$UNI plummeted today due to negative news - the SEC issued a Wells Notice to UNI, also known as the Wells Notice.

This means that the SEC intends to sue UNI, so the price of UNI fell nearly 20% today.

But what many people may not know is that the Wells Notice is an informal notification of the SEC's civil lawsuit, which means that before the SEC initiates a formal lawsuit, UNI can communicate and negotiate with the SEC before the lawsuit.

This means that if communication between the two parties goes smoothly, UNI can be immune from the SEC's prosecution - but there will definitely be a price to pay.

So in the eyes of the industry’s old OGs, this is another attempt by the SEC to extort money.

The SEC has done similar things many times in the past.

Whether it is the past prosecution of $XRP , or the targeting of EOS, to the involvement in the huge fines imposed on Binance, the obstruction of an ETF higher than Bitcoin, or today’s attempt to blackmail UNI, everyone is already familiar with the SEC’s routine:

Find a target that is wealthy enough, then accuse it of non-compliance, initiate prosecution against the project and its founders, and ultimately end up with a huge fine.

But with all due respect to the Director, the SEC’s old tricks may not work this time.

The founder of UNI also expressed his opinion immediately, saying that he was ready to fight back, and his words were very unpleasant.

The reason why the director said that the SEC’s old routines don’t work is fundamentally due to UNI’s compliance structure.

UNI's architecture consists of DAO - Foundation - Labs.

Uniswap DAO is an autonomous organization of all coin holders that can vote on the future development of UNI, which can be understood as a shareholders' meeting.

Uniswap Foundation is responsible for making specific decisions during the operation and development process, and can also be called a money bag.

Uniswap Labs is the organization that does the specific work, such as the operation, maintenance and updates of Uniswap.

So you see, there is nothing wrong with DAO, everyone just holds coins and has the right to vote on community governance.

There is no problem with the foundation. It is just a non-profit organization, and it is registered in the United States in compliance with regulations. It basically only spends money but does not make money.

As for Labs, there is no problem with this. I am just an employee who is responsible for the operation, maintenance and update of this project. Labs only earned the money in the contract and did not directly profit from the secondary market. It is not even the issuer of the token.

So after much deliberation, the SEC finally decided to send the notice to Uniswap Labs, because this organization is at least more down-to-earth than the previous two.

Compared with other projects, Uniswap's compliance architecture is actually quite good.

It is logically rigorous and does not give compliance regulators too much leverage.

This is also the reason why founder Adam has the confidence to confront the SEC head-on.

The director agreed with what Adam said. If the SEC really has the ability, it should formulate relevant industry standards and rules. Entrepreneurs and investors in the global crypto circle are welcome to do so. However, the SEC does not seem to have such an intention. Instead, it has become an organization that is good at blackmail and will extort money from anyone who has money.

It not only loses face for the regulators, but also makes outsiders look down on us.

Do you think the SEC will eventually succeed in blackmail?

So in the director's opinion, I would wait for the SEC to bring greater negative news to UNI before choosing to buy at a low price $UNI .

Because compared to the SEC's blackmail scheme, I am more optimistic about UNI's position in the DeFi field.