I hope you will support this idea. If you hold minmum 400 amount of UNI tokens in your wallet and PARTICIPATE in any mining pool. You will receive a small % MORE UNI from the liquidity mining pools.
This is an incentive to hold UNI token and get some extra rewards if you have more tokens.
I would say that a minium treshold for this bonus would be: 400 UNI Possible maxium whale cap at: 10.000 UNI
I love to hear your thoughts on this UNI BOOST
I hope you will support this idea. If you hold minmum 400 amount of UNI tokens in your wallet and PARTICIPATE in any mining pool. You will receive a small % MORE UNI from the liquidity mining pools.
This is an incentive to hold UNI token and get some extra rewards if you have more tokens.
I would say that a minium treshold for this bonus would be: 400 UNI Possible maxium whale cap at: 10.000 UNI
I love to hear your thoughts on this UNI BOOST
This proposal needs to be coupled with a voting mechanism as well as a being a LP pool provider.
Conceptually one can calculate UNI * Number of possible votes and then calculate a GOVERNANCE_PARTIPIATION_RATIO = 0-1 (this would be a running fractional value based on theoretical governance participation vs. actual) on this and any basic UNI LP rewards get the BOOST*G_R_P + BASELPREWARD. This would make not just holding UNI important but also using it in governance as critical to be able to get the UNI LP BOOST amount.
This proposal needs to be coupled with a voting mechanism as well as a being a LP pool provider.
Conceptually one can calculate UNI * Number of possible votes and then calculate a GOVERNANCE_PARTIPIATION_RATIO = 0-1 (this would be a running fractional value based on theoretical governance participation vs. actual) on this and any basic UNI LP rewards get the BOOST*G_R_P + BASELPREWARD. This would make not just holding UNI important but also using it in governance as critical to be able to get the UNI LP BOOST amount.
My only issue with doing this on UNI UNI-tokenpairs is that unless we can take and use UNI UNI-tokenpairs in governance since it is appealing to want to incentivize people to put UNI into uniswap for liquidity this also takes UNI away from governance. I generally don't like to see competition for governance tokens from liquidity contracts as this tends to drain votes that could and should be used for governance.
It should just be gauged on how much UNI you hold. There could be a minimum, pick any arbitrary number you want. Then with the more UNI a person holds the more boost they receive on their liquidity mining.
I'm thinking a combination of Xdai's staking method and Curves locker feature.
https://easy-staking.xdaichain.com/deposits https://dao.curve.fi/locker
It should just be gauged on how much UNI you hold. There could be a minimum, pick any arbitrary number you want. Then with the more UNI a person holds the more boost they receive on their liquidity mining.
I'm thinking a combination of Xdai's staking method and Curves locker feature.
https://easy-staking.xdaichain.com/deposits https://dao.curve.fi/locker
Look at them when you have the time. Heck, this idea is growing in my head. Why not have Uniswap become its own thing and have a mainnet launch. It could be a Proof-of-Stake consensus and UNI is the native token. You stake it, become a validator node and receive boost on LP from your staked UNI as a reward for being a node. UNI would be the native token. Breaking away from Ethereum. Hopefully lower gas fees, etc.
I don't really know. I like the boost idea for UNI using a locker type feature. I think that's cool.
Hey Tim,
Thats actually the same idea I have. I was going to start a thread on this idea. Would love to see it become an idea to be voted on. So I use Curve and I locked some CRV tokens in the locker for 4 years to get the 2.5X multiplier reward on my staked sUSD share. This idea clicked in my head for UNI and how Uniswap could implement a "Locker" just like Curve and allow people to lock UNI away for 1, 2, 3, or 4 years and receive a multiplier like 1.5X, 2X or 2.5X on their share of staked assets and receive more UNI in their UNI yield farming. It's a genius way to make the UNI token worth more via locking it in a locker for years and gives it more use. Also would love to see a staking pool for just UNI or some type of incentive to lock up UNI in some way. Would love to hear your thoughts and would love to cast a vote on this some day! Cheers!
Tim,
Thats awesome Tim! Thank you for the kind words! I hope we can see something like this in the future of Uniswap! Let's vote!
This proposal needs to be coupled with a voting mechanism as well as a being a LP pool provider.
Conceptually one can calculate UNI * Number of possible votes and then calculate a GOVERNANCE_PARTIPIATION_RATIO = 0-1 (this would be a running fractional value based on theoretical governance participation vs. actual) on this and any basic UNI LP rewards get the BOOST*G_R_P + BASELPREWARD. This would make not just holding UNI important but also using it in governance as critical to be able to get the UNI LP BOOST amount.
This proposal needs to be coupled with a voting mechanism as well as a being a LP pool provider.
Conceptually one can calculate UNI * Number of possible votes and then calculate a GOVERNANCE_PARTIPIATION_RATIO = 0-1 (this would be a running fractional value based on theoretical governance participation vs. actual) on this and any basic UNI LP rewards get the BOOST*G_R_P + BASELPREWARD. This would make not just holding UNI important but also using it in governance as critical to be able to get the UNI LP BOOST amount.
My only issue with doing this on UNI UNI-tokenpairs is that unless we can take and use UNI UNI-tokenpairs in governance since it is appealing to want to incentivize people to put UNI into uniswap for liquidity this also takes UNI away from governance. I generally don't like to see competition for governance tokens from liquidity contracts as this tends to drain votes that could and should be used for governance.
It should just be gauged on how much UNI you hold. There could be a minimum, pick any arbitrary number you want. Then with the more UNI a person holds the more boost they receive on their liquidity mining.
I'm thinking a combination of Xdai's staking method and Curves locker feature.
https://easy-staking.xdaichain.com/deposits https://dao.curve.fi/locker
It should just be gauged on how much UNI you hold. There could be a minimum, pick any arbitrary number you want. Then with the more UNI a person holds the more boost they receive on their liquidity mining.
I'm thinking a combination of Xdai's staking method and Curves locker feature.
https://easy-staking.xdaichain.com/deposits https://dao.curve.fi/locker
Look at them when you have the time. Heck, this idea is growing in my head. Why not have Uniswap become its own thing and have a mainnet launch. It could be a Proof-of-Stake consensus and UNI is the native token. You stake it, become a validator node and receive boost on LP from your staked UNI as a reward for being a node. UNI would be the native token. Breaking away from Ethereum. Hopefully lower gas fees, etc.
I don't really know. I like the boost idea for UNI using a locker type feature. I think that's cool.
Hey Tim,
Thats actually the same idea I have. I was going to start a thread on this idea. Would love to see it become an idea to be voted on. So I use Curve and I locked some CRV tokens in the locker for 4 years to get the 2.5X multiplier reward on my staked sUSD share. This idea clicked in my head for UNI and how Uniswap could implement a "Locker" just like Curve and allow people to lock UNI away for 1, 2, 3, or 4 years and receive a multiplier like 1.5X, 2X or 2.5X on their share of staked assets and receive more UNI in their UNI yield farming. It's a genius way to make the UNI token worth more via locking it in a locker for years and gives it more use. Also would love to see a staking pool for just UNI or some type of incentive to lock up UNI in some way. Would love to hear your thoughts and would love to cast a vote on this some day! Cheers!
Tim,
Thats awesome Tim! Thank you for the kind words! I hope we can see something like this in the future of Uniswap! Let's vote!
And time has progressed . How do you feel about this future now? Some people eager to engage have left already! I would love to hear more ideas!
Hello MichaelAnthony
It is really appreciated that you considered and thought of this proposal. You took the time and wording to make this idea into something concrete! Some likewise mechanism Curve has would cater to this BOOST.
Thank you for your great insights!
Hello RodAthens,
It is really appreciated that you considered and thought of this proposal. Thank you for that. I agree 100% with you that the tokens should be primarily focused on voting. It should also have other purposes, like staking in a pool ETH/UNI. There can be some elegant solution whereby you delegate or lock your vote and then activate the a % boost on your mining pool that is farming uni. How do you feel and think about such a mechanism?
I think is not a good use of the exchange available funds. Why not reward liquidity providers and Uni holders the appropriate ammount for their contribution. i dont see the need for combining both variables. just for clarity : we need that people vote and use the token for governance (hold), we also need that people provide liquidity. I dont see a reason there should be an extra incentive for doing both at the same time.
Hi Tim,
Realistically speaking, those who provide more liquidity than others will receive larger rewards already.
Why do you specificially think that the # of UNI held by a token holder should increase the UNI rewards? Mainly because of the incentive to hold UNI tokens or?
Hi Tim,
Realistically speaking, those who provide more liquidity than others will receive larger rewards already.
Why do you specificially think that the # of UNI held by a token holder should increase the UNI rewards? Mainly because of the incentive to hold UNI tokens or?
And would you envision this being a fixed tier-bonus (e.g. 500 UNI = +0.5%, 1,000 UNI = +1%), no matter how much LP is provided. As I could envision this to become an even bigger 'whale game' in such case.
Hello Uniguy772,
Thank you very much for thinking about and participating in the idea for a UNI BOOST proposal. I chose the minimum number 400 because it is what most people got initially. (the magic number) I am not sure if everyone could buy another 400? It is more about the fairness to participate with the minimum amount which everyone should have and kept. But the min/max amount is completely up for debate and consideration, i like your input very much!
Hello Uniguy772,
Thank you very much for thinking about and participating in the idea for a UNI BOOST proposal. I chose the minimum number 400 because it is what most people got initially. (the magic number) I am not sure if everyone could buy another 400? It is more about the fairness to participate with the minimum amount which everyone should have and kept. But the min/max amount is completely up for debate and consideration, i like your input very much!
Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts and ideas!
I think that the devil hides in the details, so i cant really make any useful comments until this "elegant solution" is elaborated.
I didn't say that tokens should be primarily focused on voting, I'm not against it either, i actually don't have an opinion yet on the matter. What i believe is that there are many interesting ways to channel the available UNI tokens, but the proportion of those initiatives are not obvious nor irrelevant. I just said that two of those ways are rewarding voters, and rewarding LP's.
I think that the devil hides in the details, so i cant really make any useful comments until this "elegant solution" is elaborated.
I didn't say that tokens should be primarily focused on voting, I'm not against it either, i actually don't have an opinion yet on the matter. What i believe is that there are many interesting ways to channel the available UNI tokens, but the proportion of those initiatives are not obvious nor irrelevant. I just said that two of those ways are rewarding voters, and rewarding LP's.
My impression is that such a mechanism won't be necessary since we can reward voters and LP's separately, and in proportion to their contribution. I don't see any reason we should give extra to anyone doing both activities at the same time.
Having said that, i think all ideas regarding governance are appreciated here, its good to see members thinking and proposing their thoughts on this platform. so keep it up Tim, great job.
A final thought: it may have been a good idea to post this initiative with a poll so we get a better idea of what the community thinks about it..
it's a good idea but surely the minimum threshold should be higher than what was airdropped to people otherwise it could be seen to just be continuing to benefit people who got the airdrop maybe increase it to like 800 UNI minimum threshold?
And time has progressed . How do you feel about this future now? Some people eager to engage have left already! I would love to hear more ideas!
Hello MichaelAnthony
It is really appreciated that you considered and thought of this proposal. You took the time and wording to make this idea into something concrete! Some likewise mechanism Curve has would cater to this BOOST.
Thank you for your great insights!
Hello RodAthens,
It is really appreciated that you considered and thought of this proposal. Thank you for that. I agree 100% with you that the tokens should be primarily focused on voting. It should also have other purposes, like staking in a pool ETH/UNI. There can be some elegant solution whereby you delegate or lock your vote and then activate the a % boost on your mining pool that is farming uni. How do you feel and think about such a mechanism?
I think is not a good use of the exchange available funds. Why not reward liquidity providers and Uni holders the appropriate ammount for their contribution. i dont see the need for combining both variables. just for clarity : we need that people vote and use the token for governance (hold), we also need that people provide liquidity. I dont see a reason there should be an extra incentive for doing both at the same time.
Hi Tim,
Realistically speaking, those who provide more liquidity than others will receive larger rewards already.
Why do you specificially think that the # of UNI held by a token holder should increase the UNI rewards? Mainly because of the incentive to hold UNI tokens or?
Hi Tim,
Realistically speaking, those who provide more liquidity than others will receive larger rewards already.
Why do you specificially think that the # of UNI held by a token holder should increase the UNI rewards? Mainly because of the incentive to hold UNI tokens or?
And would you envision this being a fixed tier-bonus (e.g. 500 UNI = +0.5%, 1,000 UNI = +1%), no matter how much LP is provided. As I could envision this to become an even bigger 'whale game' in such case.
Hello Uniguy772,
Thank you very much for thinking about and participating in the idea for a UNI BOOST proposal. I chose the minimum number 400 because it is what most people got initially. (the magic number) I am not sure if everyone could buy another 400? It is more about the fairness to participate with the minimum amount which everyone should have and kept. But the min/max amount is completely up for debate and consideration, i like your input very much!
Hello Uniguy772,
Thank you very much for thinking about and participating in the idea for a UNI BOOST proposal. I chose the minimum number 400 because it is what most people got initially. (the magic number) I am not sure if everyone could buy another 400? It is more about the fairness to participate with the minimum amount which everyone should have and kept. But the min/max amount is completely up for debate and consideration, i like your input very much!
Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts and ideas!
I think that the devil hides in the details, so i cant really make any useful comments until this "elegant solution" is elaborated.
I didn't say that tokens should be primarily focused on voting, I'm not against it either, i actually don't have an opinion yet on the matter. What i believe is that there are many interesting ways to channel the available UNI tokens, but the proportion of those initiatives are not obvious nor irrelevant. I just said that two of those ways are rewarding voters, and rewarding LP's.
I think that the devil hides in the details, so i cant really make any useful comments until this "elegant solution" is elaborated.
I didn't say that tokens should be primarily focused on voting, I'm not against it either, i actually don't have an opinion yet on the matter. What i believe is that there are many interesting ways to channel the available UNI tokens, but the proportion of those initiatives are not obvious nor irrelevant. I just said that two of those ways are rewarding voters, and rewarding LP's.
My impression is that such a mechanism won't be necessary since we can reward voters and LP's separately, and in proportion to their contribution. I don't see any reason we should give extra to anyone doing both activities at the same time.
Having said that, i think all ideas regarding governance are appreciated here, its good to see members thinking and proposing their thoughts on this platform. so keep it up Tim, great job.
A final thought: it may have been a good idea to post this initiative with a poll so we get a better idea of what the community thinks about it..
it's a good idea but surely the minimum threshold should be higher than what was airdropped to people otherwise it could be seen to just be continuing to benefit people who got the airdrop maybe increase it to like 800 UNI minimum threshold?
