introduce the proposal with a time delay (maybe 3 months or further?)
Still think that $65 mil (at the current price!!) is still a unnecessarily large amount. I agree with @Jamesabout 50k threshold. I'm happy to delegate 800 UNI to you to create this proposal.