Thread by @__billygao

1/ @Uniswap’s sudden launch of @unichain has raised serious questions about DAO governance and caught many of us off guard.

Is this a bold leap forward for DeFi, or a worrying step back for decentralization? Here’s our breakdown of what unfolded, why it matters, and what’s next.

2/ The launch of @unichain by @Uniswap took many by surprise, including but not limited to us at @StanfordCrypto.

After a week of discussion from the community and on our part, this thread is a recap on the situation thus far and our position on the current matter.

3/ @unichain was announced by @Uniswap last Thursday as an L2 offering faster 250ms block time.

Additional features include cross-chain interoperability with @optimism, verifiable block building using TEEs with Flashbots along with a decentralized unichain validator network.

4/ With the launch leaving many DAO delegates in the dark, it calls to question (once again) how decentralized uni governance actually is.

@UniswapFND subsequently hosted a community call on Monday addressing the launch.

5/ Additionally, we at @StanfordCrypto also had a separate call with @UniswapFND where we raised our questions about @unichain from the perspectives of product design, DAO governance, and technical aspects.

The following is how we currently stand regarding @unichain post call.

6/ Firstly, we congratulate the @Uniswap team for the launch and the effort they have put in preparation during the past year.

Needless to say, we recognize the innovativeness in the product design and believe it to be an exciting step forward for the DeFi community in general.

7/ However, that is not to say that we do not have our concerns regarding launch process.

https://twitter.com/0xfishylosopher/status/1844540868264591681

8/ We are disappointed that, as DAO delegates representing UNI token holders, we were not given a voice at any stage of the process—whether through forums, private discussions, or any other means.

We feel very left out of the loop.

9/ Though we totally respect and believe in the technical expertise of the @Uniswap team. We believe community discussion is both essential and beneficial, being a core aspect of DAO governance.

10/ Additionally, the community does not lack members with proficient technical expertise, while efficiency in decision-making should not be used as a reason to bypass these useful yet necessary conversations.

11/ This situation reminds us of the @LayerZero_Core @wormhole BNB deployment situation from not long ago, where effective community discussion led to positive progress in DAO governance.

For more information see this article I previously wrote: review.stanfordblockchain.xyz/p/uniswaps-bnb…

12/ During that instance where the decentralization of the decision-making process has been brought into question, we saw the value of meaningful discussion.

Moreover, the conversation resulted in the formation of the Bridge Assessment Committee, which has since proven useful.

13/ We firmly believe that effective decision-making depends on open discussion, especially with us, the DAO delegates, who represent the interests of token holders and carry the responsibility of making forward progress with the trust they have placed in our judgment.

14/ As such, we would like to raise our concerns about the degree of control of token holders, especially in future decision-making. Given the precedents set, where @Uniswap could bypass the DAO with its tech, product, backend...

What control do token holders truly have?

15/ Undoubtedly, we fully entrust the competency of the @Uniswap team to make technical decisions and understand there must be reasons behind adopting the OP stack for @unichain.

Yet, these rationales currently remain opaque, which is one reason behind the current concerns.

16/ As such, it seems to be low-hanging fruit for us to raise the question why OP Stack was adopted with target block time of 250ms where @arbitrum Orbit is 100ms out of the box with the largest L2 volume.

This seems to create unnecessary technical work for the @Uniswap team.

17/ This concern is heightened by the "non-discussion" policy that has been adopted, raising questions about behind-the-scenes deals and processes.

Eyebrows are further raised by the shared cap table between the two parties and the precedent set by OP’s Uniswap listing.

18/ Moving ahead, we would really hope for a more transparent procedure in decision-making, as we @StanfordCrypto has communicated with @UniswapFND.

From our end, we would like to see steps in the following directions.

19/ Firstly, we would hope to see the untampered decision making framework of @unichain to be published such as the discussion memos for us to truly understand the rationales, processes and reasonings behind the scene of the current decision.

20/ Additionally, we would also like to see progress in developing ways to mitigate future community backlash in the decision-making process, an initiative that we at @StanfordCrypto are happy to work together in advancing.

21/ Simultaneously, we would like to bring to light the lack of available alternatives for us to voice our objections other than defunding the foundation.

This seems to be our current only approach, which we are reluctant to take since we still support the work of @UniswapFND.

22/ We at @StanfordCrypto will continue to remain as an active delegate in major DAO governance, fulfilling our responsibilities as trusted by our delegators.

We are happy to discuss on governance matters and we would love you keep in touch with us for more governance updates.