a16z used all 15M of its UNI tokens to vote against a proposal to deploy Uniswap V3 on the BNB Chain using the Wormhole bridge; voting concludes on February 10
- A16z used all 15 million of their UNI to vote against the proposal. The proposal would use the Wormhole bridge for the Uniswap V3 deployment.
The BlockAdam Morgan McCarthy
Context & Ripple Effects
a16z’s use of its full UNI position put a major token holder on the losing side of a cross-chain expansion decision. Subsequent coverage shows token holders approved the BNB Chain deployment with 66% support, clarifying that a16z’s stake was substantial but not decisive.
The vote concerns Uniswap V3’s deployment through Wormhole, while Uniswap Labs had recently broadened its consumer-facing footprint with an NFT marketplace aggregator. The governance outcome therefore matters as a test of how far the protocol can extend across chains despite concentrated-holder opposition.
First-order effects
a16z formally commits all 15 million UNI under its control against the Wormhole-based BNB Chain proposal, making its governance position explicit before voting closes.
Uniswap token holders, rather than Uniswap Labs alone, determine whether the BNB Chain deployment proceeds; the later 66% result authorizes that path despite a16z’s opposition.
Second-order effects
Wormhole gains a governance-approved route into Uniswap V3’s BNB Chain expansion, while alternative bridge choices lose this particular deployment contest.
Large UNI holders retain the ability to shape the visibility and margin of governance votes, but the approved proposal shows other holders can collectively override a single major investor.
Third-order effects
If cross-chain deployments continue to be settled this way, bridge selection becomes a recurring protocol-governance decision rather than a purely technical implementation choice.
The outcome points to a governance model in which concentrated token ownership can challenge expansion plans without necessarily controlling them, provided participation is broad enough.
The trend: DeFi protocols are using token-holder votes to govern cross-chain expansion, with interoperability providers becoming direct stakeholders in those decisions.
🚨 @a16z just used its full voting weight to squash a $UNI proposal to launch Uniswap protocol on BNB chain using @wormholecrypto bridge. a16z is a large investor in Wormhole competitor, @LayerZero_Labs. Open your eyes. 👀 Anti-competition cartels in DeFi are REAL. https://twitter.…
You're being lied to about the governance of UNI @a16z could control 41.5M UNI through 11 wallets, which represents more than 4% of the supply 4% is the required amount to pass any proposal 🧵↓ https://twitter.com/... https://twitter.com/...
I don't see anything wrong here. The community (= UNI holders) vote on what the protocol should do, according to their personal interest. The vote is proportional to their bag size. This is how a free market is supposed to work. https://twitter.com/...
0xb04 sent UNI to 10 wallets, including @a16z 9 wallets ended up with 0.25% of the supply each (2.5M UNI) - a calculated amount 👇 0.25% is required to submit a proposal to the governance of Uniswap https://twitter.com/...
On-chain data shows that there are a total of 14 wallets related to @a16z (the blue part), with a total of 41.5M $UNI (4.15% of the total supply). Uniswap controlled by @a16z? https://etherscan.io/... https://twitter.com/... https://twitter.com/...
Perhaps you don't get it yet, UNI holders. Let me spell it out for you: a16z OWNS Uniswap protocol. They are the CONTROLLING OWNER of the protocol. THEY will decide on what future Uniswap versions look like. THEY control the treasury. It is THEIR'S. Not YOUR'S. Capeesh? https://t…
@Dogetoshi This seems like a completely rational and justified action speaking generally. They own the governance tokens, this is their preference and they used the tokens for the intended purpose (to vote their preference.) Is there a major caveat I'm missing?
@mdudas No, you're right. The main annoyance that I can see is whether a16z's vote is beneficial for Uniswap and it's community vs a16z and their bags (LayerZero). The original vote was whether to deploy on a new chain but it has morphed into a vote on who should build bridge to …
happy a16z voted their UNI. if u build a governance system, and people use them *exactly how designed* then either redesign the system or get on with it.
So @a16z has single-handedly swung current votes by voting against this proposal with their 15M $UNI. Why would they not want Uniswap to be deployed on BNB Chain? They voted “for” when Uniswap was to be deployed in Polygon, Celo and zkSync https://twitter.com/...
I honestly couldn't care less if a16z controls uniswap governance We're all using aggregators and I don't give a shit where the liquidity comes from. I'll use whatever the aggregator tells me to for best price execution.
So @a16z are trying to push the $UNI vote towards an advantage to one of their portfolio companies. This isn't and “anti-competition cartel” this is precisely the exact point of governance tokens. https://twitter.com/...
Bubblemaps research shows that a16z could control 41.5M UNI through 11 wallets, which represents more than 4% of the supply. https://twitter.com/... https://twitter.com/...