As is traditional, let’s start with an explanation. Uniswap’s decentralised exchange tokens are so-called havernance tokens, i.e. management tokens. This means that their holders can vote for certain project development proposals, and the community of such people itself forms a decentralised autonomous organisation or DAO.

Every holder of such tokens is able to vote for or against an idea – in this case, we are talking about UNI. However, it is clear that more tokens will mean more influence on decision-making, which in theory creates the conditions for big players to pursue their own goals.

Uniswap cryptocurrency exchange interface

Community representatives of the decentralised exchange Uniswap are now considering launching the platform on the BNB Chain network. This will benefit the latter, while users will receive lower transaction fees for exchanges.

However, BNB Chain also has a lot to criticise for. The fact is that this network has a limited number of validators who validate transactions and generally make the blockchain work. Becoming one of them is virtually impossible, which is why Binance, along with this blockchain, is often accused of being too centralised. Similar problems are inherent in the Tron network.

As a result, a major UNI token holder, Andreessen Horowitz (a16z), voted against the initiative, which was broadly supported by the community. While such a stance can be explained, the arguments of the opponents of what is happening are also far from perfect.

What’s going on with the Uniswap crypto exchange?

For the vote, a16z representatives allocated all the 15 million UNI that the fund had. Many people didn’t like it, because in this case it seems that just one organisation has too much influence on the project. Moreover, this is not the first time that a16z has been at the centre of a centralisation scandal.

The key argument in a16z’s refusal to launch Uniswap based on BNB Chain is not in the choice of blockchain, but in the way it is launched. Specifically, the current proposal involves using the Wormhole blockchain bridge run by another major fund, Jump Crypto. Instead, representatives of a16z have proposed using the LayerZero bridge, in which that company has invested.

Voting statistics

Voting among UNI holders has started on Feb. 3 and will continue until Feb. 10, with more than 52 million votes already in hand. Today the number of "for" votes far exceeds the number of "against" votes: 71.3 percent and 28.69 percent, respectively.

Voting statistics

According to Decrypt’s sources, the voting process has caused a lot of controversy in the decentralised finance community. Even Binance exchange CEO Changpen Zhao reacted to the developments, asking his Twitter followers if Uniswap is “controlled by a16z fund”. As a reminder, Binance belongs to BNB Chain, so Zhao’s interests are also understandable.

Changpen Zhao’s tweet

Decentralised finance expert Chris Black also believes that the industry is under the control of “whales” – holders of a huge number of tokens that can have a significant impact on the life of crypto projects. Here’s what he writes on Twitter about it.

Perhaps UNI holders don’t fully understand this. Let me explain it to you – a16z HOLDS the Uniswap protocol. The foundation is the CONTROLLER of the protocol. THEY decide what the future of the protocol will be.

It is worth noting that the future of the protocol is decided by all UNI token holders, not just a16z representatives. So talk of Uniswap owning this crypto-fund is manipulation.

But Tornado Cash co-founder Roman Semenov has no complaints about the situation – in his words, this is how the free market works.

I do not see anything wrong here. The community, represented by UNI holders, vote for what the protocol should do, according to their personal interests. The vote is proportional to the size of their capital. This is how the free market is supposed to work.

Distribution of votes, which shows that a16z crypto fund representatives voted against the initiative

A popular crypto-enthusiast under the nickname DegenSpartan expressed a similar viewpoint. He noted that voting does not have to be based on equality of each participant. According to him, “if you want more influence, buy more tokens.”

And that does seem logical. After all, the point of havernance tokens is precisely to provide voting rights, and anyone can buy them. Accordingly, to complain about the opposite position of another major player is at least silly, because otherwise a kind of censorship should be imposed on the purchase of the crypto-asset. This, of course, is not in line with the ideals of blockchain tokens.

Note that it’s too early to judge the extent of a16z’s impact on the project – at least the vote isn’t over yet, well the majority of participants support the initiative, i.e. go against a16z crypto fund’s decision. While 15 million UNI is quite a large amount, it only represents about 2 percent of the circulating token supply. And judging by the situation today, other major players with votes in favour could successfully oppose the control of a single player represented by the fund.

A16z crypto fund logo

In the meantime, we can assume that the decentralised exchange Uniswap V3 will still be launched on the BNB Chain, with the implementation of blockchain integration not to the liking of the a16z management. However, there is nothing wrong with that, as everyone can still make an impact – albeit not equally.


We believe that there is no problem in a16z crypto fund voting against the Uniswap exchange initiative, as its representatives had the right to do so. Well, if someone is not satisfied with such a thing, he/she can buy more UNI tokens and vote for the idea.

Particularly amusing here is the manipulation of Binance's Changpen Zhao, who has drawn attention to what is happening. Apparently, he wants to get Uniswap integrated into the BNB Chain as quickly as possible as it will benefit his brand. Given what is happening, he is therefore willing to talk about Uniswap allegedly owning a16z fund, although the latter holds only 2 per cent of all tokens in circulation.