Governments around the world are considering how they will regulate decentralized finance, and we need to defend the ecosystem and decentralized ideals. We should create and fund with 1-1.5M UNI a community-overseen organization that would finance existing and new political groups engaged in crypto policy/lobbying with the goals of 1) educating policymakers to preempt regulatory, legal, political, and tax threats to decentralized finance; 2) achieving regulatory clarity for decentralized finance and related activity; 3) advancing laws that support decentralized finance and decentralized governance; and 4) spurring other DeFi protocols’ governance communities to contribute to the effort (through this organization or their own).
In short, we propose to create a political grants committee (loosely modeled on the Uniswap Grants Program) with board members who are legal and policy experts, including lawyers from various leading DeFi projects. We propose a large amount of funding (between 2-3x the existing Uniswap Grants Program) because effective lawyers, lobbyists, and organizers are very expensive. They are also often specialized in different specific legal areas and specific jurisdictions or branches of government, so hiring a team of specialists is necessary. Further, an infusion of capital—while less than 0.25% of the Uniswap treasury--will enable the DeFi space to counter the massive spending from traditional finance players.
The need for such an organization is urgent as governments around the world are awakening to decentralized finance and are rushing to regulate the projects without being properly educated on their benefits. Currently DeFi is not at the table—but on the menu.
New developments include reactionary tax, securities, and illicit finance proposals. These proposals are actively being considered in multiple countries and venues at the same time. This organization would help fund the education of policy makers to achieve more balanced legal frameworks around the world. It would be similar to a group of funders who founded the Media Democracy Fund in the early days of the Internet; it relied on experts to allocate funds across organizations advocating for a more decentralized and democratic internet.
The Snap Poll will be live for 2 days, from May 27th until May 29th at 7:00 PM EST. If the poll passes with a minimum of 25,000 UNI in support, this proposal will move forward to the consensus check phase.
A link to our snapshot proposal: https://snapshot.org/#/uniswap/proposal/QmVXXEXJJKjFJtwXyy4Xx3gBckhz6TvorZoLgX3yiB7Hki
Governments around the world are considering how they will regulate decentralized finance, and we need to defend the ecosystem and decentralized ideals. We should create and fund with 1-1.5M UNI a community-overseen organization that would finance existing and new political groups engaged in crypto policy/lobbying with the goals of 1) educating policymakers to preempt regulatory, legal, political, and tax threats to decentralized finance; 2) achieving regulatory clarity for decentralized finance and related activity; 3) advancing laws that support decentralized finance and decentralized governance; and 4) spurring other DeFi protocols’ governance communities to contribute to the effort (through this organization or their own).
In short, we propose to create a political grants committee (loosely modeled on the Uniswap Grants Program) with board members who are legal and policy experts, including lawyers from various leading DeFi projects. We propose a large amount of funding (between 2-3x the existing Uniswap Grants Program) because effective lawyers, lobbyists, and organizers are very expensive. They are also often specialized in different specific legal areas and specific jurisdictions or branches of government, so hiring a team of specialists is necessary. Further, an infusion of capital—while less than 0.25% of the Uniswap treasury--will enable the DeFi space to counter the massive spending from traditional finance players.
The need for such an organization is urgent as governments around the world are awakening to decentralized finance and are rushing to regulate the projects without being properly educated on their benefits. Currently DeFi is not at the table—but on the menu.
New developments include reactionary tax, securities, and illicit finance proposals. These proposals are actively being considered in multiple countries and venues at the same time. This organization would help fund the education of policy makers to achieve more balanced legal frameworks around the world. It would be similar to a group of funders who founded the Media Democracy Fund in the early days of the Internet; it relied on experts to allocate funds across organizations advocating for a more decentralized and democratic internet.
The Snap Poll will be live for 2 days, from May 27th until May 29th at 7:00 PM EST. If the poll passes with a minimum of 25,000 UNI in support, this proposal will move forward to the consensus check phase.
A link to our snapshot proposal: https://snapshot.org/#/uniswap/proposal/QmVXXEXJJKjFJtwXyy4Xx3gBckhz6TvorZoLgX3yiB7Hki
For a guy with the name poopster you're alright :slight_smile: Totally agree :)
Should we ammend this proposal to be more in line with the discussion above? This has become even more important and needs swift action!
Sounds like a plan :slight_smile:
Solid. Love it. I’d love to work with you and anyone else that would like to discuss to propose a refinements to the direction proposed above, then get a temp gauge from the community? I think your modification to the direction would resonate with people and obviously can be built upon. I’d love to setup a working document or something we could all contribute to.
Maybe some type of working session or round table discussion could help us? Whatever works best for you and the community. I think the general lobbying discussion warrants further discussion and refinement. Frankly, I agree we need a thorough breakdown and document that to present our case to any lobbyists. know some south Florida lobbyists which could be helpful due to Miami being so crypto friendly. But we should finalize it TOGETHER as a community.
Solid. Love it. I’d love to work with you and anyone else that would like to discuss to propose a refinements to the direction proposed above, then get a temp gauge from the community? I think your modification to the direction would resonate with people and obviously can be built upon. I’d love to setup a working document or something we could all contribute to.
Maybe some type of working session or round table discussion could help us? Whatever works best for you and the community. I think the general lobbying discussion warrants further discussion and refinement. Frankly, I agree we need a thorough breakdown and document that to present our case to any lobbyists. know some south Florida lobbyists which could be helpful due to Miami being so crypto friendly. But we should finalize it TOGETHER as a community.
What do you think?
Let me fully understand this and get back to you
Thats great! Thanks for the honesty thats how we are going to strengthen this community. Assuming we had all of those things in a lobbyist, how would you improve the strategy. I felt like it was a step in the right direction to start thinking about but I'm just one person. This is great feedback :slight_smile:
I completely understand and we cannot let that happen. At any costs. Diem = Dangerous VERY VERY VERY DANGEROUS.
No problem, but you do realize who these professionals they want to put in are right?
They WEF, World Economic Forum. The same institution that literarily is pushing for the great reset (it's on their site) stating that by 2030 we will own nothing and be happy.
No problem, but you do realize who these professionals they want to put in are right?
They WEF, World Economic Forum. The same institution that literarily is pushing for the great reset (it's on their site) stating that by 2030 we will own nothing and be happy.
Im sure you mean well, but that power corrupts. You may not have malicious intent but I do not want to set precedent. They even said "if we get this through we hope to encourage other defi protocols", what do you think this is going to do?
Me personally if this authoritarian proposal passes this consensus phase. I am un-staking all of my coins from all protocols and using coin base to swap all of ETH based tokens/coins to BTC or ADA. I believe that if these World Economic Forum authoritarians get their disgusting greedy fingers in Defi the ETH network will collapse.
For a guy with the name poopster you're alright :slight_smile: Totally agree :)
Should we ammend this proposal to be more in line with the discussion above? This has become even more important and needs swift action!
Sounds like a plan :slight_smile:
Solid. Love it. I’d love to work with you and anyone else that would like to discuss to propose a refinements to the direction proposed above, then get a temp gauge from the community? I think your modification to the direction would resonate with people and obviously can be built upon. I’d love to setup a working document or something we could all contribute to.
Maybe some type of working session or round table discussion could help us? Whatever works best for you and the community. I think the general lobbying discussion warrants further discussion and refinement. Frankly, I agree we need a thorough breakdown and document that to present our case to any lobbyists. know some south Florida lobbyists which could be helpful due to Miami being so crypto friendly. But we should finalize it TOGETHER as a community.
Solid. Love it. I’d love to work with you and anyone else that would like to discuss to propose a refinements to the direction proposed above, then get a temp gauge from the community? I think your modification to the direction would resonate with people and obviously can be built upon. I’d love to setup a working document or something we could all contribute to.
Maybe some type of working session or round table discussion could help us? Whatever works best for you and the community. I think the general lobbying discussion warrants further discussion and refinement. Frankly, I agree we need a thorough breakdown and document that to present our case to any lobbyists. know some south Florida lobbyists which could be helpful due to Miami being so crypto friendly. But we should finalize it TOGETHER as a community.
What do you think?
Let me fully understand this and get back to you
Thats great! Thanks for the honesty thats how we are going to strengthen this community. Assuming we had all of those things in a lobbyist, how would you improve the strategy. I felt like it was a step in the right direction to start thinking about but I'm just one person. This is great feedback :slight_smile:
I completely understand and we cannot let that happen. At any costs. Diem = Dangerous VERY VERY VERY DANGEROUS.
No problem, but you do realize who these professionals they want to put in are right?
They WEF, World Economic Forum. The same institution that literarily is pushing for the great reset (it's on their site) stating that by 2030 we will own nothing and be happy.
No problem, but you do realize who these professionals they want to put in are right?
They WEF, World Economic Forum. The same institution that literarily is pushing for the great reset (it's on their site) stating that by 2030 we will own nothing and be happy.
Im sure you mean well, but that power corrupts. You may not have malicious intent but I do not want to set precedent. They even said "if we get this through we hope to encourage other defi protocols", what do you think this is going to do?
Me personally if this authoritarian proposal passes this consensus phase. I am un-staking all of my coins from all protocols and using coin base to swap all of ETH based tokens/coins to BTC or ADA. I believe that if these World Economic Forum authoritarians get their disgusting greedy fingers in Defi the ETH network will collapse.
1000% IN SUPPORT of this approach. As someone who is at a bank and is seeing the development of CBDC's first hand (Cannot disclose details, refer to official release documents) DEFI MUSTTTT be prepared to present their undeniable case. We must think beyond legalities. We need to think in public campaign and advertising terms. We need to Re-own the voice of the people and insulate defi against the onslaught of misunderstood attacks and false assumptions. I fear many simply cannot grasp the bredth of it's opportunities. We need to fight every day for Decentralized Finance. That is my personal opinion and not that of anyone I associate with professionally. But I strongly believe this to be true. Have a super happy day guys. Love each one of you, even when we disagree. Let's get it!
1000% IN SUPPORT of this approach. As someone who is at a bank and is seeing the development of CBDC's first hand (Cannot disclose details, refer to official release documents) DEFI MUSTTTT be prepared to present their undeniable case. We must think beyond legalities. We need to think in public campaign and advertising terms. We need to Re-own the voice of the people and insulate defi against the onslaught of misunderstood attacks and false assumptions. I fear many simply cannot grasp the bredth of it's opportunities. We need to fight every day for Decentralized Finance. That is my personal opinion and not that of anyone I associate with professionally. But I strongly believe this to be true. Have a super happy day guys. Love each one of you, even when we disagree. Let's get it!
Agreed, made a video about this. We need to have this discussion in the Consensus though, and try and get big Crypto people to start talking about this.
I'm trying but Im a really small channel.
on trust -
but you are organizing hte proposal and selecting the lawyers to run the show, etc.
you are even proposing a "board" - this is where decentralization goes to die.
what if your board sucks at policy, etc.? then we are stuck with the sell pressure of $30 million UNI, probably more bc its clearly going way over $100 usd ...
on trust -
but you are organizing hte proposal and selecting the lawyers to run the show, etc.
you are even proposing a "board" - this is where decentralization goes to die.
what if your board sucks at policy, etc.? then we are stuck with the sell pressure of $30 million UNI, probably more bc its clearly going way over $100 usd ...
again, its quite immature and makes it sound like amateur hour that ur asking for $30 mm up front without the ability to really quantify anything but instead fear mongering. we all get it, we rly do, but what you are asking for is ridiculous and makes you look silly and out of touch, especially including a WEF member on your board LOL! like you think this would sit well with crypto people who are mostly anarchists and hate the establishment and constantly meme the WEF you will own nothing? like wow, you're kinda out of touch here harvard bros.
just to be clear, uni v1, v2 and v3 were built for about $10 mm total, maybe less. devs make you rich, lawyers generally ruin things ...
Leshner said to start w/ $1 mm and prove your worth, the fact that you are pushing back on this is quite sad and really shows you're out of touch.
again, what if you guys suck? then you get to keep $30 mm? which of these lawyers have successully lobbied any governments for crypto? like c'mon, meet us half way and stop fear mongering. I'd rather roll the dice w Coin Center alone (which has been quite excellent) than absorb all that sell pressure.
I'm here to get rich and change the world. I am NOT here to fund lawyers.
Agree in that we are likely going to lead the way in this space and legal help is going to be key in ensuring adoption and as we all know regulation is coming whether we like it or not. I think getting ahead of the issue is a smart move
Yes exactly. That is what I stand for. Which is why I am saying what I am saying. Central authorities should NEVER have reign over anything in DEFI. EVER. But interoperability between off chain and on chain ecosystems is already present and will continue to grow. WE need to have advocates for Defi within institutions. I was obsessed with blockchain way before I entered the banking realm. And that is actually what prompted my entrance into that industry. So that in moments EXACTLY like these, I can advocate and motivate for our side, from within, if they are proposing potentially dangerous regulations or are completely missinformed and may make a decision that effects our space in a negative way because of that misinformation. You would be incredibly surprised how little most of these people know. AND... That's why as representatives of defi we must empower ourselves by upvoting proposals like the one above. My apologies if my last remark came off inflated, that was not my intention. Hope that clarifies :)
Hi all, I am the founder of HODLpac - a community-governed political action committee created in 2020 to help elect candidates for the US congress that support the cryptoeconomy - and a team member at Boardroom - a startup building DAO management and governance tools for open organizations.
I am very happy to see this proposal by Harvard Blockchain and Fintech Club for two reasons:
Hi all, I am the founder of HODLpac - a community-governed political action committee created in 2020 to help elect candidates for the US congress that support the cryptoeconomy - and a team member at Boardroom - a startup building DAO management and governance tools for open organizations.
I am very happy to see this proposal by Harvard Blockchain and Fintech Club for two reasons:
As @Miller, @stat57, and others have pointed out in above comments, there are many regulatory attack vectors that threaten DeFi - from tax policy to securities laws to illicit finance regulations. On top of that, DeFi’s borderless nature means that these threats are multiplied by the many jurisdictions/nation states it touches. To ignore these threats would be a grave mistake. Organizations like Coin Center, the Blockchain Association, Chamber of Digital of Commerce, and more have done a good job representing crypto and DeFi’s interests but pressure is building and more resources are needed to bolster our defenses.
I am a decentralized governance maximalist that believes wholeheartedly in the potential for communities like UNI’s here to pioneer a new form of human/economic organization via DAOs. I’m convinced - as I think many others here are - that we are all taking part in the early days of a historical and society-changing experiment. However, for this experiment to succeed in creating new forms of institutions, we will need to find ways to interface with legacy ones like governments (importantly, while maintaining our principles).
I support this proposal in broad strokes but would like to see some of the feedback given here incorporated in its next iteration. Specifically:
This type of political/policy grants committee should be administered in a way that reflects our values; namely, with accountability, community participation, and transparency. Tools like Boardroom, Tally, and others have been created to help facilitate community involvement and open governance. An organization like this one should leverage those tools, board members should be voted on and serve for limited terms, and community input should be incorporated as much as possible.
The proposal is correct that experts in this area are expensive, but the UNI/$ amount asked for here is quite high. As stated above, I believe that it is a worthy cause to commit funds to. However, this proposal should change the funding structure - and follow the lead of the several community grants committees that have sprouted up across the DeFI ecosystem - to unlock funding in stages based on community approval and performance goals.
We should quickly make simultaneous governance proposals in other major DeFi DAOs to, as @DCInvestor says, make this into a true public good on behalf of the industry as a whole. UNI is a leader in the space but there are others.
The goal for the organization/committee that comes out of this proposal should be to become a meta-DAO on behalf of the DeFi community to fund initiatives that will benefit us all. A new age trade association. Again, if we are true believers in what we are building then we should lean into the tools that we’ve been developing.
I look forward to watching this proposal evolve and would love to help in anyway I can. For those who are skeptical, I hope you will consider supporting this good-faith initiative if feedback is incorporated.
@HarvardLawBFI
what have you done to justify this level of trust in the community?
Hello
Don't Deny Defi #Defi #Blockchain just on the starting line in terms of mass adoption, Its normal when Banks / Govs didn't ensure their position.
#Defi will be here 4eva and anyone can use it, even ( a group of people in a room ) which we would call something higher than a bunch of people sitting in a room. This is the beautiful part of life.
Options love Irony Meta 4's work & make cents
Hello
Don't Deny Defi #Defi #Blockchain just on the starting line in terms of mass adoption, Its normal when Banks / Govs didn't ensure their position.
#Defi will be here 4eva and anyone can use it, even ( a group of people in a room ) which we would call something higher than a bunch of people sitting in a room. This is the beautiful part of life.
Options love Irony Meta 4's work & make cents
#Better4all
Are you guys for real? Look at at the background of these "lawyers". World economic forum, planned parenthood.
This is a trojan horse you're opening up to if you accept this lot to "fight" for Uni. You'll find that the goal of WEF, Central banks to regulate DeFi will be a real thing.
"As someone who is at a bank"? Yeah you already disqualified yourself.
The purpose of Defi is just that Decentralized Financing, we do not need or want an organization to determine what we do.
While I agree with the necessity of lobbying, I disapprove of the direction this proposition has taken so far. If we end up paying millions for lobbying, we need:
While I agree with the necessity of lobbying, I disapprove of the direction this proposition has taken so far. If we end up paying millions for lobbying, we need:
In all honesty, I'd be willing to invest significantly more than $30M in lobbying, but this just isn't it. Let's not settle on a vague 20 lines post.
While agreed with the sentiment of the proposal. Apart from more specificity, this shouldn't be an issue that Uniswap should tackle alone (and probably not just within the Ethereum ecosystem too). This might be better if it was a DeFi issue via a DAO whose treasury solely exists for global political defense.
It sounds like you're hoping to move forward with this proposal even though the community has decisively said no, while the large delegated amount of token governance you have available to vote yes is enough to overrule the rest. I'm in favor of having lobbyists promote defi and crypto to congress, I am not in favor of one group coming in, steamrolling the community, and then making off with the money. It seems like this proposal would be much better as small, incremental chunks, each one having a direct goal and timeframe, rather than getting a handout to create an ungoverned checkbook where the community no longer has any say over how it's funds are utilized. But, unfortunately, I'm a little fish, no, I'm plankton, and my vote has been overpowered by a large self-interest group looking to make off with UNI funds.
So whats important to know is that running BTC nodes could have required a money transmitter license in 2013ish but thanks to some really great lawyers, it remained free p2p.
With that said, this proposal is highly misguided and is a result of massive wealth creation in crypto of which these people are trying to grab a piece. You start small in life, prove out your worth and then go from there. Anyone asking for $30 million USD on the first shot is very likely "not in it for the tech" to put it lightly.
So whats important to know is that running BTC nodes could have required a money transmitter license in 2013ish but thanks to some really great lawyers, it remained free p2p.
With that said, this proposal is highly misguided and is a result of massive wealth creation in crypto of which these people are trying to grab a piece. You start small in life, prove out your worth and then go from there. Anyone asking for $30 million USD on the first shot is very likely "not in it for the tech" to put it lightly.
Its kinda like one of those $30 million USD ICOs in 2017 that all failed. Look at the best DeFi products, they all started small and grew.
Also, this Harvard group is run by students, likely none of which have practiced law and are generally unexperienced. Just bc they have Harvard in the name u should not be impressed. CoinCenter has done a great job to date and has not asked for anything close to this and its actually absurd and should be a giant red flag.
Academics are generally out of touch with society that are slaves to their institutions. The spirit of the proposal is right but it has so many red flags - this should not be the group to lead us to ultimate freedom. This kind of $ should be spent on dev power, not lawyers. Give $1 MM to CoinCenter and lets see what they do - no need to get academics involved.
On a side note - this Harvard org stated they would make a proposal for the fee switch a few months ago and they never did it. Never provided justification. And now a bunch of students ask for $30 mill ... lol
Additionally, A16Z has way too much power when it comes to Uniswap and crypto in general. hey have fiduciary duty to their shareholders and not the protocols, data integrity/privacy, etc. They will dump on you - see Dfinity and Coinbase IPO as examples.
Leshner is the purest ally we have in the Uni community. Follow him to freedom.
I'm against this proposal. I'm against lobbying in general, money as speech. That's playing the game of the crooks who set these rules to take everything productive in society away from the common person.
Funds would be much better utilized providing financial support to projects/initiatives that make Uniswap (and DeFi) unbreakable, decentralized, and out of the reach of any nation's government.
I'm against this proposal. I'm against lobbying in general, money as speech. That's playing the game of the crooks who set these rules to take everything productive in society away from the common person.
Funds would be much better utilized providing financial support to projects/initiatives that make Uniswap (and DeFi) unbreakable, decentralized, and out of the reach of any nation's government.
If we have lobbyists we join the crooks who created this role to buy political representatives and leverage their wealth over the rights of the collective citizenry. Thus, we would only be supporting their corrupt systems of governance. Also, this would become a massive effort to regulate Uniswap according to one nation or another's whims, nations with corrupt governments at that!
Agreed, made a video about this. We need to have this discussion in the Consensus though, and try and get big Crypto people to start talking about this.
I'm trying but Im a really small channel.
on trust -
but you are organizing hte proposal and selecting the lawyers to run the show, etc.
you are even proposing a "board" - this is where decentralization goes to die.
what if your board sucks at policy, etc.? then we are stuck with the sell pressure of $30 million UNI, probably more bc its clearly going way over $100 usd ...
on trust -
but you are organizing hte proposal and selecting the lawyers to run the show, etc.
you are even proposing a "board" - this is where decentralization goes to die.
what if your board sucks at policy, etc.? then we are stuck with the sell pressure of $30 million UNI, probably more bc its clearly going way over $100 usd ...
again, its quite immature and makes it sound like amateur hour that ur asking for $30 mm up front without the ability to really quantify anything but instead fear mongering. we all get it, we rly do, but what you are asking for is ridiculous and makes you look silly and out of touch, especially including a WEF member on your board LOL! like you think this would sit well with crypto people who are mostly anarchists and hate the establishment and constantly meme the WEF you will own nothing? like wow, you're kinda out of touch here harvard bros.
just to be clear, uni v1, v2 and v3 were built for about $10 mm total, maybe less. devs make you rich, lawyers generally ruin things ...
Leshner said to start w/ $1 mm and prove your worth, the fact that you are pushing back on this is quite sad and really shows you're out of touch.
again, what if you guys suck? then you get to keep $30 mm? which of these lawyers have successully lobbied any governments for crypto? like c'mon, meet us half way and stop fear mongering. I'd rather roll the dice w Coin Center alone (which has been quite excellent) than absorb all that sell pressure.
I'm here to get rich and change the world. I am NOT here to fund lawyers.
Agree in that we are likely going to lead the way in this space and legal help is going to be key in ensuring adoption and as we all know regulation is coming whether we like it or not. I think getting ahead of the issue is a smart move
Yes exactly. That is what I stand for. Which is why I am saying what I am saying. Central authorities should NEVER have reign over anything in DEFI. EVER. But interoperability between off chain and on chain ecosystems is already present and will continue to grow. WE need to have advocates for Defi within institutions. I was obsessed with blockchain way before I entered the banking realm. And that is actually what prompted my entrance into that industry. So that in moments EXACTLY like these, I can advocate and motivate for our side, from within, if they are proposing potentially dangerous regulations or are completely missinformed and may make a decision that effects our space in a negative way because of that misinformation. You would be incredibly surprised how little most of these people know. AND... That's why as representatives of defi we must empower ourselves by upvoting proposals like the one above. My apologies if my last remark came off inflated, that was not my intention. Hope that clarifies :)
Hi all, I am the founder of HODLpac - a community-governed political action committee created in 2020 to help elect candidates for the US congress that support the cryptoeconomy - and a team member at Boardroom - a startup building DAO management and governance tools for open organizations.
I am very happy to see this proposal by Harvard Blockchain and Fintech Club for two reasons:
Hi all, I am the founder of HODLpac - a community-governed political action committee created in 2020 to help elect candidates for the US congress that support the cryptoeconomy - and a team member at Boardroom - a startup building DAO management and governance tools for open organizations.
I am very happy to see this proposal by Harvard Blockchain and Fintech Club for two reasons:
As @Miller, @stat57, and others have pointed out in above comments, there are many regulatory attack vectors that threaten DeFi - from tax policy to securities laws to illicit finance regulations. On top of that, DeFi’s borderless nature means that these threats are multiplied by the many jurisdictions/nation states it touches. To ignore these threats would be a grave mistake. Organizations like Coin Center, the Blockchain Association, Chamber of Digital of Commerce, and more have done a good job representing crypto and DeFi’s interests but pressure is building and more resources are needed to bolster our defenses.
I am a decentralized governance maximalist that believes wholeheartedly in the potential for communities like UNI’s here to pioneer a new form of human/economic organization via DAOs. I’m convinced - as I think many others here are - that we are all taking part in the early days of a historical and society-changing experiment. However, for this experiment to succeed in creating new forms of institutions, we will need to find ways to interface with legacy ones like governments (importantly, while maintaining our principles).
I support this proposal in broad strokes but would like to see some of the feedback given here incorporated in its next iteration. Specifically:
This type of political/policy grants committee should be administered in a way that reflects our values; namely, with accountability, community participation, and transparency. Tools like Boardroom, Tally, and others have been created to help facilitate community involvement and open governance. An organization like this one should leverage those tools, board members should be voted on and serve for limited terms, and community input should be incorporated as much as possible.
The proposal is correct that experts in this area are expensive, but the UNI/$ amount asked for here is quite high. As stated above, I believe that it is a worthy cause to commit funds to. However, this proposal should change the funding structure - and follow the lead of the several community grants committees that have sprouted up across the DeFI ecosystem - to unlock funding in stages based on community approval and performance goals.
We should quickly make simultaneous governance proposals in other major DeFi DAOs to, as @DCInvestor says, make this into a true public good on behalf of the industry as a whole. UNI is a leader in the space but there are others.
The goal for the organization/committee that comes out of this proposal should be to become a meta-DAO on behalf of the DeFi community to fund initiatives that will benefit us all. A new age trade association. Again, if we are true believers in what we are building then we should lean into the tools that we’ve been developing.
I look forward to watching this proposal evolve and would love to help in anyway I can. For those who are skeptical, I hope you will consider supporting this good-faith initiative if feedback is incorporated.
@HarvardLawBFI
what have you done to justify this level of trust in the community?
Hello
Don't Deny Defi #Defi #Blockchain just on the starting line in terms of mass adoption, Its normal when Banks / Govs didn't ensure their position.
#Defi will be here 4eva and anyone can use it, even ( a group of people in a room ) which we would call something higher than a bunch of people sitting in a room. This is the beautiful part of life.
Options love Irony Meta 4's work & make cents
Hello
Don't Deny Defi #Defi #Blockchain just on the starting line in terms of mass adoption, Its normal when Banks / Govs didn't ensure their position.
#Defi will be here 4eva and anyone can use it, even ( a group of people in a room ) which we would call something higher than a bunch of people sitting in a room. This is the beautiful part of life.
Options love Irony Meta 4's work & make cents
#Better4all
Are you guys for real? Look at at the background of these "lawyers". World economic forum, planned parenthood.
This is a trojan horse you're opening up to if you accept this lot to "fight" for Uni. You'll find that the goal of WEF, Central banks to regulate DeFi will be a real thing.
"As someone who is at a bank"? Yeah you already disqualified yourself.
The purpose of Defi is just that Decentralized Financing, we do not need or want an organization to determine what we do.
While I agree with the necessity of lobbying, I disapprove of the direction this proposition has taken so far. If we end up paying millions for lobbying, we need:
While I agree with the necessity of lobbying, I disapprove of the direction this proposition has taken so far. If we end up paying millions for lobbying, we need:
In all honesty, I'd be willing to invest significantly more than $30M in lobbying, but this just isn't it. Let's not settle on a vague 20 lines post.
While agreed with the sentiment of the proposal. Apart from more specificity, this shouldn't be an issue that Uniswap should tackle alone (and probably not just within the Ethereum ecosystem too). This might be better if it was a DeFi issue via a DAO whose treasury solely exists for global political defense.
It sounds like you're hoping to move forward with this proposal even though the community has decisively said no, while the large delegated amount of token governance you have available to vote yes is enough to overrule the rest. I'm in favor of having lobbyists promote defi and crypto to congress, I am not in favor of one group coming in, steamrolling the community, and then making off with the money. It seems like this proposal would be much better as small, incremental chunks, each one having a direct goal and timeframe, rather than getting a handout to create an ungoverned checkbook where the community no longer has any say over how it's funds are utilized. But, unfortunately, I'm a little fish, no, I'm plankton, and my vote has been overpowered by a large self-interest group looking to make off with UNI funds.
So whats important to know is that running BTC nodes could have required a money transmitter license in 2013ish but thanks to some really great lawyers, it remained free p2p.
With that said, this proposal is highly misguided and is a result of massive wealth creation in crypto of which these people are trying to grab a piece. You start small in life, prove out your worth and then go from there. Anyone asking for $30 million USD on the first shot is very likely "not in it for the tech" to put it lightly.
So whats important to know is that running BTC nodes could have required a money transmitter license in 2013ish but thanks to some really great lawyers, it remained free p2p.
With that said, this proposal is highly misguided and is a result of massive wealth creation in crypto of which these people are trying to grab a piece. You start small in life, prove out your worth and then go from there. Anyone asking for $30 million USD on the first shot is very likely "not in it for the tech" to put it lightly.
Its kinda like one of those $30 million USD ICOs in 2017 that all failed. Look at the best DeFi products, they all started small and grew.
Also, this Harvard group is run by students, likely none of which have practiced law and are generally unexperienced. Just bc they have Harvard in the name u should not be impressed. CoinCenter has done a great job to date and has not asked for anything close to this and its actually absurd and should be a giant red flag.
Academics are generally out of touch with society that are slaves to their institutions. The spirit of the proposal is right but it has so many red flags - this should not be the group to lead us to ultimate freedom. This kind of $ should be spent on dev power, not lawyers. Give $1 MM to CoinCenter and lets see what they do - no need to get academics involved.
On a side note - this Harvard org stated they would make a proposal for the fee switch a few months ago and they never did it. Never provided justification. And now a bunch of students ask for $30 mill ... lol
Additionally, A16Z has way too much power when it comes to Uniswap and crypto in general. hey have fiduciary duty to their shareholders and not the protocols, data integrity/privacy, etc. They will dump on you - see Dfinity and Coinbase IPO as examples.
Leshner is the purest ally we have in the Uni community. Follow him to freedom.
I'm against this proposal. I'm against lobbying in general, money as speech. That's playing the game of the crooks who set these rules to take everything productive in society away from the common person.
Funds would be much better utilized providing financial support to projects/initiatives that make Uniswap (and DeFi) unbreakable, decentralized, and out of the reach of any nation's government.
I'm against this proposal. I'm against lobbying in general, money as speech. That's playing the game of the crooks who set these rules to take everything productive in society away from the common person.
Funds would be much better utilized providing financial support to projects/initiatives that make Uniswap (and DeFi) unbreakable, decentralized, and out of the reach of any nation's government.
If we have lobbyists we join the crooks who created this role to buy political representatives and leverage their wealth over the rights of the collective citizenry. Thus, we would only be supporting their corrupt systems of governance. Also, this would become a massive effort to regulate Uniswap according to one nation or another's whims, nations with corrupt governments at that!
I agree that the proposal lacks critical detail, but plan to signal "Yes" for the Snapshot vote, as I am directionally aligned with the initiative and stated goals of the proposal. Eager to see it mature, with critical details filled in, before supporting a formal governance vote.
Agree with all that much more detail needs to be spelled out before resources are committed. There needs to be accountability over any funds allocated. I hear you @Momonosukke re lobbying... it doesn't have the best rep but it's how industries' concerns and positions are conveyed to government. I don't think we risk bringing any additional scrutiny on the protocol that doesn't already exist. Regulators and policymakers definitely know about uniswap; we're not "flying under the radar" anymore. The "final boss" is gearing up to fight us, and sitting back (while tradfi likely lobbies against defi) isn't going to be effective. I think we want to avoid thinking about "resistance to different levels of state or corporate censorship" in the first place. To your point on google's spending (and @Buckerino @jonsnow), this is precisely why we need to go big... tradfi contributed $1.9 billion to us politicians last cycle (https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/) and $542 million on lobbyists last year alone (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/ranked-sectors?cycle=2020).
I'm a huge fan of the direction of protocols using their resources to benefit their real world defensibility, in addition to their on-chain product competetiveness & growth. This is a direction that I hope Uniswap (and many more DeFi protocols) grow into over time.
However, this proposal lacks crucial details that are necessary to prevent the Uniswap treasury from becomming a slush fund; who, what, where, why, how are all questions that need to be drilled into before committing tens of millions of dollars of resources.
I'm a huge fan of the direction of protocols using their resources to benefit their real world defensibility, in addition to their on-chain product competetiveness & growth. This is a direction that I hope Uniswap (and many more DeFi protocols) grow into over time.
However, this proposal lacks crucial details that are necessary to prevent the Uniswap treasury from becomming a slush fund; who, what, where, why, how are all questions that need to be drilled into before committing tens of millions of dollars of resources.
If real-world operating experience is required to answer those questions, a pilot program (50k UNI?) might be more reasonable.
While I plan to signal against this temperature check on Snapshot, I believe the philosophy of this proposal is strong, and hope to see it mature.
This proposal is dead in the water.
It might have gotten 10.48M UNI voting yes while only 4.77M has voted no (as of writing), but 10.45M of those votes are from @HarvardLawBFI themselves!
There is clearly no real community support in favor of this proposal, and while there's 2 days left for the vote, I doubt the composition of people voting yes will turn around significantly.
This proposal is dead in the water.
It might have gotten 10.48M UNI voting yes while only 4.77M has voted no (as of writing), but 10.45M of those votes are from @HarvardLawBFI themselves!
There is clearly no real community support in favor of this proposal, and while there's 2 days left for the vote, I doubt the composition of people voting yes will turn around significantly.
While it might fulfill the requirements to progress to a consensus check, it won't make it. @HarvardLawBFI is better off going back to the drawing board with the feedback already given.
So HarvardLawBFI starts a proposal to fund a pro-DeFi lobbyist group? Hmmm, sound suspicious to me. Who would this money go to? I call conflict of interest on this one, and am AGAINST this move.
how would you improve the strategy
In my opinion the problem has been taken precisely backwards.
In my opinion the problem has been taken precisely backwards.
Here the proposition is to "send 30 millions to the first persons who happen to have brought up the topic of lobbying, and hope that they will happen to be the best at it. Plan will be determined later."
Instead, we should first determine exactly what we want to do, and only then dedicate an appropriate budget. The lobbyists we hire should the most qualified persons to do the job.
We should first define what we want to do and only then decide how to do it.
This is honestly a dangerous proposal tapping into the insecurity of DeFi users in some countries about potential regulations –which are often necessary, and sometimes good, sometimes bad.
Ignoring for a second the arbitrary (and very high) amount of $ proposed in the poll, the fact that the funds of lobbying organisation would be traced back directly to our protocol is alarming to say the least. We are basically shouting as loud as we can to get regulators attention that way, and at the same time attracting political researchers and civil society groups that tend to raise flags about money used to nudge the democratic process. A nudging often driven by financial interests and a disregard for fundamental rights or issues affecting a small number of users.
This is honestly a dangerous proposal tapping into the insecurity of DeFi users in some countries about potential regulations –which are often necessary, and sometimes good, sometimes bad.
Ignoring for a second the arbitrary (and very high) amount of $ proposed in the poll, the fact that the funds of lobbying organisation would be traced back directly to our protocol is alarming to say the least. We are basically shouting as loud as we can to get regulators attention that way, and at the same time attracting political researchers and civil society groups that tend to raise flags about money used to nudge the democratic process. A nudging often driven by financial interests and a disregard for fundamental rights or issues affecting a small number of users.
Let's also not forget that lobbying efforts are often seen under a bad light by the general public. Google is the biggest lobbying fund in DC with ~$22m in 2018. Followed by other big tech. Same in the European Union. And as someone who lives in the EU I can tell you how much these companies are hated by people for trying to influence Brussels.
But let me constructive. What I would fund instead:
Educational content on regulations around the globe. Map out countries' regulatory landscape for users to be able to get summarised knowledge about their own jurisdictions' laws on crypto/DeFi, or lack thereof
Content on tax obligations.
Content on the implications of the decentralisation measures in place for Uniswap. E.g resistance to different levels of state or corporate censorship, if the happen.
^^ All that is helpful political education for DeFi users.
And I believe it is much more needed than trying to shove narratives down the throat of regulators.
Wanna raise money? Go to Gictoin, show what you've done and what you've built already for crypto. Here you need stuff about Uniswap. It can be non-technical; political and educational.
A great starting point. Sooner than later, Defi is going to be in the mainstream in a major way. As indicated, Defi poses more threat to the current global financial system than anything else in crypto. And the global financial system literally intertwines with the global political system.
While it is difficult to attack Defi from a technological perspective, it can easily be done through a political angle. This proposal provides a framework to develop strategies to counter this. It affords the Defi movement to be proactive instead of reactive.
A great starting point. Sooner than later, Defi is going to be in the mainstream in a major way. As indicated, Defi poses more threat to the current global financial system than anything else in crypto. And the global financial system literally intertwines with the global political system.
While it is difficult to attack Defi from a technological perspective, it can easily be done through a political angle. This proposal provides a framework to develop strategies to counter this. It affords the Defi movement to be proactive instead of reactive.
Am pretty sure we would have had bitcoin/crypto ETFs in the US and other parts of the world easily if these kinds of initiatives were taken earlier on.
This is a step forward in the right direction. I look forward to seeing how this develops.
Generally agree with these sentiments. I would like to see:
I work in crypto policy in the US and this post is 100 on point. The question is what future for defi we want: do we want to have active governance over protocols that can be changed, upgraded, and secured over time or for Defi to be effectively prohibited (whatever that means in practice, it wouldn’t be good)? Regulatory proposals like the Financial Action Task Force's draft updated guidance (intended to be finalized next month) for crypto essentially claims that there is always an intermediary where a financial service is offered. The scrutiny of DeFi is intense in jurisdictions all over the world, and it's only going to get more serious as defi gains adoption. The traditional financial services industry has always leveraged political engagement to secure advantages, and they will use that leverage against defi when it becomes a threat. Re the above comments, policy is always a "tragedy of the commons" situation. If UNI doesn't make the first leap, then which project will? If anything, UNI moving first will pressure other communities to act with us, and we don't have time to wait for them rn given the regulatory action we're facing.
I agree that the proposal lacks critical detail, but plan to signal "Yes" for the Snapshot vote, as I am directionally aligned with the initiative and stated goals of the proposal. Eager to see it mature, with critical details filled in, before supporting a formal governance vote.
Agree with all that much more detail needs to be spelled out before resources are committed. There needs to be accountability over any funds allocated. I hear you @Momonosukke re lobbying... it doesn't have the best rep but it's how industries' concerns and positions are conveyed to government. I don't think we risk bringing any additional scrutiny on the protocol that doesn't already exist. Regulators and policymakers definitely know about uniswap; we're not "flying under the radar" anymore. The "final boss" is gearing up to fight us, and sitting back (while tradfi likely lobbies against defi) isn't going to be effective. I think we want to avoid thinking about "resistance to different levels of state or corporate censorship" in the first place. To your point on google's spending (and @Buckerino @jonsnow), this is precisely why we need to go big... tradfi contributed $1.9 billion to us politicians last cycle (https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/) and $542 million on lobbyists last year alone (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/ranked-sectors?cycle=2020).
I'm a huge fan of the direction of protocols using their resources to benefit their real world defensibility, in addition to their on-chain product competetiveness & growth. This is a direction that I hope Uniswap (and many more DeFi protocols) grow into over time.
However, this proposal lacks crucial details that are necessary to prevent the Uniswap treasury from becomming a slush fund; who, what, where, why, how are all questions that need to be drilled into before committing tens of millions of dollars of resources.
I'm a huge fan of the direction of protocols using their resources to benefit their real world defensibility, in addition to their on-chain product competetiveness & growth. This is a direction that I hope Uniswap (and many more DeFi protocols) grow into over time.
However, this proposal lacks crucial details that are necessary to prevent the Uniswap treasury from becomming a slush fund; who, what, where, why, how are all questions that need to be drilled into before committing tens of millions of dollars of resources.
If real-world operating experience is required to answer those questions, a pilot program (50k UNI?) might be more reasonable.
While I plan to signal against this temperature check on Snapshot, I believe the philosophy of this proposal is strong, and hope to see it mature.
This proposal is dead in the water.
It might have gotten 10.48M UNI voting yes while only 4.77M has voted no (as of writing), but 10.45M of those votes are from @HarvardLawBFI themselves!
There is clearly no real community support in favor of this proposal, and while there's 2 days left for the vote, I doubt the composition of people voting yes will turn around significantly.
This proposal is dead in the water.
It might have gotten 10.48M UNI voting yes while only 4.77M has voted no (as of writing), but 10.45M of those votes are from @HarvardLawBFI themselves!
There is clearly no real community support in favor of this proposal, and while there's 2 days left for the vote, I doubt the composition of people voting yes will turn around significantly.
While it might fulfill the requirements to progress to a consensus check, it won't make it. @HarvardLawBFI is better off going back to the drawing board with the feedback already given.
So HarvardLawBFI starts a proposal to fund a pro-DeFi lobbyist group? Hmmm, sound suspicious to me. Who would this money go to? I call conflict of interest on this one, and am AGAINST this move.
how would you improve the strategy
In my opinion the problem has been taken precisely backwards.
In my opinion the problem has been taken precisely backwards.
Here the proposition is to "send 30 millions to the first persons who happen to have brought up the topic of lobbying, and hope that they will happen to be the best at it. Plan will be determined later."
Instead, we should first determine exactly what we want to do, and only then dedicate an appropriate budget. The lobbyists we hire should the most qualified persons to do the job.
We should first define what we want to do and only then decide how to do it.
This is honestly a dangerous proposal tapping into the insecurity of DeFi users in some countries about potential regulations –which are often necessary, and sometimes good, sometimes bad.
Ignoring for a second the arbitrary (and very high) amount of $ proposed in the poll, the fact that the funds of lobbying organisation would be traced back directly to our protocol is alarming to say the least. We are basically shouting as loud as we can to get regulators attention that way, and at the same time attracting political researchers and civil society groups that tend to raise flags about money used to nudge the democratic process. A nudging often driven by financial interests and a disregard for fundamental rights or issues affecting a small number of users.
This is honestly a dangerous proposal tapping into the insecurity of DeFi users in some countries about potential regulations –which are often necessary, and sometimes good, sometimes bad.
Ignoring for a second the arbitrary (and very high) amount of $ proposed in the poll, the fact that the funds of lobbying organisation would be traced back directly to our protocol is alarming to say the least. We are basically shouting as loud as we can to get regulators attention that way, and at the same time attracting political researchers and civil society groups that tend to raise flags about money used to nudge the democratic process. A nudging often driven by financial interests and a disregard for fundamental rights or issues affecting a small number of users.
Let's also not forget that lobbying efforts are often seen under a bad light by the general public. Google is the biggest lobbying fund in DC with ~$22m in 2018. Followed by other big tech. Same in the European Union. And as someone who lives in the EU I can tell you how much these companies are hated by people for trying to influence Brussels.
But let me constructive. What I would fund instead:
Educational content on regulations around the globe. Map out countries' regulatory landscape for users to be able to get summarised knowledge about their own jurisdictions' laws on crypto/DeFi, or lack thereof
Content on tax obligations.
Content on the implications of the decentralisation measures in place for Uniswap. E.g resistance to different levels of state or corporate censorship, if the happen.
^^ All that is helpful political education for DeFi users.
And I believe it is much more needed than trying to shove narratives down the throat of regulators.
Wanna raise money? Go to Gictoin, show what you've done and what you've built already for crypto. Here you need stuff about Uniswap. It can be non-technical; political and educational.
A great starting point. Sooner than later, Defi is going to be in the mainstream in a major way. As indicated, Defi poses more threat to the current global financial system than anything else in crypto. And the global financial system literally intertwines with the global political system.
While it is difficult to attack Defi from a technological perspective, it can easily be done through a political angle. This proposal provides a framework to develop strategies to counter this. It affords the Defi movement to be proactive instead of reactive.
A great starting point. Sooner than later, Defi is going to be in the mainstream in a major way. As indicated, Defi poses more threat to the current global financial system than anything else in crypto. And the global financial system literally intertwines with the global political system.
While it is difficult to attack Defi from a technological perspective, it can easily be done through a political angle. This proposal provides a framework to develop strategies to counter this. It affords the Defi movement to be proactive instead of reactive.
Am pretty sure we would have had bitcoin/crypto ETFs in the US and other parts of the world easily if these kinds of initiatives were taken earlier on.
This is a step forward in the right direction. I look forward to seeing how this develops.
Generally agree with these sentiments. I would like to see:
I work in crypto policy in the US and this post is 100 on point. The question is what future for defi we want: do we want to have active governance over protocols that can be changed, upgraded, and secured over time or for Defi to be effectively prohibited (whatever that means in practice, it wouldn’t be good)? Regulatory proposals like the Financial Action Task Force's draft updated guidance (intended to be finalized next month) for crypto essentially claims that there is always an intermediary where a financial service is offered. The scrutiny of DeFi is intense in jurisdictions all over the world, and it's only going to get more serious as defi gains adoption. The traditional financial services industry has always leveraged political engagement to secure advantages, and they will use that leverage against defi when it becomes a threat. Re the above comments, policy is always a "tragedy of the commons" situation. If UNI doesn't make the first leap, then which project will? If anything, UNI moving first will pressure other communities to act with us, and we don't have time to wait for them rn given the regulatory action we're facing.
It's a cool idea n the it gives a voice to crypto community in tradfi n policies.
This is an interesting proposal, and I do agree that it is an under-served area in the current environment. A few points come to mind:
I think the scope of such an endeavor should be better defined. Will it advocate generally for DeFi? Will it focus on DEX related issues likely to be of greatest importance for Uniswap? Will it focus on the US primarily? Even the articulated budget is likely not big enough to address all global concerns, so there needs to be some prioritization. No doubt the committee would define this in more depth, but having some more clarity up front on these points would be helpful.
If the goal is more general, advocating as a public good on behalf of DeFi, then I feel strongly that this would be better as a consortium effort with other top DeFi apps, including the likes of Aave, Maker, and others.
This is an interesting proposal, and I do agree that it is an under-served area in the current environment. A few points come to mind:
I think the scope of such an endeavor should be better defined. Will it advocate generally for DeFi? Will it focus on DEX related issues likely to be of greatest importance for Uniswap? Will it focus on the US primarily? Even the articulated budget is likely not big enough to address all global concerns, so there needs to be some prioritization. No doubt the committee would define this in more depth, but having some more clarity up front on these points would be helpful.
If the goal is more general, advocating as a public good on behalf of DeFi, then I feel strongly that this would be better as a consortium effort with other top DeFi apps, including the likes of Aave, Maker, and others.
In general, I'm definitely intrigued by the idea, but am also hesitant to dedicate treasury funds to advance a diffuse public good without a direct tie back to how it benefits Uniswap, or thoughts on how we might cooperate with others on said public goods.
Does it just need to be Uniswap that funds this? What about creating a Gitcoin project for this?
This is right on. Kinda dissapointed to see Hayden so excited about this.
Also remember Hayden is only 26 and was not involved in BTC 2013 when they tried to require money transmission to run BTC nodes.
Use CoinCenter to do this quietly, not a bunch of kids w $30 million.
Uniswap needs this for two reasons:
Regulators/Policymakers pose an existential threat to Uniswap. They will turn their attention to DEXs soon, and when they do, we need to make sure they’re educated as to the benefits, so they approach regulation with an open mind. Lobbying government on novel and complex subjects like DEXs and DAOs, particularly subjects tied to all the baggage of crypto, will be very difficult and time consuming. I’m happy to see the community is taking this seriously and I expect other DAOs will follow Uniswap’s lead.
The lack of legal and operational clarity significantly slows Uniswap’s development and we need to address it as soon as possible. DAOs and DEXs are cutting-edge organizational structures and there is very limited precedent to help the community understand how to operate, particularly when it comes to legal compliance. Lawyers don’t have enough direction from policymakers/regulators to provide crypto companies with guidance on how to be absolutely compliant. We need folks working closely with governments around the world to push for clarity that allows Uniswap and its community to continue building without all the legal friction we currently encounter.
Uniswap needs this for two reasons:
Regulators/Policymakers pose an existential threat to Uniswap. They will turn their attention to DEXs soon, and when they do, we need to make sure they’re educated as to the benefits, so they approach regulation with an open mind. Lobbying government on novel and complex subjects like DEXs and DAOs, particularly subjects tied to all the baggage of crypto, will be very difficult and time consuming. I’m happy to see the community is taking this seriously and I expect other DAOs will follow Uniswap’s lead.
The lack of legal and operational clarity significantly slows Uniswap’s development and we need to address it as soon as possible. DAOs and DEXs are cutting-edge organizational structures and there is very limited precedent to help the community understand how to operate, particularly when it comes to legal compliance. Lawyers don’t have enough direction from policymakers/regulators to provide crypto companies with guidance on how to be absolutely compliant. We need folks working closely with governments around the world to push for clarity that allows Uniswap and its community to continue building without all the legal friction we currently encounter.
The price of not doing anything will be much higher. Think of what happened last week and how much any negative signal from the US or Chinese government can impact progress in crypto.
We have received some level of interest/commitment from several qualified individuals who will be made public if this passes the snapshot.
this comment evinces exactly the wrong attitude and shows why this proposal is horribly structured
We have received some level of interest/commitment from several qualified individuals who will be made public if this passes the snapshot.
this comment evinces exactly the wrong attitude and shows why this proposal is horribly structured
DAOs are about transparency, yet you have already cut some tentative deals with 'several qualified individuals' to be on the board and potentially benefit from this warchest. How do we know those 'several qualified individuals' are not also among the vocal supporters of this proposal in the forum and on twitter, thus astroturfing with ulterior motives?
The proposal and your responses to criticism do not show the good faith efforts of someone who takes conflicts of interest, nuance and governance seriously. I hate to say it, but they are characterized by the classic lawyerly blarney-smart misdirections, strategic elisions and gaslighting so sadly typical of the profession. It makes this proposal feel like a money/power grab by a small cadre of extrinsically affiliated (through Blockchain Association etc.) would-be 'policy-makers' who want to up their clout in D.C.
Kill this proposal with fire and make a proposal that actually puts the power of influencing lawmakers into DAO members' hands.
Wish I managed to get here in time to vote. :frowning:
Dont worry about it too much right now, the proposal is dead in the water with its current format. It needs a major overhaul
I agree that the approach to advocacy should be decentralized. This is Defi. Not through centralized intermediaries whose brand may have long term negative connotations. If the "best lobbyists" are individuals who previous lobbied for government bailouts or wars, I don't want them. For short term purchased "clarity", it could be detrimental in the long term.
This whole Temperature Check is just bullshit. You state this " The Snap Poll will be live for 2 days, from May 27th until May 29th at 7:00 PM EST. If the poll passes with a minimum of 25,000 UNI in support, this proposal will move forward to the consensus check phase." Then you use all your delegated votes to support the snapshot vote immediately.
This is a pure money grab, pure and simple. Vote NO.
Look, I do think the idea itself is a great one and I also do agree that the idea of going big has its merit, but we are just not there yet. Allocating such a huge sum of UNI could have far reaching consequences. The market for UNI is relatively still illiquid and throwing such huge sums at it would have a profound impact on the price. All of a sudden, we could find ourselves seeing that the "lobby allocation" would cost far more than we had anticipated. What good is it to plow through 30M worth of tokens to devalue the rest of them by a huge magnitude? Then, the impact would be truly more than 30M, it would be counted in billions and I do not think the token is ready to handle such things....not at the current market valuation at least. The opportunity cost is too huge to consider. If UNI has a market cap 10x the current size and is more liquid, we can talk about allocating 1M-1,5M of UNI for lobbying. Until then, a significantly smaller amount will have to do. Sorry
Im only voting for this if the goal is no regulation at all. Defi wont need to be regulated for 10 years. If you regulate it now, even a little, youll kill a lot of innovation. In fact, governments stand to lose a lot of tax money by regulating early. Just like the early internet was the wild west, so Defi should be. This proposition looks too broad to me, scope is too wide. Encourage others to vote it down until more details are defined.
I support this proposal. Taxes with uniswap and DEX ecosystem is very confusing and intimidating. We need an group to help regulators create clarity on liquidity pooling, yield farming, cypto to crypto transactions and its associated tax implications. Tax reform for the entire blockchain system will benefit both parties: government, and individual.
I hope in the future this technology will allow a more automated and stress free way of paying taxes for all.
It's a cool idea n the it gives a voice to crypto community in tradfi n policies.
This is an interesting proposal, and I do agree that it is an under-served area in the current environment. A few points come to mind:
I think the scope of such an endeavor should be better defined. Will it advocate generally for DeFi? Will it focus on DEX related issues likely to be of greatest importance for Uniswap? Will it focus on the US primarily? Even the articulated budget is likely not big enough to address all global concerns, so there needs to be some prioritization. No doubt the committee would define this in more depth, but having some more clarity up front on these points would be helpful.
If the goal is more general, advocating as a public good on behalf of DeFi, then I feel strongly that this would be better as a consortium effort with other top DeFi apps, including the likes of Aave, Maker, and others.
This is an interesting proposal, and I do agree that it is an under-served area in the current environment. A few points come to mind:
I think the scope of such an endeavor should be better defined. Will it advocate generally for DeFi? Will it focus on DEX related issues likely to be of greatest importance for Uniswap? Will it focus on the US primarily? Even the articulated budget is likely not big enough to address all global concerns, so there needs to be some prioritization. No doubt the committee would define this in more depth, but having some more clarity up front on these points would be helpful.
If the goal is more general, advocating as a public good on behalf of DeFi, then I feel strongly that this would be better as a consortium effort with other top DeFi apps, including the likes of Aave, Maker, and others.
In general, I'm definitely intrigued by the idea, but am also hesitant to dedicate treasury funds to advance a diffuse public good without a direct tie back to how it benefits Uniswap, or thoughts on how we might cooperate with others on said public goods.
Does it just need to be Uniswap that funds this? What about creating a Gitcoin project for this?
This is right on. Kinda dissapointed to see Hayden so excited about this.
Also remember Hayden is only 26 and was not involved in BTC 2013 when they tried to require money transmission to run BTC nodes.
Use CoinCenter to do this quietly, not a bunch of kids w $30 million.
Uniswap needs this for two reasons:
Regulators/Policymakers pose an existential threat to Uniswap. They will turn their attention to DEXs soon, and when they do, we need to make sure they’re educated as to the benefits, so they approach regulation with an open mind. Lobbying government on novel and complex subjects like DEXs and DAOs, particularly subjects tied to all the baggage of crypto, will be very difficult and time consuming. I’m happy to see the community is taking this seriously and I expect other DAOs will follow Uniswap’s lead.
The lack of legal and operational clarity significantly slows Uniswap’s development and we need to address it as soon as possible. DAOs and DEXs are cutting-edge organizational structures and there is very limited precedent to help the community understand how to operate, particularly when it comes to legal compliance. Lawyers don’t have enough direction from policymakers/regulators to provide crypto companies with guidance on how to be absolutely compliant. We need folks working closely with governments around the world to push for clarity that allows Uniswap and its community to continue building without all the legal friction we currently encounter.
Uniswap needs this for two reasons:
Regulators/Policymakers pose an existential threat to Uniswap. They will turn their attention to DEXs soon, and when they do, we need to make sure they’re educated as to the benefits, so they approach regulation with an open mind. Lobbying government on novel and complex subjects like DEXs and DAOs, particularly subjects tied to all the baggage of crypto, will be very difficult and time consuming. I’m happy to see the community is taking this seriously and I expect other DAOs will follow Uniswap’s lead.
The lack of legal and operational clarity significantly slows Uniswap’s development and we need to address it as soon as possible. DAOs and DEXs are cutting-edge organizational structures and there is very limited precedent to help the community understand how to operate, particularly when it comes to legal compliance. Lawyers don’t have enough direction from policymakers/regulators to provide crypto companies with guidance on how to be absolutely compliant. We need folks working closely with governments around the world to push for clarity that allows Uniswap and its community to continue building without all the legal friction we currently encounter.
The price of not doing anything will be much higher. Think of what happened last week and how much any negative signal from the US or Chinese government can impact progress in crypto.
We have received some level of interest/commitment from several qualified individuals who will be made public if this passes the snapshot.
this comment evinces exactly the wrong attitude and shows why this proposal is horribly structured
We have received some level of interest/commitment from several qualified individuals who will be made public if this passes the snapshot.
this comment evinces exactly the wrong attitude and shows why this proposal is horribly structured
DAOs are about transparency, yet you have already cut some tentative deals with 'several qualified individuals' to be on the board and potentially benefit from this warchest. How do we know those 'several qualified individuals' are not also among the vocal supporters of this proposal in the forum and on twitter, thus astroturfing with ulterior motives?
The proposal and your responses to criticism do not show the good faith efforts of someone who takes conflicts of interest, nuance and governance seriously. I hate to say it, but they are characterized by the classic lawyerly blarney-smart misdirections, strategic elisions and gaslighting so sadly typical of the profession. It makes this proposal feel like a money/power grab by a small cadre of extrinsically affiliated (through Blockchain Association etc.) would-be 'policy-makers' who want to up their clout in D.C.
Kill this proposal with fire and make a proposal that actually puts the power of influencing lawmakers into DAO members' hands.
Wish I managed to get here in time to vote. :frowning:
Dont worry about it too much right now, the proposal is dead in the water with its current format. It needs a major overhaul
I agree that the approach to advocacy should be decentralized. This is Defi. Not through centralized intermediaries whose brand may have long term negative connotations. If the "best lobbyists" are individuals who previous lobbied for government bailouts or wars, I don't want them. For short term purchased "clarity", it could be detrimental in the long term.
This whole Temperature Check is just bullshit. You state this " The Snap Poll will be live for 2 days, from May 27th until May 29th at 7:00 PM EST. If the poll passes with a minimum of 25,000 UNI in support, this proposal will move forward to the consensus check phase." Then you use all your delegated votes to support the snapshot vote immediately.
This is a pure money grab, pure and simple. Vote NO.
Look, I do think the idea itself is a great one and I also do agree that the idea of going big has its merit, but we are just not there yet. Allocating such a huge sum of UNI could have far reaching consequences. The market for UNI is relatively still illiquid and throwing such huge sums at it would have a profound impact on the price. All of a sudden, we could find ourselves seeing that the "lobby allocation" would cost far more than we had anticipated. What good is it to plow through 30M worth of tokens to devalue the rest of them by a huge magnitude? Then, the impact would be truly more than 30M, it would be counted in billions and I do not think the token is ready to handle such things....not at the current market valuation at least. The opportunity cost is too huge to consider. If UNI has a market cap 10x the current size and is more liquid, we can talk about allocating 1M-1,5M of UNI for lobbying. Until then, a significantly smaller amount will have to do. Sorry
Im only voting for this if the goal is no regulation at all. Defi wont need to be regulated for 10 years. If you regulate it now, even a little, youll kill a lot of innovation. In fact, governments stand to lose a lot of tax money by regulating early. Just like the early internet was the wild west, so Defi should be. This proposition looks too broad to me, scope is too wide. Encourage others to vote it down until more details are defined.
I support this proposal. Taxes with uniswap and DEX ecosystem is very confusing and intimidating. We need an group to help regulators create clarity on liquidity pooling, yield farming, cypto to crypto transactions and its associated tax implications. Tax reform for the entire blockchain system will benefit both parties: government, and individual.
I hope in the future this technology will allow a more automated and stress free way of paying taxes for all.
I would say 5% of what they proposed to show a proof of concept. Too much money at the beginning is never good.
5% of what they asked should be fine. They need to prove this initiative can add value to the community not just a way for them to hustle money.
I think 1M-1,5M UNI is an exorbitant price for the type of your proposal. Knock a zero off and it would sound more reasonable. Maybe do a USD amount just like the Uniswap Grant Proposal did and it will be more swallowable. Good idea, but Im NOT going to vote for this with the format proposed
Agreed with everything that's already been said above - this is philosophically the right direction for where protocols like UNI should be heading. We should be leveraging these resources to help ensure the activate participation in DeFi DAOs and dgov members are protected irl, so I'm happy to signal support on snapshot.
However, this proposal in it's current state lacks any sort of implementation details and it's unclear who & how these funds will be used. Until this happens, I will not support the proposal moving forward.
Agreed with everything that's already been said above - this is philosophically the right direction for where protocols like UNI should be heading. We should be leveraging these resources to help ensure the activate participation in DeFi DAOs and dgov members are protected irl, so I'm happy to signal support on snapshot.
However, this proposal in it's current state lacks any sort of implementation details and it's unclear who & how these funds will be used. Until this happens, I will not support the proposal moving forward.
Relatedly, but not a priority, while the treasury is significant, DeFi protection would probably be better served as a coalition of treasuries supporting a superstar legal roster rather than just UNI footing the bill to still amorphous org.
My hope is that once the snapshot passes, we will get more information but in the future, I hope this sets the precedent that more implementation details are provided upfront so we can have functional discourse before heading into a snapshot, then work out the more granular details later heading into a formal proposal.
People should remove their UNI vote delegation from this random Harvard organization. This proposal with this huge price tag is a sign that they are not trying to make an improvement but enrich themselves with a BS Harvard law brand. They should not be trusted with your UNI vote delegation.
I would say 5% of what they proposed to show a proof of concept. Too much money at the beginning is never good.
5% of what they asked should be fine. They need to prove this initiative can add value to the community not just a way for them to hustle money.
I think 1M-1,5M UNI is an exorbitant price for the type of your proposal. Knock a zero off and it would sound more reasonable. Maybe do a USD amount just like the Uniswap Grant Proposal did and it will be more swallowable. Good idea, but Im NOT going to vote for this with the format proposed
Agreed with everything that's already been said above - this is philosophically the right direction for where protocols like UNI should be heading. We should be leveraging these resources to help ensure the activate participation in DeFi DAOs and dgov members are protected irl, so I'm happy to signal support on snapshot.
However, this proposal in it's current state lacks any sort of implementation details and it's unclear who & how these funds will be used. Until this happens, I will not support the proposal moving forward.
Agreed with everything that's already been said above - this is philosophically the right direction for where protocols like UNI should be heading. We should be leveraging these resources to help ensure the activate participation in DeFi DAOs and dgov members are protected irl, so I'm happy to signal support on snapshot.
However, this proposal in it's current state lacks any sort of implementation details and it's unclear who & how these funds will be used. Until this happens, I will not support the proposal moving forward.
Relatedly, but not a priority, while the treasury is significant, DeFi protection would probably be better served as a coalition of treasuries supporting a superstar legal roster rather than just UNI footing the bill to still amorphous org.
My hope is that once the snapshot passes, we will get more information but in the future, I hope this sets the precedent that more implementation details are provided upfront so we can have functional discourse before heading into a snapshot, then work out the more granular details later heading into a formal proposal.
People should remove their UNI vote delegation from this random Harvard organization. This proposal with this huge price tag is a sign that they are not trying to make an improvement but enrich themselves with a BS Harvard law brand. They should not be trusted with your UNI vote delegation.
Consensus check and more detail now available here: https://gov.uniswap.org/t/consensus-check-uni-should-fund-a-political-defense-organization-for-decentralized-finance/12700
I agree with what's been said by Robert and Ken above. I'm directionally aligned with the idea, but want to see the details of what I'm actually supporting if I vote Yes to this. That being said, the governance process is kind of unclear here. My understanding is that temperature checks are for "directional alignment" and then the consensus check is for a more specific proposal.
I guess my main takeaway is: I'd like to see a much more details proposal. Depending on the details, I could vote Yes or No.
I agree with what's been said by Robert and Ken above. I'm directionally aligned with the idea, but want to see the details of what I'm actually supporting if I vote Yes to this. That being said, the governance process is kind of unclear here. My understanding is that temperature checks are for "directional alignment" and then the consensus check is for a more specific proposal.
I guess my main takeaway is: I'd like to see a much more details proposal. Depending on the details, I could vote Yes or No.
I'm voting Yes in the snapshot in hopes of seeing that more detailed proposal.
Thanks for your feedback. Here is what we can say at this point in time:
Thank you, this is the reaction we were hoping for. Looking forward to working out critical details, would love for your input.
For what it's worth, we had a mostly-completed fee switch proposal ready to go when v3 was announced and launched. We decided to wait and see how migration would work and the volume amounts before going forward with it. As L2 solutions get added to further mitigate transaction fees we think in the future it will be good timing to bring it out again. Feel free to offer suggestions as well.
And RE: trust-- ideally the proposal is written in a way that you (or anyone else) doesn't need to trust us at all, just that they like the proposal itself. We will not be taking custody of any funds through this proposal.
Consensus check and more detail now available here: https://gov.uniswap.org/t/consensus-check-uni-should-fund-a-political-defense-organization-for-decentralized-finance/12700
I agree with what's been said by Robert and Ken above. I'm directionally aligned with the idea, but want to see the details of what I'm actually supporting if I vote Yes to this. That being said, the governance process is kind of unclear here. My understanding is that temperature checks are for "directional alignment" and then the consensus check is for a more specific proposal.
I guess my main takeaway is: I'd like to see a much more details proposal. Depending on the details, I could vote Yes or No.
I agree with what's been said by Robert and Ken above. I'm directionally aligned with the idea, but want to see the details of what I'm actually supporting if I vote Yes to this. That being said, the governance process is kind of unclear here. My understanding is that temperature checks are for "directional alignment" and then the consensus check is for a more specific proposal.
I guess my main takeaway is: I'd like to see a much more details proposal. Depending on the details, I could vote Yes or No.
I'm voting Yes in the snapshot in hopes of seeing that more detailed proposal.
Thanks for your feedback. Here is what we can say at this point in time:
Thank you, this is the reaction we were hoping for. Looking forward to working out critical details, would love for your input.
For what it's worth, we had a mostly-completed fee switch proposal ready to go when v3 was announced and launched. We decided to wait and see how migration would work and the volume amounts before going forward with it. As L2 solutions get added to further mitigate transaction fees we think in the future it will be good timing to bring it out again. Feel free to offer suggestions as well.
And RE: trust-- ideally the proposal is written in a way that you (or anyone else) doesn't need to trust us at all, just that they like the proposal itself. We will not be taking custody of any funds through this proposal.
