David Alexander II
@megafund
Just as predicted, VC & special interest groups undermining the community. This proposal was centered on the deployment of Uniswap on BNB, not a behind the scenes lobbying battle about which bridge to use. Pretty egregious behavior. Take note https://www.tally.xyz/gov/uniswap/proposal/31 https://i.imgur.com/TzgOcfI.png
3 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
ted (not lasso)
@ted
1. “Don’t hate the player, hate the game”. Uniswap designed their governance for this to happen. 2. If we go by # of votes like, it’s 113 addresses for vs. 111 addresses against. Remove voters > 1M and it’s 111 v 110… 3. Why is a16z against it?
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
timdaub 🥝
@timdaub.eth
2. It makes no sense to identify addresses as votes. Someone could sybil attack and the cost of holding equity is higher. OP‘s post made no sense to beginn with (your point 1.): Snapshot governance makes token whales „the community“ so one can hardly say that a token vote „undermines“ it.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
David Alexander II
@megafund
The original proposal was never about the bridge - it was about deploying Uniswap on BNB. While the underlying bridge should be sound, my sense is this never even would have been a debate if the “correct” bridge was selected, rather than the community’s pick
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
