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
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?
While I‘m not knowledgeable about anything you said, BNB is a shit chain that must stop and die.
I'm confused, were there only three voters? If so, isn't it two wolves and a lamb deciding what's for dinner? If a16z owns a majority of your governance tokens, then the protocol is working as designed I guess. I always got the sense that the Uni token 1) didn't accrue value and 2) didn't truly have functional govt.
This is history right here. Such an interesting storyline to follow