Uniswap Governance Explodes! Core DAO Members Withdraw: Foundation's "Despotic Domination" Makes Decentralized Decision-Making a Performance

One of the main contributors to Uniswap DAO, the decentralized autonomous organization of decentralized exchange (DEX) Uniswap, a representative of the pseudonym Pepo, recently officially announced its withdrawal from Uniswap DAO. Pepo accused X, mainly because other organizations involved in Uniswap's operations, particularly the nonprofit Uniswap Foundation, ignored the opinions of DAO members and did not respond to feedback. (Synopsis: DAO governance into a joke? Uniswap pushed Unichain to be questioned as "contrary to the spirit of decentralization": without asking the community at all: (Background supplement: $UNI the distribution of proceeds to the holders? Uniswap through a $160 million grant: activation v4 and Unichain incentives) One of the main contributors to Uniswap DAO, a decentralized autonomous organization of decentralized exchange (DEX) giant Uniswap, a representative of Pepo under the pseudonym, publicly announced on the X platform on May 5 that it officially withdrew from Uniswap DAO, triggering extensive discussion in the industry about Uniswap's governance structure. Pepo's self-reported reasons for exit: the foundation ignores DAO opinions It is understood that Pepo has participated in the governance of Uniswap DAO since 2023, holding 455,000 UNI tokens, is one of the top 20 representatives, and has long been an active voice for the governance of the DAO. However, in a lengthy May 5 post on X, he elaborated on the reasons for his withdrawal, accusing other organizations involved in Uniswap's operations, particularly the nonprofit Uniswap Foundation, of ignoring the opinions of DAO members and responding to feedback. Here are Pepo's main complaints: Foundation prioritizes self-protection to the detriment of Uniswap: Pepo says the Foundation's actions are more focused on "self-protection rather than cooperation," which may have caused actual damage to Uniswap. Criticism has consequences, he notes, and criticism has "functional limitations" within the DAO, and criticism can lead to "doors quietly closing and relationships cooling for no reason." He questioned: "Can a representative object to a foundation-led proposal and still expect fair interaction?" Governance reduced to formality and lack of accountability: Pepo argues that Uniswap's governance has become "a show" and that the results have been shaped before the proposal, and that community input is used only to "verify" rather than "reference". He warned: "Decentralization, without accountability, is just a drama. And the drama will eventually collapse because of its own fiction." Loyalty is punished, withdrawal becomes the only choice: he laments, the voice is weakened, loyalty is punished, resulting in withdrawal becoming "the only choice that does not compromise the self". "I no longer endorse a system that refuses to earn trust," he wrote. Not the first controversy: Uniswap DAO rights repeatedly questioned In fact, Pepo's exit is not the first time Uniswap DAO has been controversial due to governance issues. As early as October 2024, Billy Gao, vice president of the Stanford Blockchain Club, publicly criticized Uniswap Labs for announcing the launch of its own blockchain, Unichain, without full discussion by the DAO, questioning its degree of decentralization. "This once again calls into question how decentralized Uniswap's governance really is," he said. In addition, there are voices of dissatisfaction within the community regarding the transparency of the use of funds by the Uniswap Foundation. Some delegates complained about the Foundation's lack of openness in spending and decision-making, and that major decisions were often privately agreed upon behind the scenes, with public voting being a formality. Doo Wan Nam, co-founder of DAO governance solutions provider StableLab, has also said that while transparency and communication have improved, they are still not enough to meet the expectations of some delegates. The Significance of Pepo's Departure: A Warning of the DAO's Governance Crisis Pepo's exit, as one of the most active representatives of Uniswap DAO, is seen as a major loss. For example, some community members commented on the X platform: "Pepo is an active participant in the DAO, and his departure is a big loss for Uniswap." It is also worth mentioning that although the Uniswap Foundation set up a "Foundation Feedback Group" on May 1 to try to improve communication with the DAO, Pepo's exit shows that the problem has not yet been resolved. People in the industry are worried that if Uniswap cannot effectively respond to community demands, its credibility as a decentralized protocol may be damaged, which in turn will affect the confidence of UNI token holders and the long-term development of the ecosystem. All in all, Pepo's exit is not only a microcosm of the contradictions within the Uniswap DAO and the Foundation, but also reflects the general challenges of DeFi protocols in decentralized governance. How Uniswap balances the power of the DAO, the Foundation, and Uniswap Labs in the future will be a close focus for the community and investors. Related reports Alpha Nuggets" Shadow Exchange Innovation x(3, 3) mechanism, what is it? Sonic breaks the Uniswap dilemma How does Flaunch use Uniswap V4 to flip the pain points of the meme launch platform, and the innovative mechanism can drive the Base ecosystem to take off? Bank for International Settlements analysis Uniswap: 80% liquidity is in the hands of a few main forces, DeFi is still not decentralized enough (Uniswap governance thunder! DAO core members exit: the foundation's "authoritarian" decentralized decision-making has become a show" This article was first published in BlockTempo's "Dynamic Trend - The Most Influential Blockchain News Media".