When Andreessen Horowitz (A16z) invested in the decentralized login password trading center Uniswap, it won a large-scale treasure chest of UNI dynamic passwords for the project-the login password property was used as a vote in the decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) of the exchange.

The venture capital firm's right to use such tokens-and the voting rights it controls-suddenly became at the heart of a truth debate about the level of decentralization of Uniswap. At Weibo and elsewhere, some field observers and stakeholders in the project doubt whether there is an implicit transfer of benefits from a business relationship with Uniswap because of A16z's stake in various projects.

This article was first published inReasonable exchange of pointsWJB's weekly newsletter describes the evolution of Ethernet Fong and its impact on the login password sales market.Subscribe every Wednesday and put it in your outbox.

Last week, in an opinion poll on the social situation of the community, which is said to be very important in the fierce competition between login password infrastructure service platforms, Uniswap DAO chose a login password "bridge" called jumper as an important part of infrastructure construction, and the program was extended to Binance's BNB block chain.

Unlike the official "chain" DAO vote, DAO can automatically encode the blockchain technology when they do so, and this time, escrow on the Snaphot.org website, is a more informal "temperature test".

A16z does not vote in the "temperature test" vote, and its absence is likely to make its portfolio company, LayerZero, lose its mind. (a16z later responded that he would vote for LayerZero, but it could not participate for technical reasons.)

Today, whether or not to allow the selection of jumpers still needs to be voted on the official website, while A16z votes no. An important issue is whether the company should be allowed to destroy or delay Uniswap's expansion diligence in order to prevent LayerZero's competitors from gaining an advantage.

So far, a16z has used 15 million UNI dynamic passwords to vote against the proposal-not enough to stop it. In other words, in such a case, all the problems are likely to be meaningless.

But this situation raises a problem, that is, if A16Z uses its voting rights flexibly, things are likely to develop in various ways.

The venture capital firm's 15 million UNI accounts for only a fraction of its total shareholding. A representative of A16z told the WJB that it had "authorized" more than 40 million additional tokens to third parties-many of whom voted against A16z in this week's vote. In theory, A16z will be able to recycle the UNI tokens and ballots from itself in the next vote.

If A16z loses this week's Uniswap vote-which is now highly probable-that will not prove that Uniswap DAO has fulfilled its core idea of "decentralized" governance. This, in turn, can only confirm that a16z has chosen self-restraint rather than drawing attention to its full popularity in Uniswap's fragmented ecosystem. In addition, the examples of a16z and Uniswap highlight how little is known about how power is distributed in a decentralized hiragana world.

Error in Uniswap Dao voting of A16Z

Uniswap DAO is running out of time at this stage: if Uniswap V3 is not deployed on Binance's BNB blockchain by April 1st, its commercial service license will expire and other companies will be allowed to copy their codes to release competitors.

In order to get into BNB Chain,Uniswap DAO, the first step is to vote for a bridging mode service platform-one that allows users to develop communication infrastructure from one chain to another, which forms the technical backbone of its governance structure in the case of Uniswap.

The whole process of Uniswap Dao governance often feels like a more procedural transaction than anything else, and most of the proposals have been approved by community thinking with limited resources and basically consistent approval.

"one of the core issues in governance is the apathy of electors," said Peter Shuttleworth, director of token engineering at Binance Labs, Binance's venture capital unit. "maybe you'll get 10% voter turnout, but many of these votes are not competitive."

In such an environment, the Uniswap-BNB overpass vote is unusually dissenting.

Johnson Lashner, founder of the login password lending platform Complex, told WJB: "I think, rightly or wrongly, many communities will think that the bridge mode agreement used by Uniswap for the BNB chain should be chosen by other software." Because of its perceived necessity, the competition attracted a wave of concern, as competitors and stakeholders argued on the Uniswap community website about the security and coordination capabilities of the market competition bridging service platform.

Jumping Wormbridge won the vote, winning 62 per cent of the vote, while LayerZero encouraged by 16z won 38 per cent of the vote.

But a16z complicated the situation at the last minute, noting in a community forum post before the vote that it could not vote because of vague technical restrictions related to the hosting service it uses to store UNI.

A16z partner Porter Smith wrote: "because of infrastructure restrictions, we cannot vote in the Snapshot at this stage, and the fund custodian will complete it in a short period of time." A representative of A16z declined to respond further to WJB's technical limitations.

The day after the vote, Redmayne Lazarin, the engineering director of A16Z, pointed out in another post on the Uniswap forum: "unequivocally, people will vote 15 million tokens for LayerZero at A16z, if we can do it technically." "therefore, in order to achieve the effect of 'body temperature check', please calculate it in this way."

A16Z recently led a round of $135 million project investment in LayerZero.

Uniswap's current governance policy defines that a vote like this should go through the process. In response to these requirements, the Uniswap Charitable Foundation, a non-profit organization responsible for the overall operation of Uniswap governance equipment, pointed out in a forum post that the uncast vote of A16z will not be counted.

A16Z voted for its bag.

On February 2nd, the official website that brought Uniswap to the BNB chain was open to electors, and the drama of the A16z became more and more intense.

A16z is the largest voting entity line on Uniswap, and its 15 million UNI dynamic passwords voted to boycott the proposal in a very short time last week, enough to bring the vote closer to 70 per cent to boycott BNB chain deployment.

A representative of A16z indicated that the company had voted against the proposal because of unease about the safety of jumpers.

An a16z representative elaborated on the decision in a forum post, saying: "people don't think that jumpers bring safer or the most fragmented selection of bridging patterns." (Wormhole didn't respond to WJB's request for comment.) In addition, although LayerZero was applied in the last vote, A16z indicates that it now feels that DAO should delay the selection of bridge rule partners until a "formal evaluation".

Not everyone is persuaded by the 16z reason. To some, it looks as if the venture capital firm wants to take Uniswap's overall expansion goal as a hostage and achieve the important conclusions of its portfolio company LayerZero.

The accusation highlights a key anxiety in decentralized agreement governance: should the DAO elector vote to apply his personal interests, or should he only seek promotion from the agreement she is governing?

Leshner, who now ranks third in the Wormhole BNB vote, showed that he voted against the proposal to join the BNB chain, although he thought LayerZero was better than Wormhole. Together with A16z, he is an investor in LayerZero.

I just want to see this being deployed, not going through this extended period of governance, Leshner told the Wall Street Journal. I think the most important thing is that Uniswap is deployed to BNB Chain Period, the period ends, and there is a clear proposal and ready solution.

How big is the power of 16z?

Crypto Twitter seized the opportunity of the a16z objection and felt that this situation represented what role it often played in governance supported by huge amounts of money and decentralized data encryption.

"Uniswap controlled by A16z?" Zhao Chenpeng, BinanceCEO, wrote on Twitter. (ironically, Binance is reported to be the second-largest holder of Uni, although the detailed address of Ethernet Square associated with this trading center has never voted on Uniswap's proposal.)

A representative of A16z told the WJB that it handed over a large number of votes for its UNI to a separate third party. The representative said that it did so to ensure that Uniswap's governance system software remained decentralized. Among the third parties nominated by representatives are institutions like GFXLabs, who voted against A16z and applied Wormhole to publish Uniswap on the BNB chain.

But the delegation defense raises another question: how many UNI dynamic passwords does 16z have?

According to an article by Lazarin, project director of A16Z, "We will hand over about 4000 of Ma Zhen votes to outside teams (there are no criteria for how they vote)." Lazarin did not specify all the operations of Uni held by A16z, and none of the representatives interviewed by WJB. But according to Lazarin's article, the a16z has at least 55 million UNI, including its entrusted tokens. The a16z representative told the WJB that the agreement it had reached with the representative essentially allowed the enterprise to reclaim its authorized delegation token, in which case it might choose.

With 55 million Uni,a16z, it will have enough votes to make all previous Uniswap recommendations right. (so far, only more than 6500 people have voted for UNI in Uniswap-BNB 's vote, and the largest Uniswap DAO vote so far has won 8500 of the vote in Yinma Town.)

Just as A16Z does not disclose the full scale of its Uniswap shares, no other parties will disclose it. It is unlikely to know exactly who is well-known in Uniswap's governance ecosystem. This is unlikely to change. A person familiar with the leadership of the Uniswap Charitable Foundation told WJB that group polarization is an essential feature of the login password culture, so it is hard to imagine that DAO would force all Uni holders to disclose who they are.

With the improvement in the field of DAO, the governance and management decisions of the agreement become more and more divergent and profitable. It is expected that the assets behind the agreement such as Uniswap will be further verified.