Uniswap Labs launches Unichain without unanimous consent from UNI token holders

One of the largest holders of the UNI token has raised questions about Uniswap’s decentralization and backroom dealings, specifically its rhetoric of a series of changes justified by “efficiency” and possible undisclosed financial interests between Uniswap Labs and another blockchain, Optimism. Billy Gao, head of governance at Stanford Blockchain Club at Stanford University (a delegate entrusted by thousands of individuals to hold UNI’s governance tokens), published a 22-post indictment of Uniswap’s sudden decision to launch its own blockchain, cancel a proposed fee switching mechanism that would have benefited UNI holders, and bypass the DAO that ostensibly governs Uniswap. Gao wrote that Unichain’s rushed launch “surprised many” and left “delegates in the dark.” He also noted that the decision “substantially changed” UNI’s ERC-20 contract, which is “immutable” only in the strictest and most meaningless definition — since UNI is now tied to an entirely new blockchain. The representative questioned: "What control do token holders really have?" Gao also expressed doubts about the possibility of financially motivated backroom dealings behind Uniswap's "illegal behavior" to bypass the DAO. Although he did not make formal accusations, he pointed out that "there must be a reason behind adopting the OP (Optimism) stack to power Unichain." Gao asked why Uniswap Labs chose OP and why everyone should believe that there was no backroom deal behind this decision. (protos)