Thread by @lex_node

I don't get the UNI governance panic. As far as I can tell no one is even obligated to follow UNI voting results. This list of things UNI holders "own" (lol) is a combination of forkable things and meaningless things.

Basically, UNI govern a limited set of parameters of specific deployed bytecode. Uniswap could deploy v2.1 tomorrow and fork out any assholes, create a new treasury, etc. and there would be nothing anyone could do to stop them, legally or otherwise. So who cares?

"Omfg we can't lower quorum on the official uniswap token list, someone might add a shitcoin!"

The reason why MKR matters / has value is because the stuff MKR holders decide is actually challenging & consequential. Stability fee? That's hard. Which types of collateral to approve and where to set their risk parameters? That's hard. If they get it wrong MakerDAO breaks.

Uniswap worked brilliantly without "governance". UNI will be needed only when there is no corporation and the sole way to fund and organize future development is through managing the pool of system fees.

'What is UNI good for?' 'It owns 'Uniswap Governance.'' 'Cool, like Uniswap Corporation--UNI holders can order them around?' 'No, that's for shareholders only.' 'Okay but like the protocol--we can order them what new version to build?' 'No, they will just build it, or not.'

'So when you say 'Uniswap Governance'--you literally mean, governance of specific bytecode at a specific address--like a deployed instance of Uniswap?'

'Yeah, pretty much, plus the 'UNI treasury' and some other random stuff.'

'But the bytecode isn't even changable. Why does it need governance?'

'Well, we hope that you will approve charging yourselves fees to use it, then do something with the fees, though if it's incompatible with our own plans, we can't guarantee how it will all work out.'