One of the main taxpayers of UNISWAP DAO was frustrated Monday in the midst of concerns that other interested parties exercise too much power over the decentralized protocol.
Pepo, a pseudonym delegate to whom other tokens headlines trusted to vote in his name, had participated in the Governance of UNISWAP since 2023. He handled 455,000 tokens uni, making him one of the 20 largest delegates.
The reason for the game? Other organizations involved in the operation of UNISWAP, mainly the Uniswap Foundation without profit, have set aside the opinions of DAO members and have not been recreational for feedback, Pepo said in an X position.
“The behavior of the Foundation seems to have prioritized the isolation on collaboration, and in doing so, it may have actively damaged Uniswap,” Pepo said.
Devin Walsh, executive director of the UNISWAP Foundation, did not provide direct comments to COINDESK when asked about the accusation. However, she provided a refutation in social networks.
“Delegated participation is essential for the success of the Uniswap ecosystem,” he said in X. “The UNISWAP Foundation takes its comments seriously.”
UNISWAP is the largest decentralized exchange with about $ 4 billion in deposits, 60% less than its peak of almost $ 10 billion is blocked by total value for 2021-2022, According to defillma data.
Like many DEFI protocols, UNISWAP is controlled and managed through a somewhat Byzantine structure.
The protocol was created by Uniswap Labs, a profit company that is also responsible for its continuous development. The UNISWAP Foundation, a non -profit organization, has the task of supporting UNISWAP and its community, while changes in the protocol and the allocation of resources are controlled by UNISWAP Dao, a type of collective crypto governed by the headlines of the Token Uni.
In March, the DAO granted the $ 165 million Foundation to boost the growth and development of the UNISWAP ecosystem. This gave the Foundation a mandate to do certain things in search of its objectives without directly consulting the DAO.
Some, like Pepo, feel that the actions of the UNISWAP Foundation are placing the interests of the DAO behind those of themselves and the UNISWAP laboratories.
This situation highlights the persistent struggle to balance the interests of protocol holders defi with those of other interested parties.
It is not the first time
Pepo is not the only one that highlights a perceived lack of DAO control in Uniswap.
In October, Billy Gao, Stanford Blockchain Club vice president, a Uniswap delegate, said Uniswap Labs’s sudden decision to launch its own block chain, “said serious questions about the Dao government.”
Gao argued that UNISWAP’s DAO should have been informed about the block chain in advance and that it would be allowed to evaluate key decisions in its implementation. “Calls to question (once again) how decentralized [Uniswap’s] Governance actually is, ”he said.
Uniswap Labs did not immediately respond to a request for comments.
Others have questioned how the UNISWAP Foundation uses the funds granted and complained that it is not transparent enough about their expense and decision making.
“Transparency and communication are values with which many delegates agree,” Doo Wan Nam, co -founder of the DAO Governance Solutions, Stablelab, a Uniswap delegate, told COINDESK. “There have been improvements.”
On May 1, the UNISWAP Foundation responded to criticism creating a foundation feedback group, aimed at guaranteeing effective communication and strengthening responsibility between the Foundation and the DAO.
In addition, as a non -profit company, the Foundation must legally publish its finances.
But the problem is that for some delegates, it is not enough.
“It is a loss for any DAO every time a delegate feels that the only way to have an impact is to resign,” said Paperimperium, Governance in the Uniswap Dao Delegate GFX Labs link.
Behind the scenes
Some governance participants also complained that a large amount of communication and decision making of UNISWAP Dao occurs privately, instead of Uniswap governance forums.
This has led to complaints that all important decisions are agreed by large delegates behind closed doors before going to a public vote.
It is necessary that the proposals receive a degree of comments before presenting publicly, NAM said.
It is not different from traditional governance. “Congressmen will not only write bills without talking with blind without talking to relevant stakeholders or other congressmen,” Nam said.
But it is a double -edged sword. As they mature, there is also the feeling that more are becoming more about politics and appearances instead of pursuing the best for the protocol.
Multiple Uniswap delegates declined to comment to COINDESK when asked about the complaints highlighted by Pepo.
Read more: UNISWAP passes a $ 165 million financing plan after DAO vote
