DeFi builders challenge Uniswap decision to restrict app access for Ukrainian users

A growing number of Ukrainian developers and DeFi advocates are publicly challenging Uniswap Labs after discovering that access to the exchange’s main web interface is blocked for users in ￰0￱ incident has also sparked debate about the unique features that separate decentralized finance (DeFi) from traditional finance (TradFi), and whether DeFi can truly remain permissionless when its front-end gateways comply with sanctions regimes designed for ￰1￱ faces backlash over blanket restrictions The issue was made public on X by Artem Chystiakov, a Ukrainian DeFi builder known as Arvolear, who posted an open appeal to Uniswap Labs after finding that the platform’s front end was unavailable for Ukrainian IP ￰2￱ said the reason Uniswap has been giving so far is that “Ukraine is present on the OFAC sanctions list provided on the ￰3￱ of the Treasury website.” However, Chystiakov pointed out that Uniswap has misinterpreted the information, adding, “It is clearly stated that no goods, services, or technology must be provided to both the so-called DNR/LNR and the Crimea regions of ￰4￱ and other Ukrainian cities/regions are not mentioned whatsoever.” Chystiakov said he had first raised the issue with Uniswap support under ticket number “169045,” but nothing has been done on the matter, so he went public with an open letter calling for the company to lift the ban on ￰5￱ restrictions appear to stem from Uniswap Labs’ sanctions compliance tools, which use IP-based geolocation to prevent users in certain regions from accessing the front ￰6￱ issue has also made its way to ￰7￱ where a petition titled “Restore Uniswap Access for Ukrainian Citizens,” was ￰8￱ far, the signatories have been relatively few but has since gathered support from across the DeFi ￰9￱ clashes with crypto’s open access ethos Uniswap’s Terms of Service explicitly prohibit use from jurisdictions under ￰10￱ or trade ￰11￱ to the policy published on its support site , users may not access the interface if they are located in or affiliated with such ￰12￱ language mirrors obligations set by the ￰13￱ of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), which maintains sanctions lists covering entities in Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk, but not the rest of ￰14￱ say that Uniswap Labs, which develops and hosts the popular user interface for the Uniswap protocol , has overreached in its compliance ￰15￱ future of access and accountability in DeFi Chystiakov insists that the problem is not about a lack of alternatives; Ukrainian users can still access the protocol directly via blockchain explorers, third-party interfaces, or VPNs, but about ￰16￱ wrote on X that “It’s more than just UI availability, rather true crypto values they fail to follow.” According to Chystiakov , “It’s as simple as ‘the face of defi’ project failing to hold its promise of global accessibility and censorship ￰17￱ pathetic and coward behavior… How can we claim to change the financial world when we can’t even dare to change ourselves?

DeFi idea is cracking right here.” The Ukrainian DeFi community is now urging Uniswap Labs to implement more targeted compliance measures, blocking only the sanctioned regions and individuals rather than the entire ￰18￱ of the time of writing, neither Uniswap nor its founder, Hayden Adams, have publicly sent a response to Chystiakov post on X. However, the company has previously defended its use of compliance tools. Still, the incident has revived a fundamental question for the DeFI movement, which is, can a protocol truly be “open and permissionless” if its main access point is subject to unilateral corporate or political control? If you're reading this, you’re already ￰19￱ there with our newsletter .