I would place responsibility for that outcome in this order:
- Uniswap for providing a protocol-upgrade feedback mechanism with easy access to their treasure
- Uniswap again for not providing better guardrails given that voting-markets are a natural extension of portable-governance (we’re doing this in the open, everyone will know it’s coming)
- The person raiding the treasury
That’s it. If protocols don’t like it they can turn off delegation or blacklist, but that will effectively create another permission-layer . . . not very web3.
The implication seems to be that selling votes is OK as long as it’s permissioned, or that we are the guardians of ecosystem voting-power. In my view, it is incumbent upon protocols providing decision-mechanisms to provide safeguards, not The Index Cooperative. We are here to build and ship great products, not get bogged down in some protectionist ethos, and great products make holders more prosperous over time which is really what this proposal does.
You asked a what-if question, and while I agree that Index Coop would be viewed as largely responsible, code is law and we’re pushing the limits of how we can leverage that for users . . . that’s just innovation. We’re already extracting the value from users and have proven we can mishandle it . . . why not give it back to them directly in their chosen asset and let the market be open? If we do this in a permissioned way, someone will just do it permissionlessly and beat us out long term . . . imo.