The newly developed education fund based on digital finance has confronted a lot of opposition for its abrupt announcement of the liquidation of its !M UNI tokens which were given to it via UNI governance. The controversial fund has liquidated almost half of the holdings, donated to it into ‘Stablecoins’. The move has received a lot of criticism from the crypto community.
On 12th June, it was tweeted by the fund that 500,000 UNI were being sold by it to Genesis Trading in return for 10.2M USDC via an OTC (over-the-counter) trade regardless of the proposal of Uniswap, which states that 1 million UNI will be liquidated by it over the period at least spanning 4 or 5 years.
A student group, ‘Harvard Law Blockchain’ in association with Fintech Initiative, launched a proposal for governance which advocates the formation of the fund as well as the specification of 1M UNI (valuing nearly $18M) for the entity to assist educational initiatives and the promotion of ‘DeFi’ sector.
The proposal was approved at the beginning of the current month, and subsequently, the tokens were moved into the ‘DeFi’ fund. Some serious concerns about the centralization of the governance procedure provided by Uniswap and the transparency as well as the objectives of the fund are being questioned.
It was detected by the blockchain sleuths that 2,612 UNI had been sold by Larry Sukernik, one among the signers at the back of the aforementioned education fund, only a few hours before the OTC agreement. Sukernik defended his move by mentioning that the trade contained the UNI, which was acquired from a donation just some weeks before.
Chris Blec, the founder of ‘DeFi’ Watch, emphasized that it has been made clear by Harvard Law that the 1M tokens will be sold in the time of 4-5 years rather than being dumped at once. On the contrary, he added, half of that 1M was sold by the fund without considering a requirement to provide some explanation though a large community of people is inquiring about it.
On 13th July, a governance thread has been posted by Blec, which required the fund’s transparency by stating the concerns related to the voting procedure regarding the proposal, the fund’s formation, the performance of Andresson Horowitz (an investor) in the significant happenings.
