top of page
ad cnp.png

Harvard Law School Blockchain Throws Massive Amount Of Voting Power

Harvard Law School Blockchain threw a massive amount of voting power behind its own proposal to fund DeFi lobby with UNI tokens.

It has been reported that the proposal, made on May 27 by the Harvard Law School Blockchain and FinTech Initiative, is for the creation of a fund that would finance existing and new political groups engaged in crypto policy-making and lobbying to defend decentralized finance against regulation.

However, the proposed fund would have a chest of 1-1.5 million UNI, worth approximately $28 million to $42 million at current prices. As of May 28, Harvard Law BFI has pledged 10.46 million UNI tokens, or 99% of the votes, in favor of the proposal.

The report said that industry observer and critic of centralized governance, Chris Blec from DeFi Watch, was one of the first to comment on the heavily weighted voting mechanism. 

⚠️ @HarvardLawBFI just cast a 10.45m UNI vote in favor of its own proposal to pay a bunch of lawyers 1.5m UNI out of the treasury. Their vote accounts for 99.9% of the "yes" votes so far. Here we go again, y'all. 🙄 — Chris Blec (@ChrisBlec) May 27, 2021

The “here we go again” quip refers to Uniswap’s first governance vote in October 2020, proposed by trading platform Dharma to reduce the proposal submission threshold. The proposal would have given the majority of the voting power to the top two token holders – Dharma and blockchain simulation platform Gauntlet.

Likewise, the two of them dominated the ballot with their own heavy bags bringing Uniswap’s governance into question, the vote was defeated by a tiny margin.

Did you assume that blockchain governance will be a democracy? You might be wrong. Harvard Law School BFI, owning 10.5M UNI, just voted for its own proposal on #Uniswap. The firm currently has 99% voting power. — Cointelegraph (@Cointelegraph) May 28, 2021

It has been analyzed that according to Harvard, the lobbying fund, if passed, would have four primary goals consisting of educating policymakers to preempt regulatory, legal, political, and tax threats to DeFi, secondly achieving regulatory clarity for DeFi related activities. The third goal would be to advance laws that support DeFi and decentralized governance, and finally, encourage other DeFi protocols’ governance communities to contribute to the effort.

Harvard Law BFI said:

“It was only natural for them to vote for their own proposal. Additionally, we have this voting power from UNI holders who delegated their votes to us (which they are free to retract at any time).”

Thus, it stated that there were enough votes to create a snapshot proposal, but it cannot unilaterally get it through a consensus check without a majority of votes.



bottom of page