Uniswap Labs Launches Unichain Without UNI Consensus

CoinDesk reports:
One of the largest holders of UNI tokens has raised questions about Uniswap’s decentralization and behind-the-scenes transactions, particularly its claimed “efficiency” as a reason for a series of reforms, as well as undisclosed financial interests between Uniswap Labs and another blockchain, Optimism.
The governance head of Stanford Cryptocurrency Company, who represents thousands of UNI governance tokens, published a 22-post complaining about Uniswap’s sudden decision to launch its own blockchain, canceling the proposed fee conversion that could benefit UNI holders, and bypassing the supposedly decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) that is said to manage Uniswap.
Billy Gao, who represents his large delegation’s votes, wrote that the rushed launch of Unichain “caught many people by surprise” and left the “representatives in the dark.” He also noted that the decision “functionally changes” the ERC-20 contract of UNI, which was supposed to be “immutable” only under the strictest and most meaningless definition, given that UNI is now associated with a brand-new blockchain.
“What control do token holders really have?” the representative lamented.
Uniswap (UNI) and Optimism (OP)
To make matters worse, Gao quickly raised suspicions about a behind-the-scenes transaction that economically incentivized Uniswap to bypass the DAO. While he did not make formal accusations, he noted that “there must be a reason behind Unichain adopting OP (Optimism) stack.”
Optimism is a separate blockchain that aggregates data and publishes it to Ethereum. The so-called “layer 2” or “scaling solution” has its own token, OP, which is worth over $7 billion.
Importantly, Optimism is just one of thousands of competitors in the Ethereum layer 2 ecosystem. In fact, its value is less than the entire Ethereum layer 2. Gao, the Stanford Cryptocurrency representative, questioned why Uniswap Labs chose OP and why everyone should trust that there were no behind-the-scenes transactions involved in this decision.
Legacy issues about Uniswap’s decentralization
Uniswap Labs’ decision to shift the focus of the UNI token from transaction fees to other aspects has raised many questions. For example, why didn’t Uniswap choose Arbitrum, which is more than twice the size of Optimism, the market leader?
Read more:
Will Uniswap become more like TradFi than DeFi?
In summary, Uniswap Labs is now another target of criticism, marking another chapter in its decentralized drama. Previously, leaders of ostensibly decentralized token exchanges have been criticized for empowering rational interests, such as Binance, a16z, and even the $700 million Ethereum Foundation.
Now, representatives who believe they have a say in Uniswap governance are shocked by the hasty decision to launch a new blockchain, alter the functional reality of a supposedly immutable smart contract, and align with the second-ranked layer 2 and its own token incentives.
News tips? Email us or ProtonMail. Follow us on Blue Sky, a photo-sharing app, Google News, or subscribe to our YouTube channel.