What was the proposal?

The proposal said that Flipside needed the $25 million to produce Community-Enabled Analytics for Uniswap and proposed not to spend it, but to use it to generate revenue each month. If Flipside achieves a 30% yield target, the $15 million (the $25 million is split between $15 million paid immediately and $10 million paid later) would generate about $2.25 million each year.

According to the proposal document, half of the revenue Flipside generates from the fund will go toward improving the Uniswap ecosystem in the form of bounties for community members.

The part about UNI being used to generate a yield had community members confused. It was also not clear what would happen to the $25 million after the initiative expired. However, the community's biggest concern was that Uniswap's venture capitalists could have pushed through the proposal with limited accountability if they tied their reputation and resources to the recipient of the funds.

Dune Analytics has decided to fight it

Dune Analytics pointed out the lack of community attention to the proposal, on Twitter, while stating that grants should be awarded to community members and not service providers. During this time, over 41 million votes were cast in favor of the proposal on the voting page for the proposal, while 2.5 million voted against it.

The main reason for the rejection of the proposal by Dune Analytics was that funding the operation of a single provider does not make sense when the market is full of analytics services.

Users also pointed out that Dune was doing this because the tokens were going to a competitor, which was not in their interest. The Dune Analytics account responded by saying, "there's a competitive market for service providers that prove that they can get both funding (tokens or VC) and revenue. There is no need for $UNI holders to massively subsidize specific service providers."

By looking at data from Sybil, you can see that various university blockchain clubs to which Andreessen Horowitz has distributed most of its UNI tokens are the most vocal of those in favor of the proposal. Among the most prominent opponents Dharma, Compound founder Rob Leshner, and vocal crypto advocate DCinvestor.

Not the first proposal to spark controversy

The Flipside Crypto proposal is the second in which Uniswap's governance process has come under fire in recent weeks. Last month, DeFi Education Fund was criticized for selling $10 million worth of UNI for USDC after receiving a $20 million grant from Uniswap's treasury. The vote on the proposal passed after some university clubs to which Andreessen Horowitz UNI tokens had been delegated voted in favor of the proposal, sparking debate about the degree of decentralization of Uniswap.

Despite the disagreement in the community over whether Flipside Crypto deserves the $25 million, there is no immediate impact on the price of UNI. As of this morning, more UNI users voted for the proposal than against it, but after criticism on Twitter, the tide has turned and more users are voting against the proposal.