It seems natural that we’d want to add the uni / ETH pool to the list of pools that upcoming incentives are distributed to. Thoughts?
It seems natural that we’d want to add the uni / ETH pool to the list of pools that upcoming incentives are distributed to. Thoughts?
Yes làm sao để thêm nhóm vào
Yes. This is a good idea!
Yes nên làm như vậy..
I think the question whether rewards should be added is a very interesting one.
It would shift the incentives of investing in UNI into a different direction, while also influencing how the governance will work in practice.
I think the question whether rewards should be added is a very interesting one.
It would shift the incentives of investing in UNI into a different direction, while also influencing how the governance will work in practice.
I was trying to get an overview over the arguments, to for an opinion, but I feel there might be more to it. I used a structured discussion tool, to map out the arguments. (has been used to discuss ETH governance before)
I'd be happy if you help me add the missing pieces!
https://www.kialo.com/the-uniswap-unieth-pool-should-be-eligible-for-pool-rewards-41774
I strongly disagree. First, it's up to the token holder to decide what is more valuable to them. Second, there's a lot of token holders that don't vote. And that's true in any governance. You're not going to get 80% of any community to meaningfully participate in governance, that's not realistic.
I think it's a false problem. I do agree that enabling LP to vote is useful. But it can be implemented later. The $UNI is a governance token, but it is first and foremost a token, ie a value capture mechanism. It's a flaw in the token model not to have a sink or value capture. I'm happy to discuss this point on Discord, but I have been making that point for weeks now, I'm surprised we're still going back and forth on this point.
I strongly disagree. First, it's up to the token holder to decide what is more valuable to them. Second, there's a lot of token holders that don't vote. And that's true in any governance. You're not going to get 80% of any community to meaningfully participate in governance, that's not realistic.
I think it's a false problem. I do agree that enabling LP to vote is useful. But it can be implemented later. The $UNI is a governance token, but it is first and foremost a token, ie a value capture mechanism. It's a flaw in the token model not to have a sink or value capture. I'm happy to discuss this point on Discord, but I have been making that point for weeks now, I'm surprised we're still going back and forth on this point.
There is a flaw in the token model. Incentivizing the UNI/ETH pool is a way to fix it.
It definitely make sense to add $Uni/$Eth pool as it will push people to hodl $Uni for long term.
I personally think a reduction of UNI incentive distribution should be done for any pair that is not UNI/XXX. And slightly higher distribution rewarding for the actual believers who support UNI hence UNI/XXX pairs.
There are more benefits to stealing UNI from centralized exchanges. Leaving them on CEXs gives those CEXs a lot of voting power
If add UNI/ETH pool to create new UNI, will it effect the price ETH?
Obviously this proposal has a lot of traction, yet nothing is clear about how those things will be voted and when implemented? The current rewards end in 7 days. Nothing is clear what is next?
Surely with all the interest in this pool and the fee locking timer some whale could start the vote in this one?
It does retain its voting ability. The proposal will only incentivize farmers who currently dump their tokens to hodl their tokens. Will it also incentivize voters to add their $UNI to the pool, yes, but that's their choice, it's their token to what they deem most valuable for them.
I think it's better from a coding POV anyway to separate the incentivization of the pool from the implementation of a snapshot of staking derivative. It's cleaner and iterative (hence safer) approach.
Yes làm sao để thêm nhóm vào
Yes. This is a good idea!
Yes nên làm như vậy..
I think the question whether rewards should be added is a very interesting one.
It would shift the incentives of investing in UNI into a different direction, while also influencing how the governance will work in practice.
I think the question whether rewards should be added is a very interesting one.
It would shift the incentives of investing in UNI into a different direction, while also influencing how the governance will work in practice.
I was trying to get an overview over the arguments, to for an opinion, but I feel there might be more to it. I used a structured discussion tool, to map out the arguments. (has been used to discuss ETH governance before)
I'd be happy if you help me add the missing pieces!
https://www.kialo.com/the-uniswap-unieth-pool-should-be-eligible-for-pool-rewards-41774
I strongly disagree. First, it's up to the token holder to decide what is more valuable to them. Second, there's a lot of token holders that don't vote. And that's true in any governance. You're not going to get 80% of any community to meaningfully participate in governance, that's not realistic.
I think it's a false problem. I do agree that enabling LP to vote is useful. But it can be implemented later. The $UNI is a governance token, but it is first and foremost a token, ie a value capture mechanism. It's a flaw in the token model not to have a sink or value capture. I'm happy to discuss this point on Discord, but I have been making that point for weeks now, I'm surprised we're still going back and forth on this point.
I strongly disagree. First, it's up to the token holder to decide what is more valuable to them. Second, there's a lot of token holders that don't vote. And that's true in any governance. You're not going to get 80% of any community to meaningfully participate in governance, that's not realistic.
I think it's a false problem. I do agree that enabling LP to vote is useful. But it can be implemented later. The $UNI is a governance token, but it is first and foremost a token, ie a value capture mechanism. It's a flaw in the token model not to have a sink or value capture. I'm happy to discuss this point on Discord, but I have been making that point for weeks now, I'm surprised we're still going back and forth on this point.
There is a flaw in the token model. Incentivizing the UNI/ETH pool is a way to fix it.
It definitely make sense to add $Uni/$Eth pool as it will push people to hodl $Uni for long term.
I personally think a reduction of UNI incentive distribution should be done for any pair that is not UNI/XXX. And slightly higher distribution rewarding for the actual believers who support UNI hence UNI/XXX pairs.
There are more benefits to stealing UNI from centralized exchanges. Leaving them on CEXs gives those CEXs a lot of voting power
If add UNI/ETH pool to create new UNI, will it effect the price ETH?
Obviously this proposal has a lot of traction, yet nothing is clear about how those things will be voted and when implemented? The current rewards end in 7 days. Nothing is clear what is next?
Surely with all the interest in this pool and the fee locking timer some whale could start the vote in this one?
It does retain its voting ability. The proposal will only incentivize farmers who currently dump their tokens to hodl their tokens. Will it also incentivize voters to add their $UNI to the pool, yes, but that's their choice, it's their token to what they deem most valuable for them.
I think it's better from a coding POV anyway to separate the incentivization of the pool from the implementation of a snapshot of staking derivative. It's cleaner and iterative (hence safer) approach.
Ok tôi nghĩ đó là 1 ý tg hay
We need to incentivize people to not keep tokens on exchanges. Exchanges are threat and competitor to Uniswap. Binance already offers 0.44% interest on UNI per year without any lock! In my opinion we have to give any UNI holder bigger interest every month than exchanges. For example 1% monthly would be 2 million tokens on 200 million circulating supply. We have 14mil tokens in treasury every month. @Alex17 @Mr_Po @iwearahoodie @PhABC @Micah
A locking mechanism for voting would resolve this as well longer term option of course
Very important to take in consideration, thank you.
Hi all,
Brock from YAM here. I just want everyone to be aware of the issues that come along with incentivizing locking up a governance token without taking necessary steps beforehand. We experienced this at YAM and I would like to pass my learnings onto this community.
Hi all,
Brock from YAM here. I just want everyone to be aware of the issues that come along with incentivizing locking up a governance token without taking necessary steps beforehand. We experienced this at YAM and I would like to pass my learnings onto this community.
There has already been an issue with getting enough delegation power to pass proposals. If this is implemented, it will almost certainly lock governance if the system stays as it is and a UNI/ETH pool is added. This is because of how the Compound-esc governance system works. Any UNI in the incentivizer will have 0 voting power. There would need to be additional work done to add voting power to the incentivizer staking contract as well as the Governor contract to prevent total lockup of the voting system.
Again to really nail the idea home: "just adding a UNI/ETH pool isn't hard" is wrong and actually requires major changes to incentivizer contract and the governor. I'm not sure who would implement this as I doubt it is a priority for the team
I totally agree with this!!
God a lot of posts here.
I have some issues with governance tokens in Liquidity pools. Pros:
God a lot of posts here.
I have some issues with governance tokens in Liquidity pools. Pros:
Cons
I have a 3rd suggestion btw. How about rewarding people who provide liquidity in the common pools that also not just hold UNI in their wallets but have also participated in governance with it? This seems a more sensible way to additionally reward people who hold UNI. Give them a LP reward that includes a bonus based on the UNI in the LP providers wallet participating in governance decisions. Weight it as a UNI held at time of a vote (i.e. what they could vote) over all the times a vote happened to create a 0-1 weight of that UNI participating in governance and give them their governance participation weight * the UNI LP provider participation amount. This way you have to be a LP provider into a uniswap farming fund that gives UNI rewards AND be active in governance to receive any of the extra UNI returns based on your wallets governance participation.
Based on the above I want to abstain. IF we could have UNI UNI-pairs included in governance AND earn a UNI return I would be all for adding all UNI UNI-tokenpairs into governance with UNI rewards generally as well as a bonus for people who used the UNI in the UNI UNI-tokenpairs and any other UNI in governance as I describe in the suggestion above.
Maybe not by itself but with other exchanges, they are threat. Binance and Huobi have around 30mil UNI on main accounts.
Moving this year since Marco yelled at me :)
Hey Everyone, I wanted to share some thoughts on the two main proposals being discussed within this governance channel, and why I think we should be championing a UNI/ETH farming pool before any retroactive airdrop that @nadav_dharma and the rest of the Dharma team have been proposing. This proposal is in no way questioning the merits of the retroactive airdrop. As an analyst working in this space I have my own opinions on it, but it will ultimately come down to governance to decide what to do. That is what is nice about governance tokens, my opinion doesn’t matter.
Moving this year since Marco yelled at me :)
Hey Everyone, I wanted to share some thoughts on the two main proposals being discussed within this governance channel, and why I think we should be championing a UNI/ETH farming pool before any retroactive airdrop that @nadav_dharma and the rest of the Dharma team have been proposing. This proposal is in no way questioning the merits of the retroactive airdrop. As an analyst working in this space I have my own opinions on it, but it will ultimately come down to governance to decide what to do. That is what is nice about governance tokens, my opinion doesn’t matter.
To discuss why I think a UNI/ETH rewards pool should come before any retroactive airdrop, I want to take a high level look at what has worked over the past few months in during the yield craze. To me the what has surprised me the most has not been the amount of capital going into farming (You can see growth in TVL here: https://defipulse.com/) but the speed at which this capital has been rotating to different assets. There is no other asset class where billions of dollars can rotate investments in a few clicks at 3am on a Sunday night :slight_smile: But to me this makes it clear that these new assets have no investible moat. That has lead me to ask what does have a moat, and what else is benefiting from this trend when looking at how to invest. To me this is pretty clear, it is the underlying assets that are used to earn yield in almost all new farming projects. This is your YFI’s, SNX’s, LEND’s, and LINK’s. These have all been assets used to farm in multiple farming projects from YAM to Kimchi, and all saw increases in price because of it. I see this because of two reasons. The first being it locks up a significant percentage of the circulating supply causing a liquidity crisis on the buyside. With high yields, more people look to buy the underlying asset to capture that yield, causing a recursive feedback loop to the upside. The second and more important is that it gives an additional use case to a governance token. The token is making people money rather than just a say in governance I discussed this more in another thread about whether the fee switch should be a dividend or a token burn.(Message 47, [POLL] How Would We Structure a Fee Reward? ) Alittle different, but apply the same line of thinking here.
Turning towards a UNI/ETH pool. By having UNI as an underlying asset to earn more UNI we would accomplish both of the two things outlined above. We would lock up a significant chunk of UNI and holders of UNI would make money/earn yield rather than just a say in governance, and ultimately help end the sell pressure that UNI has been seeing. It would also begin pulling UNI off of centralized exchanges, which I think is everyone’s goal.
This should be done before any vote on either retroactive airdrop proposal because it will provide a way for the new UNI holders to make more money instead of just seeing 400 UNI offers across all exchanges. I believe a UNI/ETH rewards pool will have a significant impact on slowing down any dilution in the form of retroactive airdrops as well as begin building a price floor for UNI overall, and would love to see this proposal up for a vote and active before any retroactive airdrop proposals. I am happy to answer any questions or concerns to what I have outlined above. Long UNI.
How do we get this over the line? Uni holders are bearing all of the protocol inflation to subsidize transient bot farmers that market sell all of their UNI.
The fact that this would help UNI escape from centralized exchanges totally sold me on this <3
Hope to start soon！ :joy:
Number of reasons to do this...
#1 we don't want UNI being held on centralized exchanges because it allows CZ to vote for us which is obviously not good. UNI liquidity should stay on Uniswap
Number of reasons to do this...
#1 we don't want UNI being held on centralized exchanges because it allows CZ to vote for us which is obviously not good. UNI liquidity should stay on Uniswap
#2 Current UNI inflation penalizes UNI holders at the expense of providers of liquidity in the other pairs. Why are we punishing holders of the governance token? They should at least get same rewards, if not more than the other pools. If we don't do this bots will continue to farm and dump using market orders, making the UNI market more chaotic than it needs to be.
#3 Instead of farmer bots instantly dumping all of their UNI (sometimes not even on our exchange!), they might direct a portion of it back into the UNI/ETH pool.
agree, let's vote for the UNI/ETH pool first!
Yes! Let's make this happen!
Ok tôi nghĩ đó là 1 ý tg hay
We need to incentivize people to not keep tokens on exchanges. Exchanges are threat and competitor to Uniswap. Binance already offers 0.44% interest on UNI per year without any lock! In my opinion we have to give any UNI holder bigger interest every month than exchanges. For example 1% monthly would be 2 million tokens on 200 million circulating supply. We have 14mil tokens in treasury every month. @Alex17 @Mr_Po @iwearahoodie @PhABC @Micah
A locking mechanism for voting would resolve this as well longer term option of course
Very important to take in consideration, thank you.
Hi all,
Brock from YAM here. I just want everyone to be aware of the issues that come along with incentivizing locking up a governance token without taking necessary steps beforehand. We experienced this at YAM and I would like to pass my learnings onto this community.
Hi all,
Brock from YAM here. I just want everyone to be aware of the issues that come along with incentivizing locking up a governance token without taking necessary steps beforehand. We experienced this at YAM and I would like to pass my learnings onto this community.
There has already been an issue with getting enough delegation power to pass proposals. If this is implemented, it will almost certainly lock governance if the system stays as it is and a UNI/ETH pool is added. This is because of how the Compound-esc governance system works. Any UNI in the incentivizer will have 0 voting power. There would need to be additional work done to add voting power to the incentivizer staking contract as well as the Governor contract to prevent total lockup of the voting system.
Again to really nail the idea home: "just adding a UNI/ETH pool isn't hard" is wrong and actually requires major changes to incentivizer contract and the governor. I'm not sure who would implement this as I doubt it is a priority for the team
I totally agree with this!!
God a lot of posts here.
I have some issues with governance tokens in Liquidity pools. Pros:
God a lot of posts here.
I have some issues with governance tokens in Liquidity pools. Pros:
Cons
I have a 3rd suggestion btw. How about rewarding people who provide liquidity in the common pools that also not just hold UNI in their wallets but have also participated in governance with it? This seems a more sensible way to additionally reward people who hold UNI. Give them a LP reward that includes a bonus based on the UNI in the LP providers wallet participating in governance decisions. Weight it as a UNI held at time of a vote (i.e. what they could vote) over all the times a vote happened to create a 0-1 weight of that UNI participating in governance and give them their governance participation weight * the UNI LP provider participation amount. This way you have to be a LP provider into a uniswap farming fund that gives UNI rewards AND be active in governance to receive any of the extra UNI returns based on your wallets governance participation.
Based on the above I want to abstain. IF we could have UNI UNI-pairs included in governance AND earn a UNI return I would be all for adding all UNI UNI-tokenpairs into governance with UNI rewards generally as well as a bonus for people who used the UNI in the UNI UNI-tokenpairs and any other UNI in governance as I describe in the suggestion above.
Maybe not by itself but with other exchanges, they are threat. Binance and Huobi have around 30mil UNI on main accounts.
Moving this year since Marco yelled at me :)
Hey Everyone, I wanted to share some thoughts on the two main proposals being discussed within this governance channel, and why I think we should be championing a UNI/ETH farming pool before any retroactive airdrop that @nadav_dharma and the rest of the Dharma team have been proposing. This proposal is in no way questioning the merits of the retroactive airdrop. As an analyst working in this space I have my own opinions on it, but it will ultimately come down to governance to decide what to do. That is what is nice about governance tokens, my opinion doesn’t matter.
Moving this year since Marco yelled at me :)
Hey Everyone, I wanted to share some thoughts on the two main proposals being discussed within this governance channel, and why I think we should be championing a UNI/ETH farming pool before any retroactive airdrop that @nadav_dharma and the rest of the Dharma team have been proposing. This proposal is in no way questioning the merits of the retroactive airdrop. As an analyst working in this space I have my own opinions on it, but it will ultimately come down to governance to decide what to do. That is what is nice about governance tokens, my opinion doesn’t matter.
To discuss why I think a UNI/ETH rewards pool should come before any retroactive airdrop, I want to take a high level look at what has worked over the past few months in during the yield craze. To me the what has surprised me the most has not been the amount of capital going into farming (You can see growth in TVL here: https://defipulse.com/) but the speed at which this capital has been rotating to different assets. There is no other asset class where billions of dollars can rotate investments in a few clicks at 3am on a Sunday night :slight_smile: But to me this makes it clear that these new assets have no investible moat. That has lead me to ask what does have a moat, and what else is benefiting from this trend when looking at how to invest. To me this is pretty clear, it is the underlying assets that are used to earn yield in almost all new farming projects. This is your YFI’s, SNX’s, LEND’s, and LINK’s. These have all been assets used to farm in multiple farming projects from YAM to Kimchi, and all saw increases in price because of it. I see this because of two reasons. The first being it locks up a significant percentage of the circulating supply causing a liquidity crisis on the buyside. With high yields, more people look to buy the underlying asset to capture that yield, causing a recursive feedback loop to the upside. The second and more important is that it gives an additional use case to a governance token. The token is making people money rather than just a say in governance I discussed this more in another thread about whether the fee switch should be a dividend or a token burn.(Message 47, [POLL] How Would We Structure a Fee Reward? ) Alittle different, but apply the same line of thinking here.
Turning towards a UNI/ETH pool. By having UNI as an underlying asset to earn more UNI we would accomplish both of the two things outlined above. We would lock up a significant chunk of UNI and holders of UNI would make money/earn yield rather than just a say in governance, and ultimately help end the sell pressure that UNI has been seeing. It would also begin pulling UNI off of centralized exchanges, which I think is everyone’s goal.
This should be done before any vote on either retroactive airdrop proposal because it will provide a way for the new UNI holders to make more money instead of just seeing 400 UNI offers across all exchanges. I believe a UNI/ETH rewards pool will have a significant impact on slowing down any dilution in the form of retroactive airdrops as well as begin building a price floor for UNI overall, and would love to see this proposal up for a vote and active before any retroactive airdrop proposals. I am happy to answer any questions or concerns to what I have outlined above. Long UNI.
How do we get this over the line? Uni holders are bearing all of the protocol inflation to subsidize transient bot farmers that market sell all of their UNI.
The fact that this would help UNI escape from centralized exchanges totally sold me on this <3
Hope to start soon！ :joy:
Number of reasons to do this...
#1 we don't want UNI being held on centralized exchanges because it allows CZ to vote for us which is obviously not good. UNI liquidity should stay on Uniswap
Number of reasons to do this...
#1 we don't want UNI being held on centralized exchanges because it allows CZ to vote for us which is obviously not good. UNI liquidity should stay on Uniswap
#2 Current UNI inflation penalizes UNI holders at the expense of providers of liquidity in the other pairs. Why are we punishing holders of the governance token? They should at least get same rewards, if not more than the other pools. If we don't do this bots will continue to farm and dump using market orders, making the UNI market more chaotic than it needs to be.
#3 Instead of farmer bots instantly dumping all of their UNI (sometimes not even on our exchange!), they might direct a portion of it back into the UNI/ETH pool.
agree, let's vote for the UNI/ETH pool first!
Yes! Let's make this happen!
Maybe not by itself but with other exchanges, they are threat. Binance and Huobi have around 30mil UNI on main accounts.
This is 0.477% monthly and we can easily give 1% monthly to everyone account except exchanges. (that would cost only around 13% of monthly treasury at the moment)
Please do it, I would be in heaven!
@iwearahoodie agree! 🔥
It has. The more expensive uni is, the more difficult it is to buy them for accumulation in the same hands.
The pool seems to currently earn around 65% APY. $50MM liquidity, Currently takes over $220k worth of UNI tokens (45000) to cause 1% slippage. I think it's doing fine without the incentives so far.
I agree! add ETH incentive to entice the community!
Maybe not by itself but with other exchanges, they are threat. Binance and Huobi have around 30mil UNI on main accounts.
This is 0.477% monthly and we can easily give 1% monthly to everyone account except exchanges. (that would cost only around 13% of monthly treasury at the moment)
Please do it, I would be in heaven!
@iwearahoodie agree! 🔥
It has. The more expensive uni is, the more difficult it is to buy them for accumulation in the same hands.
The pool seems to currently earn around 65% APY. $50MM liquidity, Currently takes over $220k worth of UNI tokens (45000) to cause 1% slippage. I think it's doing fine without the incentives so far.
I agree! add ETH incentive to entice the community!
:heart_eyes: :heart_eyes: :heart_eyes: :heart_eyes: :heart_eyes: :heart_eyes: :heart_eyes:
I see your point but I think that UNI is mostly held and traded on the centralised exchanges at the moment and this is a much bigger risk to uniswap governance than some short term price manipulation. A larger UNI/ETH pool and UNI rewards from it will help rebalance the control of the exchange back towards the users rather than uniswaps competitors.
It seems to me that this is essential to the healthy functioning of the uniswap exchange. At the moment the majority of the circulating supply of UNI is held on centralised exchanges which means that uniswap can be controlled by its centralised competitors as far as i understand the situation. Having an extra incentive for the UNI/ETH pair should rebalance this and allow the users of uniswap to steer the decisions of the exchange towards sucsessful outcomes, rather than self destructive outcomes which is the likely desire of the big centralised exchanges.
Very good point ! Aiming at the biggest markets in order for more people to come. New Uniswap customers will then use other pools and bring money to the system. THIS will increase the value of $UNI. Not throwing $UNI to ourselves, I agree.
@JokerTheBond noticed that the Curve AMM is much more efficient than Uniswap AMM for stablecoins exchange, which is true. So maybe we should concentrate on the other biggest markets : bridged BTC and biggest volume ERC20s. Today this would mean renBTC, and/or LINK, pooled with ETH and/or stablecoins.
Very good point ! Aiming at the biggest markets in order for more people to come. New Uniswap customers will then use other pools and bring money to the system. THIS will increase the value of $UNI. Not throwing $UNI to ourselves, I agree.
@JokerTheBond noticed that the Curve AMM is much more efficient than Uniswap AMM for stablecoins exchange, which is true. So maybe we should concentrate on the other biggest markets : bridged BTC and biggest volume ERC20s. Today this would mean renBTC, and/or LINK, pooled with ETH and/or stablecoins.
Also btw, do we really need to incentivise other pools than the four we already incentivise ?
Notice than after BTC, ETH and LINK, the 4th biggest market on binance is $UNI/$USDT today 😎 So maybe we will come to incentivse $UNI pool some day. But I agree it is no the priority today.
Pro for timelock:
Is there a way to make rewards specific to local UNI pools on UniSwap to keep incentive local ?
:heart_eyes: :heart_eyes: :heart_eyes: :heart_eyes: :heart_eyes: :heart_eyes: :heart_eyes:
I see your point but I think that UNI is mostly held and traded on the centralised exchanges at the moment and this is a much bigger risk to uniswap governance than some short term price manipulation. A larger UNI/ETH pool and UNI rewards from it will help rebalance the control of the exchange back towards the users rather than uniswaps competitors.
It seems to me that this is essential to the healthy functioning of the uniswap exchange. At the moment the majority of the circulating supply of UNI is held on centralised exchanges which means that uniswap can be controlled by its centralised competitors as far as i understand the situation. Having an extra incentive for the UNI/ETH pair should rebalance this and allow the users of uniswap to steer the decisions of the exchange towards sucsessful outcomes, rather than self destructive outcomes which is the likely desire of the big centralised exchanges.
Very good point ! Aiming at the biggest markets in order for more people to come. New Uniswap customers will then use other pools and bring money to the system. THIS will increase the value of $UNI. Not throwing $UNI to ourselves, I agree.
@JokerTheBond noticed that the Curve AMM is much more efficient than Uniswap AMM for stablecoins exchange, which is true. So maybe we should concentrate on the other biggest markets : bridged BTC and biggest volume ERC20s. Today this would mean renBTC, and/or LINK, pooled with ETH and/or stablecoins.
Very good point ! Aiming at the biggest markets in order for more people to come. New Uniswap customers will then use other pools and bring money to the system. THIS will increase the value of $UNI. Not throwing $UNI to ourselves, I agree.
@JokerTheBond noticed that the Curve AMM is much more efficient than Uniswap AMM for stablecoins exchange, which is true. So maybe we should concentrate on the other biggest markets : bridged BTC and biggest volume ERC20s. Today this would mean renBTC, and/or LINK, pooled with ETH and/or stablecoins.
Also btw, do we really need to incentivise other pools than the four we already incentivise ?
Notice than after BTC, ETH and LINK, the 4th biggest market on binance is $UNI/$USDT today 😎 So maybe we will come to incentivse $UNI pool some day. But I agree it is no the priority today.
Pro for timelock:
Is there a way to make rewards specific to local UNI pools on UniSwap to keep incentive local ?
Pro for timelock:
Cons for timelock:
Think about Sushi then you would understand the importance of token incentivize.
Agree 100% UNI/ETH should be the first new Pool to include in UNI farming.
It's a no-brainer, it will provide a big incentive for people not to dump (price stability) and will reward the Unicorn Marines for being loyal.
Yes this makes perfect sense. This would compliment both protocols and LP's :)
Si puede adquirir liquidez y entrar en pares para minería desde el 18 de septiembre a las 12:00 horas @darwell
But what about adding a time-lock to the uni-eth pool. In order to prevent a pump-n-dump and instead of adding liquidity, I think it should be taken out of the other liquidity pools equally and given to UNI-ETH.
I don't like the idea of a time lock as it may scare away new investors, those new to DEX's or even ETH as a whole. All while making the price less stable because you don't know when some Whale is going to dump after their time lock is up.
#1: would a {sUSD / renBTC} pair make better sense @PhABC?
the advantage of Balancer and Curve.fi Liquidity is that they can contain a basket of coins like 4 or 8 while Uniswap only accommodates a pair, so our choices are limited
#1: would a {sUSD / renBTC} pair make better sense @PhABC?
the advantage of Balancer and Curve.fi Liquidity is that they can contain a basket of coins like 4 or 8 while Uniswap only accommodates a pair, so our choices are limited
another pair in mind is #2: {FTX / SRM} pair if you are thinking of competitors? :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye: i would confess that at first thought, $UNI pool is a no-brainer, but reading your lengthy argument made me think again... :thinking:
How do we get swaps to/from $UNI with low slippage if there is no deep liquidity in the UNI/ETH pool ?
Arguably, people could use CEXs instead. Although the value proposition of Uniswap is to not encourage that.
Probably would happen when Uniswap V3 launces.
I think UNI/Dai pool would also be great to incentivize
great pair, i wait it
Sure, should have been from the start imo
2 alternatives to UNI / ETH pool for $UNI rewards
Uniswap team could add vesting for ETH-UNI pool rewards or even make rewards 10 times less than ETH-Stablecoins pools. I'm going to provide liq to eth-uni pool either way. But some rewards won't hurt, even some minimal amount.
Liquidity providers of UNI/ETH are essential and should be rewarded.
Pro for timelock:
Cons for timelock:
Think about Sushi then you would understand the importance of token incentivize.
Agree 100% UNI/ETH should be the first new Pool to include in UNI farming.
It's a no-brainer, it will provide a big incentive for people not to dump (price stability) and will reward the Unicorn Marines for being loyal.
Yes this makes perfect sense. This would compliment both protocols and LP's :)
Si puede adquirir liquidez y entrar en pares para minería desde el 18 de septiembre a las 12:00 horas @darwell
But what about adding a time-lock to the uni-eth pool. In order to prevent a pump-n-dump and instead of adding liquidity, I think it should be taken out of the other liquidity pools equally and given to UNI-ETH.
I don't like the idea of a time lock as it may scare away new investors, those new to DEX's or even ETH as a whole. All while making the price less stable because you don't know when some Whale is going to dump after their time lock is up.
#1: would a {sUSD / renBTC} pair make better sense @PhABC?
the advantage of Balancer and Curve.fi Liquidity is that they can contain a basket of coins like 4 or 8 while Uniswap only accommodates a pair, so our choices are limited
#1: would a {sUSD / renBTC} pair make better sense @PhABC?
the advantage of Balancer and Curve.fi Liquidity is that they can contain a basket of coins like 4 or 8 while Uniswap only accommodates a pair, so our choices are limited
another pair in mind is #2: {FTX / SRM} pair if you are thinking of competitors? :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye: i would confess that at first thought, $UNI pool is a no-brainer, but reading your lengthy argument made me think again... :thinking:
How do we get swaps to/from $UNI with low slippage if there is no deep liquidity in the UNI/ETH pool ?
Arguably, people could use CEXs instead. Although the value proposition of Uniswap is to not encourage that.
Probably would happen when Uniswap V3 launces.
I think UNI/Dai pool would also be great to incentivize
great pair, i wait it
Sure, should have been from the start imo
2 alternatives to UNI / ETH pool for $UNI rewards
Uniswap team could add vesting for ETH-UNI pool rewards or even make rewards 10 times less than ETH-Stablecoins pools. I'm going to provide liq to eth-uni pool either way. But some rewards won't hurt, even some minimal amount.
Liquidity providers of UNI/ETH are essential and should be rewarded.
Bạn cho tôi hỏi, hôm qua tôi làm BOT và kiếm được 290 UNI, nhưng vì sao tôi rút về ví trust không được? Bạn có thế giúp tôi rút UNI ko?
+1 too, must add these UNI/ETH to lock and stabilize market.
+1 to @PhABC's comments above.
imo using the UNI rewards to bring more outside liquidity to Uniswap makes more sense then using these rewards for ETH/UNI liquidity. Realistically UNI currently has a $500m+ market cap with ~$50m in uniswap liquidity, as well as centralised exchanges, etc - Don't see the reason to distribute more UNI tokens to ETH:UNI LP's.
+1 to @PhABC's comments above.
imo using the UNI rewards to bring more outside liquidity to Uniswap makes more sense then using these rewards for ETH/UNI liquidity. Realistically UNI currently has a $500m+ market cap with ~$50m in uniswap liquidity, as well as centralised exchanges, etc - Don't see the reason to distribute more UNI tokens to ETH:UNI LP's.
I wouldn't want to deposit my LP tokens into the pool anyway - holding, participating in governance & eventually collecting protocol fees with my UNI tokens is significantly more interesting than getting IL rekt from being an LP.
I agree! Long term is the only way to go. Bring on UNI-ETH!
A consideration here is that by incentivising liquidity, we would be creating greater price stability around the price of $UNI relative to ETH and less volatility. This would potentially means soften crashes against ETH as well as blunted upwards price movements (to a certain degree depending on liquidity provided). Sometimes for fairly more illiquid pairs, this is desired but there is a level of diminishing returns as a token project (less moon potential too essentially).
Support this!!! It’s the perfect dream i never knew existed until now.
I don't think it's wise to allocate a similar pool of UNI/ETH rewards, but if the reward was 10 times less, then ok.
I saw the Pair and put a bunch of eth and UNI to facilitate people trading and getting a price discovery and don't be misled my the DEX....
I think this a great Idea, I have lots of liquidity Id love to put work and look foward to a deployment of this nature.
It should add ETH/UNI by default!
There is a 2% perpetual inflation in UNI, so we will never run out.
We shouldn't add UNI/ETH pair as part of liquidity mining pool. Before explaining my position, I would like to disclose that I do in fact own a significant amount of UNI tokens.
TL;DR: UNI/ETH pool is a short term increase in UNI demand to pump the price and has little long term benefit for Uniswap and UNI holders. Instead, we should use the Liquidity Mining rewards to steal markets from competitors like Curve and centralized exchanges.
We shouldn't add UNI/ETH pair as part of liquidity mining pool. Before explaining my position, I would like to disclose that I do in fact own a significant amount of UNI tokens.
TL;DR: UNI/ETH pool is a short term increase in UNI demand to pump the price and has little long term benefit for Uniswap and UNI holders. Instead, we should use the Liquidity Mining rewards to steal markets from competitors like Curve and centralized exchanges.
Full reply: First of all, it is clear that the main rational behind adding UNI/ETH as a reward pool is to increase the demand for UNI and hence increase its price. This is defi farming 101 and the reason why the Pool 2 is usually given a 5-10x reward boost. However, the goal of UNI distribution program should be two folds:
1 was fairly well achieved by the ad-hoc distribution and by the fact that liquidity mining will only be small % of UNI distributed. To achieve 1, it's important that liquidity mining is only a small portion of how UNI tokens are distributed. Lets not lie to ourselves; liquidity miners, myself included, just want to farm for the sake of being able to buy our favorite assets. We are liquidity locusts swarming from one farm to the other until nothing remains. That being said, liquidity mining is a powerful tool and we can wield it for the long term good of Uniswap. If we are to use financial incentives for the good of Uniswap, then lets not use it to create a demand pressure that will quickly dissipate once the rewards halt, achieving nothing but only short term price jubilation.
In my opinion, a better use of liquidity mining could be use to steal markets from competitors. For instance, we could pick currencies that are most traded on Binance or Coinbase to try to bring back these tokens trader back to Uniswap. Alternatively, we could encourage stablecoin/stablecoin pairs to make Uniswap competitive with Curve and Swerve.
Lets think long term.
I agree, was surprised there was no UNI pool in the first place.
100% in favor of it.
@iwearahoodie :white_check_mark: Totally agree with your statements on the power of incentivized pools and Single-Asset LP input options. Perhaps, the weight of a Single-Asset addition of $UNI outweighs the binary additions to pools.
In response to @ETHisFunny:
@iwearahoodie :white_check_mark: Totally agree with your statements on the power of incentivized pools and Single-Asset LP input options. Perhaps, the weight of a Single-Asset addition of $UNI outweighs the binary additions to pools.
In response to @ETHisFunny:
Token buy-back would be profound by batching automated liquidity sweeps via a $UNI wallet designed to HODL/capture % of circulating supply from (x) amount of transactions at (x) rate of time intervals.
These liquidity sweeps can also delegate a % of the sweep to supply payouts to $UNI holders as an incentive; therefore pulling supply off the market as transactions take place and redistributing to HODLing patrons; thus increasing incentive. Perhaps, xDai or 1inch CHI can help with gas fees; in terms of frequent transactions.
Thoughts...
Bạn cho tôi hỏi, hôm qua tôi làm BOT và kiếm được 290 UNI, nhưng vì sao tôi rút về ví trust không được? Bạn có thế giúp tôi rút UNI ko?
+1 too, must add these UNI/ETH to lock and stabilize market.
+1 to @PhABC's comments above.
imo using the UNI rewards to bring more outside liquidity to Uniswap makes more sense then using these rewards for ETH/UNI liquidity. Realistically UNI currently has a $500m+ market cap with ~$50m in uniswap liquidity, as well as centralised exchanges, etc - Don't see the reason to distribute more UNI tokens to ETH:UNI LP's.
+1 to @PhABC's comments above.
imo using the UNI rewards to bring more outside liquidity to Uniswap makes more sense then using these rewards for ETH/UNI liquidity. Realistically UNI currently has a $500m+ market cap with ~$50m in uniswap liquidity, as well as centralised exchanges, etc - Don't see the reason to distribute more UNI tokens to ETH:UNI LP's.
I wouldn't want to deposit my LP tokens into the pool anyway - holding, participating in governance & eventually collecting protocol fees with my UNI tokens is significantly more interesting than getting IL rekt from being an LP.
I agree! Long term is the only way to go. Bring on UNI-ETH!
A consideration here is that by incentivising liquidity, we would be creating greater price stability around the price of $UNI relative to ETH and less volatility. This would potentially means soften crashes against ETH as well as blunted upwards price movements (to a certain degree depending on liquidity provided). Sometimes for fairly more illiquid pairs, this is desired but there is a level of diminishing returns as a token project (less moon potential too essentially).
Support this!!! It’s the perfect dream i never knew existed until now.
I don't think it's wise to allocate a similar pool of UNI/ETH rewards, but if the reward was 10 times less, then ok.
I saw the Pair and put a bunch of eth and UNI to facilitate people trading and getting a price discovery and don't be misled my the DEX....
I think this a great Idea, I have lots of liquidity Id love to put work and look foward to a deployment of this nature.
It should add ETH/UNI by default!
There is a 2% perpetual inflation in UNI, so we will never run out.
We shouldn't add UNI/ETH pair as part of liquidity mining pool. Before explaining my position, I would like to disclose that I do in fact own a significant amount of UNI tokens.
TL;DR: UNI/ETH pool is a short term increase in UNI demand to pump the price and has little long term benefit for Uniswap and UNI holders. Instead, we should use the Liquidity Mining rewards to steal markets from competitors like Curve and centralized exchanges.
We shouldn't add UNI/ETH pair as part of liquidity mining pool. Before explaining my position, I would like to disclose that I do in fact own a significant amount of UNI tokens.
TL;DR: UNI/ETH pool is a short term increase in UNI demand to pump the price and has little long term benefit for Uniswap and UNI holders. Instead, we should use the Liquidity Mining rewards to steal markets from competitors like Curve and centralized exchanges.
Full reply: First of all, it is clear that the main rational behind adding UNI/ETH as a reward pool is to increase the demand for UNI and hence increase its price. This is defi farming 101 and the reason why the Pool 2 is usually given a 5-10x reward boost. However, the goal of UNI distribution program should be two folds:
1 was fairly well achieved by the ad-hoc distribution and by the fact that liquidity mining will only be small % of UNI distributed. To achieve 1, it's important that liquidity mining is only a small portion of how UNI tokens are distributed. Lets not lie to ourselves; liquidity miners, myself included, just want to farm for the sake of being able to buy our favorite assets. We are liquidity locusts swarming from one farm to the other until nothing remains. That being said, liquidity mining is a powerful tool and we can wield it for the long term good of Uniswap. If we are to use financial incentives for the good of Uniswap, then lets not use it to create a demand pressure that will quickly dissipate once the rewards halt, achieving nothing but only short term price jubilation.
In my opinion, a better use of liquidity mining could be use to steal markets from competitors. For instance, we could pick currencies that are most traded on Binance or Coinbase to try to bring back these tokens trader back to Uniswap. Alternatively, we could encourage stablecoin/stablecoin pairs to make Uniswap competitive with Curve and Swerve.
Lets think long term.
I agree, was surprised there was no UNI pool in the first place.
100% in favor of it.
@iwearahoodie :white_check_mark: Totally agree with your statements on the power of incentivized pools and Single-Asset LP input options. Perhaps, the weight of a Single-Asset addition of $UNI outweighs the binary additions to pools.
In response to @ETHisFunny:
@iwearahoodie :white_check_mark: Totally agree with your statements on the power of incentivized pools and Single-Asset LP input options. Perhaps, the weight of a Single-Asset addition of $UNI outweighs the binary additions to pools.
In response to @ETHisFunny:
Token buy-back would be profound by batching automated liquidity sweeps via a $UNI wallet designed to HODL/capture % of circulating supply from (x) amount of transactions at (x) rate of time intervals.
These liquidity sweeps can also delegate a % of the sweep to supply payouts to $UNI holders as an incentive; therefore pulling supply off the market as transactions take place and redistributing to HODLing patrons; thus increasing incentive. Perhaps, xDai or 1inch CHI can help with gas fees; in terms of frequent transactions.
Thoughts...
That a really good idea
It’s not a bad thing that uninterested people dump early. Especially if they need the money.
Absolutely right , it should be done afterwards in a manner such that neither it creates fomo and neither it creates a very high sell pressure.
Excited to hear taking care of the community
Much better that we stable the price of uni before adding a pool with eth
That a really good idea
It’s not a bad thing that uninterested people dump early. Especially if they need the money.
Absolutely right , it should be done afterwards in a manner such that neither it creates fomo and neither it creates a very high sell pressure.
Excited to hear taking care of the community
Much better that we stable the price of uni before adding a pool with eth
Yeah thats a good point.
Staking could be setup to accept UNI LP tokens too
I agree totally with the ideas.
cannot agree more
they bear more risk so they deserve them
can already add liquidity?
Based on some quick research, I think deploying this code is pretty feasible. The largest hurdle now would be getting the governance proposal passed
I think this is especially important because it will encourage liquidity of the UNI token to stay on Uniswap, rather than centralized exchanges.
Having UNI pool in centralized exchanges gives the competition governance rights which seems like a poor strategy for us. We should try to discourage that as much as possible by incentivising the UNI/ETH pool.
Yes. I was wondering why this pool wasn't there by default haha.
It doesn't matter if people dump the token. People interested in Uniswap governance are already buying tokens, you don't need to give them more free ones
The pools already listed are the ones with highest volume in every major CEX, increasing liquidity to them makes UNI the best option in the market (we're almost there already). UNI/ETH pool incentives only make sense if UNI is a major trading pair on CEXs to attract users from there.
Yeah thats a good point.
Staking could be setup to accept UNI LP tokens too
I agree totally with the ideas.
cannot agree more
they bear more risk so they deserve them
can already add liquidity?
Based on some quick research, I think deploying this code is pretty feasible. The largest hurdle now would be getting the governance proposal passed
I think this is especially important because it will encourage liquidity of the UNI token to stay on Uniswap, rather than centralized exchanges.
Having UNI pool in centralized exchanges gives the competition governance rights which seems like a poor strategy for us. We should try to discourage that as much as possible by incentivising the UNI/ETH pool.
Yes. I was wondering why this pool wasn't there by default haha.
It doesn't matter if people dump the token. People interested in Uniswap governance are already buying tokens, you don't need to give them more free ones
The pools already listed are the ones with highest volume in every major CEX, increasing liquidity to them makes UNI the best option in the market (we're almost there already). UNI/ETH pool incentives only make sense if UNI is a major trading pair on CEXs to attract users from there.
when they launched the announcement the token had only just gone live. If they had created the pool first maybe it would have caused the price to spike
This was probably the reason, it makes sense to add it now and promote UNI/ETH liquidity to reduce slippage.
Totally agree. Huge volume on eth/uni pair.
Indeed. This is a great way to tie UNI to ETH and continue to supercharge the value base.
I totally agree and this would make Uni token more easy to trade on most platforms.
Seems natural, yes. Will follow to see if anyone can think of why not
Yeah. Sure it does make sense
Yeah I was surprised it wasn't an option. Is there anyone smarter than me that might know why they didnt? Seem like a Good incentive to stop dumping for short term gains.
Makes sense to me. Also provides incentive for people to hold the token rather than dump it.
To add to this I though maybe have additional stable coin-uni pools as well to retain those stable coin amounts
when they launched the announcement the token had only just gone live. If they had created the pool first maybe it would have caused the price to spike
This was probably the reason, it makes sense to add it now and promote UNI/ETH liquidity to reduce slippage.
Totally agree. Huge volume on eth/uni pair.
Indeed. This is a great way to tie UNI to ETH and continue to supercharge the value base.
I totally agree and this would make Uni token more easy to trade on most platforms.
Seems natural, yes. Will follow to see if anyone can think of why not
Yeah. Sure it does make sense
Yeah I was surprised it wasn't an option. Is there anyone smarter than me that might know why they didnt? Seem like a Good incentive to stop dumping for short term gains.
Makes sense to me. Also provides incentive for people to hold the token rather than dump it.
To add to this I though maybe have additional stable coin-uni pools as well to retain those stable coin amounts
That's a great idea. It gives people more of an incentive to hold it than to simply market sell it.
This brings exceptional value to UNI tokens. Single-asset liquidity additions to most profitable pools.
The dangers of not doing this are significant IMO. If UNI trading markets move to primarily be on centralized exchanges, it allows for Uniswap's primary competitors to use their dominance of those markets capture its governance. They don't even have to try to decide whether to be a LP or a voter, they can effectively do both as a centralized custodian.
The economic implications of this proposal are debatable, but IMO this is about an existential threat to the protocol and keeping price discovery out of CeFi should be a primary objective.
Shake out weak hands :man_shrugging:
I think there are a lot of risks if we couln't add incentives to this pool
there will be more than 170 m UNI available in the treasury in the first year (14m each month)
I think there are a lot of risks if we couln't add incentives to this pool
there will be more than 170 m UNI available in the treasury in the first year (14m each month)
if too much UNI accumulated is the treasury with relatively low UNI in the circulation this will increase the incentives for a coalition between few large holders to reach the Quorum and steal 10s of millions of UNI and they will face little resistance because of the low UNI supply in circulation
so spending part of the treasury on this pool will lower the incentives to do this attack and also will increase the resistance by the holders since there will be a higher circulating supply
This is generally bad for governance as it lowers the cost of a governance attack.
Already, there are notable incentives for pooling UNI:ETH because you get the normal liquidity provider fees. Adding more incentive beyond that makes the incentive misalignment problem even worse.
This is generally bad for governance as it lowers the cost of a governance attack.
Already, there are notable incentives for pooling UNI:ETH because you get the normal liquidity provider fees. Adding more incentive beyond that makes the incentive misalignment problem even worse.
The core of the problem is that the way voting and delegation is currently implement means that you have to choose to either participate in governance or participate in liquidity pooling. You cannot, currently, both participate in liquidity pooling and participate in governance.
If we first address the problem of being unable to vote while also pooling, then this proposal becomes slightly more reasonable. However, as it stands I think anything that incentivizes doing something with UNI other than holding it in a wallet is a bad idea.
where and when we can vote on this?
UNI is the 4th highest volume market on both Coinbase and Binance
This is a big reason why it would be good to add it to the list of pools eligible for rewards. Better to avoid the centralized exchanges holding UNI.
That's a great idea. It gives people more of an incentive to hold it than to simply market sell it.
This brings exceptional value to UNI tokens. Single-asset liquidity additions to most profitable pools.
The dangers of not doing this are significant IMO. If UNI trading markets move to primarily be on centralized exchanges, it allows for Uniswap's primary competitors to use their dominance of those markets capture its governance. They don't even have to try to decide whether to be a LP or a voter, they can effectively do both as a centralized custodian.
The economic implications of this proposal are debatable, but IMO this is about an existential threat to the protocol and keeping price discovery out of CeFi should be a primary objective.
Shake out weak hands :man_shrugging:
I think there are a lot of risks if we couln't add incentives to this pool
there will be more than 170 m UNI available in the treasury in the first year (14m each month)
I think there are a lot of risks if we couln't add incentives to this pool
there will be more than 170 m UNI available in the treasury in the first year (14m each month)
if too much UNI accumulated is the treasury with relatively low UNI in the circulation this will increase the incentives for a coalition between few large holders to reach the Quorum and steal 10s of millions of UNI and they will face little resistance because of the low UNI supply in circulation
so spending part of the treasury on this pool will lower the incentives to do this attack and also will increase the resistance by the holders since there will be a higher circulating supply
This is generally bad for governance as it lowers the cost of a governance attack.
Already, there are notable incentives for pooling UNI:ETH because you get the normal liquidity provider fees. Adding more incentive beyond that makes the incentive misalignment problem even worse.
This is generally bad for governance as it lowers the cost of a governance attack.
Already, there are notable incentives for pooling UNI:ETH because you get the normal liquidity provider fees. Adding more incentive beyond that makes the incentive misalignment problem even worse.
The core of the problem is that the way voting and delegation is currently implement means that you have to choose to either participate in governance or participate in liquidity pooling. You cannot, currently, both participate in liquidity pooling and participate in governance.
If we first address the problem of being unable to vote while also pooling, then this proposal becomes slightly more reasonable. However, as it stands I think anything that incentivizes doing something with UNI other than holding it in a wallet is a bad idea.
where and when we can vote on this?
UNI is the 4th highest volume market on both Coinbase and Binance
This is a big reason why it would be good to add it to the list of pools eligible for rewards. Better to avoid the centralized exchanges holding UNI.
But why do you want to incentive this pool? If UNI is successful and distributes a lot of fees, the trading volume and demand will naturally increase. The core value of UNI is volume, not artificial support.
Right now there is no need to incentive any other pools : all the DEX volume is on Uniswap, Sushiswap is dead...
Selling pressure is a problem only if the token is useless. If UNI token gives fees then the price will find an healthy equilibrium. Everything else is speculation : It reminds me of companies that buy back their own shares. This raises prices for a while only, but then it collapse because it creates no value.
On the Uniswap exchange maybe yes, the problem is that we are being traded on Binance, which is where prices are taken. That is why if most of the UNIs are staked in the uniswap pool, the price difference would cause the UNIs distributed in the liquidity campaign to be sold in the foreign market, and since the foreign market has low UNI liquidity, price volatility will be higher, therefore if a whale staking at UNI pool decided to sell all his UNI, price dump will occur
For instance, we could pick currencies that are most traded on Binance or Coinbase to try to bring back these tokens trader back to Uniswap.
For instance, we could pick currencies that are most traded on Binance or Coinbase to try to bring back these tokens trader back to Uniswap.
I agree. And UNI is the 4th highest volume market on both Coinbase and Binance, so it should definitely be in the short list of markets we want to incentivize. Currently this T1 list looks something like: LINK, UNI, YFI
If there is an higher liquidity on UNI-ETH it will be harder for the price to dump because it would require much more UNI to be sold.
I'm against timelocks, mainly for 2 reasons:
Time lock doesn't add any long-term value. This artificially reduces sales pressure, nothing else. And that favors whales who have currently a lot of UNI tokens., nobody else.
Add time lock and I will do what I did with Sushiswap : I will immediatly remove all my LP from Uniswap.
Time lock doesn't add any long-term value. This artificially reduces sales pressure, nothing else. And that favors whales who have currently a lot of UNI tokens., nobody else.
Add time lock and I will do what I did with Sushiswap : I will immediatly remove all my LP from Uniswap.
Don't be greedy and don't forget one thing : LP providers take a lot of risks, impermanent losses are real and this risk has to be reward.
I don't think trying to compete with curve would be a good idea for the moment. Uniswap and Curve are both DEXes, but they do different things. Uniswap is more of a general purpose exchange, Curve is only used to exchange assets that have the same value. Both are good in what they do. Curve rely on low fees (0,04%) compared to Uniswap (0,3%) and use a different algorithm to manage liquidity pool. Curve can't do most of the things Uniswap does, but for Uniswap to compete with Curve on stable/stable pairs it would take more than just UNI incentives.
Alternatively, we could encourage stablecoin/stablecoin pairs to make Uniswap competitive with Curve and Swerve.
I agree with this proposal, it would give a better user experience to those who want to switch from one stablecoin to another rather than use Curve. Curve is a great tools but very limited for "small" amounts.
I'd like to hear more pro's v cons on time locks.
Why do you care about CEXs when Uniswap is a DEX? Rewarding people who put liquidity into trading UNI makes perfect sense. It didn't make sense to put it up right away but definitely at some point it should be considered. CEX pairs are pretty meaningless when it comes to this
I oppose to this because this will lead to a dump situation, If uniswap team decide to open the UNI-ETH pool and give UNI rewards to those pools, what will happen is that most UNI holders will stake their coins at that pool and the few remaining in circulation will be the ones that will decide its price and if a ETH-UNI whale staking at that pool decides to sell his rewards even the smallest sell will collapse price and people staked at that pool will be subjected at a hughe loss since they have wrapped versions of a token (impermanent loss)
In fact this was the modus operandi of previous DeFi scam teams.
i agree but i fear impermanent loss on this pair maybe is get some rekt.
I very much respect this response. Especially your idea about stablecoin / stablecoin pairs, making us more competitive with curve et al.
I don't completely agree with you. Your comment does make a lot of sense, but I think adding UNI/ETH could help the whole liquidity mining program if done in a smart way. Of course, not all of the mined UNI reward should go to UNI/ETH, only a small percentage like 10%. We would still have 90% of the reward to allocate to strategic pairs. And if adding UNI/ETH cause the price of UNI to pump, now the 90% of the reward would be worth more than 100% of it with UNI at a lower price. Adding a mining reward to strategic pairs should still be the main focus of the liquidity mining program, but 9 UNI worth 7$ are a bigger incentive then 10 UNI worth 5$.
why? Are they just your bags?
I'm probably wrong about that, maybe I mixed it up with another project. Yearn's confusing as it is.
Good point! But still, something bothers me about this being self-contained.
But why do you want to incentive this pool? If UNI is successful and distributes a lot of fees, the trading volume and demand will naturally increase. The core value of UNI is volume, not artificial support.
Right now there is no need to incentive any other pools : all the DEX volume is on Uniswap, Sushiswap is dead...
Selling pressure is a problem only if the token is useless. If UNI token gives fees then the price will find an healthy equilibrium. Everything else is speculation : It reminds me of companies that buy back their own shares. This raises prices for a while only, but then it collapse because it creates no value.
On the Uniswap exchange maybe yes, the problem is that we are being traded on Binance, which is where prices are taken. That is why if most of the UNIs are staked in the uniswap pool, the price difference would cause the UNIs distributed in the liquidity campaign to be sold in the foreign market, and since the foreign market has low UNI liquidity, price volatility will be higher, therefore if a whale staking at UNI pool decided to sell all his UNI, price dump will occur
For instance, we could pick currencies that are most traded on Binance or Coinbase to try to bring back these tokens trader back to Uniswap.
For instance, we could pick currencies that are most traded on Binance or Coinbase to try to bring back these tokens trader back to Uniswap.
I agree. And UNI is the 4th highest volume market on both Coinbase and Binance, so it should definitely be in the short list of markets we want to incentivize. Currently this T1 list looks something like: LINK, UNI, YFI
If there is an higher liquidity on UNI-ETH it will be harder for the price to dump because it would require much more UNI to be sold.
I'm against timelocks, mainly for 2 reasons:
Time lock doesn't add any long-term value. This artificially reduces sales pressure, nothing else. And that favors whales who have currently a lot of UNI tokens., nobody else.
Add time lock and I will do what I did with Sushiswap : I will immediatly remove all my LP from Uniswap.
Time lock doesn't add any long-term value. This artificially reduces sales pressure, nothing else. And that favors whales who have currently a lot of UNI tokens., nobody else.
Add time lock and I will do what I did with Sushiswap : I will immediatly remove all my LP from Uniswap.
Don't be greedy and don't forget one thing : LP providers take a lot of risks, impermanent losses are real and this risk has to be reward.
I don't think trying to compete with curve would be a good idea for the moment. Uniswap and Curve are both DEXes, but they do different things. Uniswap is more of a general purpose exchange, Curve is only used to exchange assets that have the same value. Both are good in what they do. Curve rely on low fees (0,04%) compared to Uniswap (0,3%) and use a different algorithm to manage liquidity pool. Curve can't do most of the things Uniswap does, but for Uniswap to compete with Curve on stable/stable pairs it would take more than just UNI incentives.
Alternatively, we could encourage stablecoin/stablecoin pairs to make Uniswap competitive with Curve and Swerve.
I agree with this proposal, it would give a better user experience to those who want to switch from one stablecoin to another rather than use Curve. Curve is a great tools but very limited for "small" amounts.
I'd like to hear more pro's v cons on time locks.
Why do you care about CEXs when Uniswap is a DEX? Rewarding people who put liquidity into trading UNI makes perfect sense. It didn't make sense to put it up right away but definitely at some point it should be considered. CEX pairs are pretty meaningless when it comes to this
I oppose to this because this will lead to a dump situation, If uniswap team decide to open the UNI-ETH pool and give UNI rewards to those pools, what will happen is that most UNI holders will stake their coins at that pool and the few remaining in circulation will be the ones that will decide its price and if a ETH-UNI whale staking at that pool decides to sell his rewards even the smallest sell will collapse price and people staked at that pool will be subjected at a hughe loss since they have wrapped versions of a token (impermanent loss)
In fact this was the modus operandi of previous DeFi scam teams.
i agree but i fear impermanent loss on this pair maybe is get some rekt.
I very much respect this response. Especially your idea about stablecoin / stablecoin pairs, making us more competitive with curve et al.
I don't completely agree with you. Your comment does make a lot of sense, but I think adding UNI/ETH could help the whole liquidity mining program if done in a smart way. Of course, not all of the mined UNI reward should go to UNI/ETH, only a small percentage like 10%. We would still have 90% of the reward to allocate to strategic pairs. And if adding UNI/ETH cause the price of UNI to pump, now the 90% of the reward would be worth more than 100% of it with UNI at a lower price. Adding a mining reward to strategic pairs should still be the main focus of the liquidity mining program, but 9 UNI worth 7$ are a bigger incentive then 10 UNI worth 5$.
why? Are they just your bags?
I'm probably wrong about that, maybe I mixed it up with another project. Yearn's confusing as it is.
Good point! But still, something bothers me about this being self-contained.
These liquidity sweeps can also delegate a % of the sweep to supply payouts to $UNI holders as an incentive
These liquidity sweeps can also delegate a % of the sweep to supply payouts to $UNI holders as an incentive
Thanks, for elaborating on it but yeah that's pretty much what I was thinking. This is probably something that was already planned in V3, but yeah part of every transaction fee say 1% could be swept into a wallet or maybe instead a wallet could be created in tandem with a pool that owns a flat proportion of the total pool. When the fees collected reach a threshold any user could "harvest" it. It would then be banked in a fund which could be used to buy UNI from the UNI-ETH Pool. Users who then staked UNI could claim their portion of the buyback, proportional to the amount they staked. I've done some coding over the years but I'm not very good, so don't expect a written up contract out of me. Just an idea that could help the tokenomics and incentivize protocol use.
Are you sure YFI has that? As far as I knew they distribute yCRV to people who stake YFI.
What happens when we run out of UNI to incentivize with? I'm not sure...
Also, this is an interesting, albeit confusing situation since listing this pool for rewards essentially feeds into itself, which might pull liquidity away from the pools external members use Uniswap for.
What happens when we run out of UNI to incentivize with? I'm not sure...
Also, this is an interesting, albeit confusing situation since listing this pool for rewards essentially feeds into itself, which might pull liquidity away from the pools external members use Uniswap for.
The way it is now incentivizes liquidity provision to the greater DeFi ecosystem, rather than a self-contained UNI loop. That's the way I see it, but what do I know? :rofl:
I guess you're right. It probably balances itself for the most part.
In regards to earning $UNI I'm definitely in favor of something besides being an LP at least in the near term as I don't want to lose a lot of my $UNI for ETH. I would prefer some kind of staking. In the future it could be good tokenomics to do something even better. We could do what YFI does and have a token buy-back fund based off of fees generated or something.
I am 50/50 on this. Seems like a good idea. I'm just worried about how it could disincentive other pools. I think it's pretty obvious that the ETH/Stablecoin pools would pose a higher risk to impermanent loss. Honestly, I think this is a bigger discussion. I think that long term the way we incentive certain pools over others could pose a systemic problem. However, I guess I'm in favor of it for now.
Completely agree! Should be one of the first pools to open :)
there's a natural balance that occurs as liquidity moves into incentivised pools, in that the fees earned from trading become higher for pools not included. That is to say, if I'm in say an ETH / YFI pool as an LP and most people exit to go farm $UNI, I all of a sudden become far more profitable. This keeps a certain amount of liquidity there to make trading those pools viable. However it seems that if you're a supporter of uniswap, and ergo $uni, at the moment you're kind of torn between selling your $uni to get into a pool that can farm $uni. Would be nice to be able to hang on to $uni, provide more liquidity for the $uni pool, AND earn more $uni from the distributions.
when they launched the announcement the token had only just gone live. If they had created the pool first maybe it would have caused the price to spike way to high as everyone fomo'd in and people would have got rekt. idk.
I would not be surprised that they prefered to keep the major pairs : big volumes so a lot of fees.
Don't forget that we might be able to stake UNI to gain fees
Giving UNI to pool UNI/ETH, what's the interest? You want to gain UNI then stake your UNIs and earn fees.
you can purchase it on uniswap. this is the link: https://uniswap.info/token/0x1f9840a85d5af5bf1d1762f925bdaddc4201f984
These liquidity sweeps can also delegate a % of the sweep to supply payouts to $UNI holders as an incentive
These liquidity sweeps can also delegate a % of the sweep to supply payouts to $UNI holders as an incentive
Thanks, for elaborating on it but yeah that's pretty much what I was thinking. This is probably something that was already planned in V3, but yeah part of every transaction fee say 1% could be swept into a wallet or maybe instead a wallet could be created in tandem with a pool that owns a flat proportion of the total pool. When the fees collected reach a threshold any user could "harvest" it. It would then be banked in a fund which could be used to buy UNI from the UNI-ETH Pool. Users who then staked UNI could claim their portion of the buyback, proportional to the amount they staked. I've done some coding over the years but I'm not very good, so don't expect a written up contract out of me. Just an idea that could help the tokenomics and incentivize protocol use.
Are you sure YFI has that? As far as I knew they distribute yCRV to people who stake YFI.
What happens when we run out of UNI to incentivize with? I'm not sure...
Also, this is an interesting, albeit confusing situation since listing this pool for rewards essentially feeds into itself, which might pull liquidity away from the pools external members use Uniswap for.
What happens when we run out of UNI to incentivize with? I'm not sure...
Also, this is an interesting, albeit confusing situation since listing this pool for rewards essentially feeds into itself, which might pull liquidity away from the pools external members use Uniswap for.
The way it is now incentivizes liquidity provision to the greater DeFi ecosystem, rather than a self-contained UNI loop. That's the way I see it, but what do I know? :rofl:
I guess you're right. It probably balances itself for the most part.
In regards to earning $UNI I'm definitely in favor of something besides being an LP at least in the near term as I don't want to lose a lot of my $UNI for ETH. I would prefer some kind of staking. In the future it could be good tokenomics to do something even better. We could do what YFI does and have a token buy-back fund based off of fees generated or something.
I am 50/50 on this. Seems like a good idea. I'm just worried about how it could disincentive other pools. I think it's pretty obvious that the ETH/Stablecoin pools would pose a higher risk to impermanent loss. Honestly, I think this is a bigger discussion. I think that long term the way we incentive certain pools over others could pose a systemic problem. However, I guess I'm in favor of it for now.
Completely agree! Should be one of the first pools to open :)
there's a natural balance that occurs as liquidity moves into incentivised pools, in that the fees earned from trading become higher for pools not included. That is to say, if I'm in say an ETH / YFI pool as an LP and most people exit to go farm $UNI, I all of a sudden become far more profitable. This keeps a certain amount of liquidity there to make trading those pools viable. However it seems that if you're a supporter of uniswap, and ergo $uni, at the moment you're kind of torn between selling your $uni to get into a pool that can farm $uni. Would be nice to be able to hang on to $uni, provide more liquidity for the $uni pool, AND earn more $uni from the distributions.
when they launched the announcement the token had only just gone live. If they had created the pool first maybe it would have caused the price to spike way to high as everyone fomo'd in and people would have got rekt. idk.
I would not be surprised that they prefered to keep the major pairs : big volumes so a lot of fees.
Don't forget that we might be able to stake UNI to gain fees
Giving UNI to pool UNI/ETH, what's the interest? You want to gain UNI then stake your UNIs and earn fees.
you can purchase it on uniswap. this is the link: https://uniswap.info/token/0x1f9840a85d5af5bf1d1762f925bdaddc4201f984
exchanges, they are threat.
What makes you think they are a threat? What is the scenario of attack you find feasible for them?
What makes you think they are a threat? What is the scenario of attack you find feasible for them?
Launching any sort of attack on Uniswap would cost these exchanges much more value loss through reputational damage than what they could ever get out of it. On top of that, it is quite unlikely to succeed, as a lot of money would vote against that. Even if the attack somehow succeeds, UNI can be forked to a pre-attack state.
In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with UNI holders being able to get interest on their UNI tokens outside Uniswap.
If the preparation period (voting delay) is introduced, UNI holders will be able to keep their UNI whenever they like. And mobilize them if they wish to vote on an important proposal.
It is by far the easiest and the cheapest solution to the problem.
In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with UNI holders being able to get interest on their UNI tokens outside Uniswap.
If the preparation period (voting delay) is introduced, UNI holders will be able to keep their UNI whenever they like. And mobilize them if they wish to vote on an important proposal.
It is by far the easiest and the cheapest solution to the problem.
On a side note, I don't think there is a big chance of Binance being a threat to Uniswap governance.
There is a decent possibility that Compound will transform Uniswap governance, bringing more power to large UNI holders.
There is a proposal there that will allow for UNI held there to vote.
By the way, currently, Compound offers 5.88% APY on UNI.
More 'minority' votes will unwillingly vote the way the 'majority' wants with that system. But it is up to COMP holders to decide that.
I just want everyone to be aware of the issues that come along with incentivizing locking up a governance token without taking necessary steps beforehand.
This is a good question.
I do agree that from the sheer liquidity provision standpoint the pool is incentivized enough at the moment by the fees. But I do not think that it is all about volume only: it is also about liquidity and it is also about governance.
This is a good question.
I do agree that from the sheer liquidity provision standpoint the pool is incentivized enough at the moment by the fees. But I do not think that it is all about volume only: it is also about liquidity and it is also about governance.
From the governance standpoint it's quite important that as many UNI tokens as possible either stay in people’s wallets or are locked in Uniswap contracts.
I think it is beneficial to encourage participation in UNI governance, and one just feeds into the other in the proposition I made. I’m sure there are alternative ways to solve for the same things.
Incentivization of UNI pairs + granting UNI LPs voting rights:
It is logical that when you get a mining rig in a mining factory – you mine. So it seems logical to me that the main token of a decentralized liquidity platform is super liquid, and it doesn’t compromise its governance.
In a good, fair system where incentives align evenly different groups of actors tend to mix with each other.
It shouldn’t be a choice for you to get rewards because you vote or because you mine liquidity with your token, you should be able to do both as both provide value for the network.
If I were to propose the amount of additional UNI distributed to a pool, it would intend to create quite a moderate increase in the APY. I think that it would sound more or less fair if the APY for UNI pair would be on par with other pairs.
Also I do think that it is irresponsible to bring tokens that have weak store of value properties to Uniswap liquidity mining programme. So I would like to bring at least some of those properties to UNI, and the best way to do that is through fees distribution.
I do consider that just generally adding more UNI pairs would be beneficial for the token, not just UNI/ETH, but also UNI/USD and UNI/BTC. Let all the maximalists in :slight_smile:
But even beyond that, having more traded UNI pairs would very likely be beneficial. UNI could become the reserve currency of Uniswap, why not? If we were to manage UNI as an exchange token, exchanges do tend to list a ton of pairs for their tokens. Maybe it is not neccessary, the key question is: is it valueable enough that we wish to spend treasury funds to incentivise it?
I think at least incentivizing UNI/ETH and UNI/USD would be valuable, but maybe 1 type of dollar is enough.
But at the same time it is crucial that we don’t grant these pairs crazy APYs, as it would ruin everything very fast.
Ok then, let's completely disregard buying and selling pressure terms.
Given that liquidity provision is the main proposition Uniswap offers don’t you think that:
UNI token that provides liquidity in UNI-ETH pair is more valuable to the ecosystem then the UNI token that drains that liquidity by being staked ?
I think this proposition if realized wisely would benefit Uniswap ecosystem and UNI token holders greatly over the long term .
In my opinion UNI/ETH pool is the only ‘speculative asset’ pool that makes sense to add for additional UNI distribution.
I think this proposition if realized wisely would benefit Uniswap ecosystem and UNI token holders greatly over the long term .
In my opinion UNI/ETH pool is the only ‘speculative asset’ pool that makes sense to add for additional UNI distribution.
At this point in time if you want to maximize the amount of UNI tokens you own over the next 4 years of the token distribution, it is not quite obvious whether or not you should add your UNI tokens to UNI/ETH liquidity pool or just hold them.
Because there is a real risk that if over the next 4 years UNI price rises over ETH significantly and stays that way, that because of impermanent loss problem you’ll have less UNI than a person who did nothing with them, i.e. who didn’t provide value for the network in terms of adding liquidity.
So distributing some additional UNI towards UNI/ETH liquidity providers would eliminate that problem and make the decision easy for long term UNI holder.
For example, if you’re providing liquidity on ETH/USDT ‘for money’, at this point it’s quite obvious for you to sell the crops for your yield farm for a coin that has store of value capacity. Like, a YFI vault pool would make a perfect job for you at executing whatever APY there is to be farmed by just mining and selling the UNI tokens.
If we were to introduce UNI/ETH rewards, these calculations become much less obvious, which in turn removes a decent bit of selling pressure from UNI token .
So both points feed into supporting long term holders of UNI token . And getting them to own bigger % of overall supply, which is fundamentally a good thing for the network development.
exchanges, they are threat.
What makes you think they are a threat? What is the scenario of attack you find feasible for them?
What makes you think they are a threat? What is the scenario of attack you find feasible for them?
Launching any sort of attack on Uniswap would cost these exchanges much more value loss through reputational damage than what they could ever get out of it. On top of that, it is quite unlikely to succeed, as a lot of money would vote against that. Even if the attack somehow succeeds, UNI can be forked to a pre-attack state.
In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with UNI holders being able to get interest on their UNI tokens outside Uniswap.
If the preparation period (voting delay) is introduced, UNI holders will be able to keep their UNI whenever they like. And mobilize them if they wish to vote on an important proposal.
It is by far the easiest and the cheapest solution to the problem.
In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with UNI holders being able to get interest on their UNI tokens outside Uniswap.
If the preparation period (voting delay) is introduced, UNI holders will be able to keep their UNI whenever they like. And mobilize them if they wish to vote on an important proposal.
It is by far the easiest and the cheapest solution to the problem.
On a side note, I don't think there is a big chance of Binance being a threat to Uniswap governance.
There is a decent possibility that Compound will transform Uniswap governance, bringing more power to large UNI holders.
There is a proposal there that will allow for UNI held there to vote.
By the way, currently, Compound offers 5.88% APY on UNI.
More 'minority' votes will unwillingly vote the way the 'majority' wants with that system. But it is up to COMP holders to decide that.
I just want everyone to be aware of the issues that come along with incentivizing locking up a governance token without taking necessary steps beforehand.
This is a good question.
I do agree that from the sheer liquidity provision standpoint the pool is incentivized enough at the moment by the fees. But I do not think that it is all about volume only: it is also about liquidity and it is also about governance.
This is a good question.
I do agree that from the sheer liquidity provision standpoint the pool is incentivized enough at the moment by the fees. But I do not think that it is all about volume only: it is also about liquidity and it is also about governance.
From the governance standpoint it's quite important that as many UNI tokens as possible either stay in people’s wallets or are locked in Uniswap contracts.
I think it is beneficial to encourage participation in UNI governance, and one just feeds into the other in the proposition I made. I’m sure there are alternative ways to solve for the same things.
Incentivization of UNI pairs + granting UNI LPs voting rights:
It is logical that when you get a mining rig in a mining factory – you mine. So it seems logical to me that the main token of a decentralized liquidity platform is super liquid, and it doesn’t compromise its governance.
In a good, fair system where incentives align evenly different groups of actors tend to mix with each other.
It shouldn’t be a choice for you to get rewards because you vote or because you mine liquidity with your token, you should be able to do both as both provide value for the network.
If I were to propose the amount of additional UNI distributed to a pool, it would intend to create quite a moderate increase in the APY. I think that it would sound more or less fair if the APY for UNI pair would be on par with other pairs.
Also I do think that it is irresponsible to bring tokens that have weak store of value properties to Uniswap liquidity mining programme. So I would like to bring at least some of those properties to UNI, and the best way to do that is through fees distribution.
I do consider that just generally adding more UNI pairs would be beneficial for the token, not just UNI/ETH, but also UNI/USD and UNI/BTC. Let all the maximalists in :slight_smile:
But even beyond that, having more traded UNI pairs would very likely be beneficial. UNI could become the reserve currency of Uniswap, why not? If we were to manage UNI as an exchange token, exchanges do tend to list a ton of pairs for their tokens. Maybe it is not neccessary, the key question is: is it valueable enough that we wish to spend treasury funds to incentivise it?
I think at least incentivizing UNI/ETH and UNI/USD would be valuable, but maybe 1 type of dollar is enough.
But at the same time it is crucial that we don’t grant these pairs crazy APYs, as it would ruin everything very fast.
Ok then, let's completely disregard buying and selling pressure terms.
Given that liquidity provision is the main proposition Uniswap offers don’t you think that:
UNI token that provides liquidity in UNI-ETH pair is more valuable to the ecosystem then the UNI token that drains that liquidity by being staked ?
I think this proposition if realized wisely would benefit Uniswap ecosystem and UNI token holders greatly over the long term .
In my opinion UNI/ETH pool is the only ‘speculative asset’ pool that makes sense to add for additional UNI distribution.
I think this proposition if realized wisely would benefit Uniswap ecosystem and UNI token holders greatly over the long term .
In my opinion UNI/ETH pool is the only ‘speculative asset’ pool that makes sense to add for additional UNI distribution.
At this point in time if you want to maximize the amount of UNI tokens you own over the next 4 years of the token distribution, it is not quite obvious whether or not you should add your UNI tokens to UNI/ETH liquidity pool or just hold them.
Because there is a real risk that if over the next 4 years UNI price rises over ETH significantly and stays that way, that because of impermanent loss problem you’ll have less UNI than a person who did nothing with them, i.e. who didn’t provide value for the network in terms of adding liquidity.
So distributing some additional UNI towards UNI/ETH liquidity providers would eliminate that problem and make the decision easy for long term UNI holder.
For example, if you’re providing liquidity on ETH/USDT ‘for money’, at this point it’s quite obvious for you to sell the crops for your yield farm for a coin that has store of value capacity. Like, a YFI vault pool would make a perfect job for you at executing whatever APY there is to be farmed by just mining and selling the UNI tokens.
If we were to introduce UNI/ETH rewards, these calculations become much less obvious, which in turn removes a decent bit of selling pressure from UNI token .
So both points feed into supporting long term holders of UNI token . And getting them to own bigger % of overall supply, which is fundamentally a good thing for the network development.
I just want everyone to be aware of the issues that come along with incentivizing locking up a governance token without taking necessary steps beforehand.
This has been my major concern around a UNI/ETH pool and would need to be addressed before I could vote "yes".
UNI is first & foremost a voting token, and it needs to retain its voting ability while it's locked up as liquidity.
There have been some ideas floating around in other threads - perhaps someone can start a new thread with potential solutions to this issue?
Ok then, let's completely disregard buying and selling pressure terms.
Given that liquidity provision is the main proposition Uniswap offers don’t you think that:
UNI token that provides liquidity in UNI-ETH pair is more valuable to the ecosystem then the UNI token that drains that liquidity by being staked ?
My position is that UNI/ETH Pool tokens provide more value to the ecosystem then UNI tokens alone. This means two things for me:
By no means do I argue with the point that fees distributed towards UNI token holders would bring the value to the token, I think it's the most obvious thing to do.
Liquidity providers of UNI/ETH are essential and should be rewarded.
Disagree. They're only essential if you want to dump your tokens. If you want to participate in governance and hold for the long term, UNI/ETH liquidity doesn't provide any value.
Just wanted to highlight the community guidelines:
Rather than posting “+1” or “Agreed”, use the Like button.
I just want everyone to be aware of the issues that come along with incentivizing locking up a governance token without taking necessary steps beforehand.
This has been my major concern around a UNI/ETH pool and would need to be addressed before I could vote "yes".
UNI is first & foremost a voting token, and it needs to retain its voting ability while it's locked up as liquidity.
There have been some ideas floating around in other threads - perhaps someone can start a new thread with potential solutions to this issue?
Ok then, let's completely disregard buying and selling pressure terms.
Given that liquidity provision is the main proposition Uniswap offers don’t you think that:
UNI token that provides liquidity in UNI-ETH pair is more valuable to the ecosystem then the UNI token that drains that liquidity by being staked ?
My position is that UNI/ETH Pool tokens provide more value to the ecosystem then UNI tokens alone. This means two things for me:
By no means do I argue with the point that fees distributed towards UNI token holders would bring the value to the token, I think it's the most obvious thing to do.
Liquidity providers of UNI/ETH are essential and should be rewarded.
Disagree. They're only essential if you want to dump your tokens. If you want to participate in governance and hold for the long term, UNI/ETH liquidity doesn't provide any value.
Just wanted to highlight the community guidelines:
Rather than posting “+1” or “Agreed”, use the Like button.
