Some of my thoughts on this:
- The reality on the Uniswap case is -gymnastics-aside- very simple: there is a single organisation really maintaining/moving forward a project, which is completely legit and should not be penalised regulatory-wise, especially being an arguably very decentralised system. You don’t need a governance token for that (e.g., Coinbase, even if centralised), though.
- Governance tokens make sense if they are very involved in both strategic and operational aspects of an on-chain protocol. The whole point of blockchain is the ability to scale and program human and constraint-machines (e.g., smart contracts) governance participation. If a token can decide more or less on a fee switch à-la-UNI and where to send itself to finance operations (selling, borrowing against), well, you don’t need a governance token, you need funding, cashflows, money.
- There is actually a pretty simple “test” to perform for whether a governance token really gives value or not: take a protocol X, hypothetically assume the original team disappears or only contributes partially, and realistically identify if the system has chances to not only survive, but to grow. I think people would be slightly surprised by how many out there really fulfill this.
- Binarism/polarisation is unfortunately the type of narrative around in the industry: X actor with a name does Y, definitely that's the way. Probably time to go back to reality, where almost nothing is so simple.
Uniswap fee switch proposal is killing the decentralized DAO model.
Uniswap foundation activities move to Uniswap Labs, meaning...
...decision power moves from a non-profit organization governed by $UNI holders to a Delaware centralized corporation.
- Most Foundation employees move to Uniswap Labs
- The Foundation only keeps a tiny grants team
- After the remaining ~$100M grants are deployed, the Foundation shuts down
Thus $UNI token is no longer a DAO token but a token purely valued by buybacks/fees Uniswap will be able to generate.
It's not a criticism but admitting the facts that:
- The DAO model was indeed just pretending decentralization due to regulatory struggles
- DAOs are inefficient at governing and allocating resources
----
Uniswap isn't the first to do it either:
- Scroll fully shuts down the DAO and moved to centralized governance
- Arbitrum's "Vision for the Future" moves many decisions to the core group of Arbitrum Foundation and Offchain Labs to 'fix inefficiencies'
- Optimism Season 8 centralizes power by moving real decisions to curated stakeholder groups and councils while tokenholders only keep veto rights
- Lido’s BORG model centralizes execution into legal foundations run by appointed directors while the DAO only sets high level direction
-----
The famous a16z "Progressive Decentralization" model of finding PMF and exiting to the community for sufficient decentralization is dying.
Or it was just simply pretending in the first place.
9,602
14
本页面内容由第三方提供。除非另有说明，欧易不是所引用文章的作者，也不对此类材料主张任何版权。该内容仅供参考，并不代表欧易观点，不作为任何形式的认可，也不应被视为投资建议或购买或出售数字资产的招揽。在使用生成式人工智能提供摘要或其他信息的情况下，此类人工智能生成的内容可能不准确或不一致。请阅读链接文章，了解更多详情和信息。欧易不对第三方网站上的内容负责。包含稳定币、NFTs 等在内的数字资产涉及较高程度的风险，其价值可能会产生较大波动。请根据自身财务状况，仔细考虑交易或持有数字资产是否适合您。