Uniswap Governance Fiasco: Multi-signers Accused of Dumping On Insider Information

The Uniswap governance shitshow is taking a turn for the worse every day. To recap what is going on, a fund promoted by an obscure Harvard students union requested for a grant of 1 M UNI tokens from the Uniswap treasury. Majority of the community in numbers were opposed to this, however based on just 4 votes from large Uni token holders, this proposal was passed and this "fund" that doesnt even have a website was allowed 1M UNI tokens, worth around $20m at that time. It was strongly suspected that the accounts that voted for this were proxies of A16Z, the infamous VC fund that has been known to manipulate and make riches of a much less regulated crypto space.

The proposal outlines that the funds would be allocated over 4-5 years and thus wont have the effect of dumping the lot on the market.

However as soon as the tokens were alloted, the fund proceeded to do the exact opposite, i.e. dump half of the tokens to pocked a cool $10m. Why a college blockchain association that doesnt even have a website or any public charter or goals or history of any kind would require $10m right away is anyone's guess.

What is worse is that one of the multi-signers for this fund, Mr. Larry Sukernik seems to have publicly dumped around $50000 worth UNI just few hours before this news was made public.

The transaction: https://etherscan.io/tx/0x9bf9aaa5f2ffa67c5703c2a3bf2148383800ab6aa391470805c75a4755c93dc7

This was made 5 hours before the fund announced that they are selling half of their grant for $10m.

As an insider privy to this information, this is a terribly unethical practice. It may or may not be legal, considering most of securities laws dont apply to crypto, but it is undeniably in bad faith. Having information about an upcoming large transaction as a trusted multi-signer to the fund, only to front run the transaction. Smh

The Uniswap community has been asking A16z and this fund for transparency for a long time. But none of the questions were answered. And now you have the fund going back on its own statement of allotting the funds over 4-5 years, and just days after the grant was executed selling 50% of it to pocket $10m.. and the trading on insider information.