Good morning, frens! Ever notice how some weeks in crypto feel like waiting for the next shoe to drop?

This was one of those weeks - quiet, steady, with no big waves crashing.

But in this space, calm often hides the next big move 🤫 

Today we’re discussing:

• 🤯 Did Uniswap just DESTROY decentralization with Unichain?

• 💸 "Typical DeFi mistake" costs Maker $5M

• 🤝 Biggest acquisition deal in crypto: Stripe buys out Bridge

• 🗳 New governance proposal for Ambire: discuss before it goes live

• 👴 Vitalik vs Saylor: BTC is better off with whale firms than regular users?!

Our W3oF Degen Portfolio didn’t see any major action this week either, just holding steady.

But with the market staying quiet, it might be the perfect moment to reassess our next steps.

Drop your vote in the poll below 👇️ 

And if you’ve got thoughts to share, join the conversation in our #Web3-On-Fire chat room over on the Ambire Discord. We’re always glad to hear what you’re thinking!

LFG!

🤯 Did Uniswap just DESTROY decentralization with Unichain?

So, Uniswap just dropped a bombshell with their new Layer 2 solution, Unichain, but the aftermath isn't looking too hot.

The community is raising some serious red flags, and here’s why this whole thing has sparked a decentralization debate 👇️ 

Unichain: a bold move or a step back for decentralization?

• Uniswap announced Unichain, a Layer 2 solution, meant to give the protocol a leg up in the highly competitive DeFi space.

But there's one problem - the DAO wasn’t consulted.

• The governance body, supposed to have a say in protocol decisions, was completely out of the loop, and now people are wondering if Uniswap is still playing by its decentralized ideals.

• DAOs have been a core principle in DeFi, empowering token holders to steer the ship. But in this case, Uniswap Labs pulled a fast one, leaving the DAO in the dust.

Imagine running a company and just skipping out on your board of directors when making a massive decision - this has the same vibe to it 🤷 

Community’s response: this ain’t it

The DAO is meant to vote on protocol changes using their UNI tokens 🪙 

But the community is pointing out that Uniswap Labs, as a for-profit company, seems to have way too much say over things that should be handled by the DAO. The community is understandably pissed.

According to several voices in the community, Uniswap Labs basically snubbed the DAO.

Some critics are pointing out that there’s a lack of clarity on how decisions get made at the highest level.

Stanford University’s Blockchain Club is already the eighth-largest UNI delegate with millions of tokens, and even they’re confused. They’re calling into question just how decentralized Uniswap governance really is if major decisions like this can be made without DAO approval.

In the meantime, Uniswap Labs doesn’t seem to be backing down.

Some have even defended their actions, saying that things like this can happen permissionlessly in DeFi.

But this argument isn’t really flying with the community.

Critics feel like the suddenness of the Unichain launch is a huge red flag, and if Uniswap isn’t careful, they could lose the community’s faith.

"Typical DeFi mistake" costs Maker $5M

• Maker’s latest rebrand, a process intended to take them mainstream with a revamped look and governance system, has bombed spectacularly, leading to a huge flop.

• Sky - the token born out of this rebrand - has utterly tanked, leaving even Rune Christensen, the founder, admitting he “severely underestimated” the significance of centralized exchanges in the process 🙄 

What went wrong

• Rune decided to pivot Maker, one of the largest DeFi protocols, into Sky, betting big on this rebrand.

• He figured centralized exchanges like Coinbase and Binance would pick up the new governance token.

• But reality didn’t follow that playbook because (being the corrupt entities that they are) no major exchange touched it.

The Sky token flopped, leaving Maker losing almost half (~49%) of its value 💵 

Sky was meant to be more user-friendly and cohesive, with hopes of expanding governance beyond the original Maker holders.

The rebrand was ambitious, with the introduction of the new stablecoin USDS, which is actually growing fast 💰️ 

But without adoption of Sky, it’s a rough hit for a project that’s already been through years of planning and $5M in development costs. To make things worse, it’s left the ecosystem with overlapping tokens - Maker, Sky, DAI, and USDS - all serving different governance or utility purposes.

Going back to Maker

In an unexpected turn, Christensen backpedaled on the rebrand this week, saying that Maker will remain the project’s heart and core, with some revisions still coming, though Sky is being shelved.

He hopped on Twitter/X spaces to explain that his “typical DeFi mistake” was assuming exchanges would automatically get onboard with Sky’s governance token.

For now, it’s back to the drawing board for one of DeFi’s most prominent projects, leaving behind the blunder that’ll go down as a classic misfire in the decentralized finance world.

Biggest acquisition deal in crypto: Stripe buys out Bridge

Stripe just dropped a frosty $1.1 billion to buy Bridge, a startup that aims to be the go-to platform for stablecoin integration.

This acquisition is making some waves, especially with Stripe's recent ventures into crypto via stablecoins like Circle’s USDC.

What’s wild is that Bridge, a relatively small player with just $54 million in previous funding, got snatched up for over a billion bucks 🤯 

Bridge’s actually been working on becoming the "Stripe for blockchain," and it seems like Stripe took that tagline seriously 👇️ 

• The CEO of Stripe, Patrick Collison, threw in his two cents, highlighting how stablecoins are like the “superconductors” of the financial world - streamlining payments globally.

• Well, this does put Stripe in position to challenge banks and traditional payment processors by offering something that’s not just faster, but more scalable.

It’s like Stripe is saying “we’re not just about buying stuff online with cards anymore, we’re redefining the entire financial infrastructure” and this bold bet could pay off by making them the go-to service for any company wanting to integrate crypto payments.

The future of crypto adoption looks pretty bright. If that’s the direction you're vibing with 🤔 

New governance proposal for Ambire: discuss before it goes live

Ambire Wallet is about to launch a new governance proposal: Should we reward EOAs and Ambire v1 accounts as part of the extension launch incentives?

There is a 7-day discussion period before the proposal is finalized and the vote goes live, we’d love to hear your opinions:

Vitalik vs Saylor: BTC is better off with whale firms than regular users?!

Crypto’s future has always been a topic for heated debate, but the latest spark ignited the community when Ethereum’s co-founder, Vitalik Buterin, called out none other than MicroStrategy’s Michael Saylor on his recent pro-institution stance 👴 🏦 

• Saylor, who famously personally holds over $1B worth of BTC, has been increasingly vocal about his belief that BTC is safer in the hands of institutions like BlackRock, Fidelity, and JPMorgan rather than with individuals.

• He argues that regulatory oversight by these big players would protect Bitcoin from government seizures, echoing a "regulatory capture" argument.

Vitalik, however, slammed this viewpoint, going as far as calling it “batshit insane” in a recent X post 🫠 

He voiced concern that Saylor’s stance promotes a kind of regulatory framework that Bitcoin was initially meant to resist. According to him, BTC ethos lies in decentralization and individual control - not in being absorbed into a system ruled by mega-corporations and regulated by the government 😐️ 

The very idea that BTC should be "protected" by institutions strikes at the heart of what crypto stands for in his eyes.

• In an interview, Saylor responded to journalist Madison Reidy’s question on whether fewer large-scale institutions holding Bitcoin might increase its risk of seizure by authorities:

• Saylor said "I think it’s the opposite," signaling that these corporate whales would safeguard the crypto ecosystem against such threats 🤪 

• Saylor also revealed his grand plan for Bitcoin, explaining that his goal is to never sell his holdings, creating a “flywheel” that will only increase in value as institutions take over.

Saylor even likened his vision for BTC to Satoshi Nakamoto’s, imagining leaving his billion dollar stash behind as an inheritance to civilization.

While this might sound like a grand gesture, it raises a crucial question: is this really the decentralized future crypto advocates have been championing, or does it shift the power back into the hands of a few giant entities? 🐋 

Here’s where the crypto community stands divided 😕 

On one hand, you have proponents like Saylor, who argue that large institutions can ensure Bitcoin’s mainstream success, particularly with recent moves like BlackRock’s Bitcoin ETF becoming the third-largest ETF in terms of flows - one of the fastest-growing in history.

The numbers back this up: institutional interest in BTC is rising fast, and the long-term outlook is bullish for those hoping to see Bitcoin’s price skyrocket to six figures and beyond 💵 

On the other hand, Vitalik, and the crowd who align with him, seem to question whether BTC’s future should really hinge on these institutional players.

The question then becomes, is institutional adoption the end goal? 🤔 

Do we, as crypto users, want to see BTC climb over $100k at the cost of losing the very decentralization it was born from?

Or is there still a way to strike a balance between mainstream adoption and preserving the ethos that drove Bitcoin’s creation in the first place?

Crypto users need to decide which side of this divide they stand on.

Do you want a future where crypto becomes just another tool for the rich and powerful, or a true decentralized system controlled by individuals?

It’s a crossroads, and as crypto marches toward greater institutional involvement, the stakes have never been higher 😲 

Other worthy reads

Possible futures of the Ethereum protocol, 3rd part from Vitalik:

A good reminder about the fact that SE hackers never rest:

Crypto donations for the 2024 US elections surpassed $190M:

MEMES

That's all for now, frens.

We'll meet in a week! And remember, the market conditions are temporary, but our commitment to building a better DeFi is here to stay. Thanks for joining us, and we look forward to seeing you back next week. Cheers!

Yours, The 🔥 Team

Brought to you by Ambire: The Only Web3 Wallet That You’ll Need!