One of the top contributors of the Uniswap Dao ran away in frustration on Monday to the concern that other stakeholders exert too much power over the decentralized protocol.
Pepo, a pseudonymous representative who entrusts other token holders to vote on their behalf, had participated in the board of Uniswap since 2023. He used 455,000 Uni -Tokens, making him one of the top 20 largest delegates.
The reason for departure? Other organizations involved in performing uniswap -mainly the non -profit uniswap foundation -have put the opinions of DAO members aside and have been inadmissible for feedback, Pepo said in an X post.
“The behavior of the foundation seems to have given priority to isolation over cooperation, and the Uniswap can actively damage,” said Pepo.
Devin Walsh, executive director of the Uniswap Foundation, did not give a direct comment to Coindesk when he was asked about the accusation. However, she did give a refutation on social media.
“Representative participation is essential for the success of the uniswap -ecosystem,” she said on X. “The Uniswap Foundation takes their feedback seriously.”
Uniswap is the largest decentralized exchange of approximately $ 4 billion in deposits, a decrease of 60% compared to its peak of almost $ 10 billion total value in 2021-2022” According to Defillama data.
Uniswap deposits have fallen by 60% compared to their peak from 2021. (Defillama)
Like many Defi protocols, Uniswap is checked and managed by a somewhat Byzantine structure.
The protocol was made by Uniswap Labs, a company with a profit motive that is also responsible for its continuous development. The Uniswap Foundation, a non -profit, is responsible for supporting uniswap and its community, while protocol changes and allocation of resources are controlled by the uniswap DAO, a type of crypto -collective governed by uni token holders.
In March, the DAO granted the $ 165 million foundation to stimulate the growth and development of the Eniswap ecosystem. This gave the foundation a mandate to do certain things in the pursuit of its goals without immediately consulting the DAO.
Some, such as Pepo, feel that the actions of the Uniswap Foundation place the interests of the DAO behind those of themselves and Uniswap Labs.
This situation emphasizes the ongoing struggle to balance the interests of Defi protocoltoken holders with those of other stakeholders.
Not the first time
Pepo is not the only one who emphasizes an observed lack of DAO control on Uniswap.
In October Billy Gao, Vice -President of Stanford Blockchain Club, a Uniswap -Deputy, said the sudden decision of Uniswap Labs to launch his own blockchain “Serious questions about Dao Governance.”
GAO argued that the uniswap dao should have been told about the blockchain in advance and can weigh on important decisions in its implementation. “It arises to question (again) how decentralized [Uniswap’s] Governance is actually, “he said.
Uniswap Labs did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Others have wondered how the Uniswap Foundation uses the funds assigned to it and have complained that it is not transparent enough about the expenditures and decision -making.
“Transparency and communication are values that many delegates agree,” said Doo Wan Nam, co-founder of Dao Governance Solutions provider Stablelab, a UNISWAP delegate, to Coindesk. “Improvements have been made.”
On 1 May, the Uniswap Foundation responded to criticism by creating a Foundation Feedback Group, intended to guarantee effective communication and to strengthen the responsibility between the foundation and the DAO.
Moreover, the foundation must legally publish its finance as a non -profit company.
But the problem is that it is not enough for some delegates.
“It is a loss for every DAO when a delegate finds the only way to make an impact by stepping off,” Paper effectium, Governance Liaison at Uniswap Dao Delegate GFX Labs, told Coindesk.
Behind the scenes
Some participants in the governance also complained that a lot of uniswap DAO communication and decision-making takes place private, instead of publicly at the Uniswap Governance Forums.
This has led to complaints that major decisions have all agreed by large representatives behind closed doors before they go to a public mood.
It is necessary that proposals receive a certain degree of feedback before they are publicly presented, said Nam.
It is no different than traditional administration. “Congressmen will not just write bills without talking to relevant stakeholders or other congress members,” said Nam.
But it is a double -edged sword. When Daos is mature, there is also a feeling that they are more about politics and performances instead of pursuing what is best for the protocol.
Several uniswap representatives refused to comment on Coindesk when he was asked about the complaints that Pepo were emphasized.
Read more: Uniswap passes a financing plan of $ 165 million NA DAO mood
