One of the largest holders of UNI tokens questioned Uniswap’s decentralization and backroom dealings, especially its rhetoric of a series of changes justified by “efficiency” and possible undisclosed financial interests between Uniswap Labs and another blockchain, Optimism.
The content involves Uniswap’s sudden decision to launch its own blockchain, canceling the proposed fee switching mechanism that could benefit UNI holders, and bypassing the DAO that ostensibly governs Uniswap. Uniswap’s degree of decentralization, its cooperation with Optimism, the real motivations for the changes, and the rights of UNI holders are all areas that need further exploration and transparency. The attention paid by community members and market participants to these issues shows that they have high expectations and requirements for Uniswap’s governance and decision-making process.
