We at she256 are submitting this proposal on behalf of Zora Labs. Zora Network is an emergent ETH L2 built with the OP stack that has grown to more than 90k weekly active users who drive 600k transactions every week. We propose a canonical deployment of Uniswap v3 on Zora benefitting creators, collectors, and builders of both ecosystems.
Zora Network is onboarding thousands of creators and collectors to Ethereum L2s through a distinctly creative brand and support from protocols like Mint.Fun, Holograph, PartyDAO, and the Zora Creator Toolkit. It is important for Zora Network’s ecosystem of creators, collectors, and developers to have access to premier crypto tooling, including DeFi protocols, that can help them protect and expand the value they are creating onchain.
We believe offering these tools is a material step in supporting creators as they explore and innovate with onchain media. This is particularly true as the amount of people and teams that earn ETH on Zora Network continues to grow from features like Zora’s Protocol Rewards.
This collaboration will position Uniswap to win long term market share on an emergent L2 network with a uniquely differentiated user base. And, it will signal the DAO’s ongoing support of the growing population of creators, collectors, and builders that transact on Zora Network everyday.
Zora Network is an L2 built on top of Ethereum using the OP stack with over half a million addresses onchain and just under 1000 ETH in transaction fees. Zora Network launched last summer on June 21st, the Summer Solstice. It is currently supported by industry leading infrastructure partners such as Rainbow, Opensea, Zerion, Dune, Layer Zero and many more. Zora Network supports a bustling ecosystem of creators, collectors and developers that are exploring creativity onchain.
Zora Network brings a uniquely creative and NFT native audience to the Uniswap ecosystem. Many of the active users on Zora Network are the artists, collectors, and builders that makeup the onchain creative community. Zora Network makes up 30-34% of mint marketshare across Ethereum and its L2s ecosystem. In the last month, there were more than 40,000 NFT contracts created on Zora Network, and today 36% of all unique collectors across Ethereum and its L2 ecosystem are active on Zora Network.
Adoption of Zora Network comes alongside easy to use product features in the Zora Creator Toolkit like email signup and free creation, which position Zora to easily onboard first time users to crypto. As these users grow in their understanding of crypto, it’s important that Zora Network has brand aligned partners, like Uniswap, available to facilitate our users’ next steps in their crypto journey.
The Zora Network developer ecosystem includes a lot of the core infrastructure that developer teams need to get started with a new project in crypto. There are over 10,000 contracts deployed to Zora Network everyday. Examples of teams that support Zora Network today include infrastructure teams like Dune, Third Web, Tenderly, and Gelato as well key developer tools like Wagmi and Privy.
NFT native protocols like those mentioned above, Mint.Fun, Holograph, and Highlight, have also integrated Zora Network alongside others like Gallery and Fair XYZ. One of the more exciting integrations of late has been the Warpcast team’s launch of in-app minting of Zora Network NFTs powered by Warps. Lastly on the developer front — Protocol Rewards on Zora Network, specifically referral rewards, are proving to be a new revenue stream for developers building aggregators, recommendation systems like Daylight, and mobile notification rails like Interface. Zora Network is still early, but it's proving to be valuable for developer teams of all types.
Protocol Rewards on Zora Network makes the need for stablecoins and fiat on/off-ramps increasingly apparent. Creators, collectors, and developers in the Zora ecosystem are earning six figures of ETH in protocol rewards everyday. For some creators, protocol rewards are helping to pay their rent or just grab a slice of pizza. And for platforms, rewards are quickly becoming a core part of their business model and a key to their success.
There is a growing need on Zora Network for swaps and stablecoins that can better protect the value these individuals and teams create. Today, creators are required to bridge their ETH from Zora Network to a chain where Uniswap is supported, which costs gas and eats into their earnings. Only then will they be able to swap to a stablecoin. Adding swaps natively on Zora Network will make taking this action cheaper and easier for onchain creators that are making their living with Protocol Rewards.
Our goal with this proposal is to bring a canonical instance of world class DeFi tooling to Zora Network participants to help them more efficiently convert and expand their Protocol Rewards into value that they can transact with in their everyday lives. We think this is an exciting long tail opportunity for Uniswap.
Uniswap would be the first DeFi protocol on Zora Network giving it a first mover advantage to win consideration from the network’s unique audience of creators and collectors.
Recent market data from cross-chain minting activations indicate that, when given the option and equal incentive, creators tend to choose Zora Network as the destination for their work onchain. Uniswap and Zora Network coming together is a great opportunity to expand the Uniswap audience to Zora Network’s creative community.
Zora Network is home to tens of thousands of creators of all disciplines: visual artists, musicians, photographers, podcasters, and more. Incredible crypto native talent like Chase Chapman, Nick Hollins from UFO, and more have made Zora Network their L2 of choice. This is all happening alongside some of the world’s best YouTube channels like Color Studios or breakout brands like KidSuper making Zora their home as well.
Uniswap V3 on Zora Network is an opportunity for Uniswap to market to a new, non-DeFi audience that is excited to support one another’s creativity. You can get a feel for who makes up the Zora community in the latest Me + My Imagination campaign.
Uniswap will be the first DEX to come to market on Zora Network. It will start out with 100% marketshare on this emergent L2 network. The more than half a million addresses on Zora Network will have a single destination for DeFi.
Zora Network has an increasingly active user base with active addresses on Zora Network are up 50% MoM from December to January. And, that user base is earning ETH at a good rate with more than $100k of ETH paid out daily on Zora Network in Protocol Rewards. Given these earnings and these levels of activity, there is a good chance these users will need stablecoins and other opportunities to protect the value their creating.
Zora will mint a commemorative artwork to celebrate the launch of Uniswap V3. Zora plans to split the creator rewards from this mint 70-30, with 70% of rewards from this mint at the discretion of the Uniswap DAO and 30% going to Zora. We will add the Protocol Guild as the beneficiary split recipient on this commemorative mint for Uniswap DAO's share of the split, benefitting core protocol development as collectors mint the artwork in celebration of the launch.
For Uniswap, this is a unique opportunity to become the sole DEX on Zora Network, a breakout L2 for onchain creativity. This will help Uniswap win increasing amounts of creator affinity as you support the thousands of active creators and collectors around the world using Zora Network.
In addition, we consider this successful for Uniswap if we are able to:
We want to give network participants the tools they need to convert the value they create on Zora Network into stablecoins and real world currencies they can use everyday. By weaving Uniswap V3 seamlessly into this emergent network, we aspire to strengthen the ties between Uniswap and Zora, ensuring a mutually beneficial collaboration between both thriving communities.
Brand Marketing
Mint Performance
Uniswap Core Metrics
Dev Education
As is the case with all canonical v3 deployments, this deployment will be subject to Ethereum Layer 1 Uniswap Protocol governance. The text record of the uniswap.eth ENS subdomain titled v3-deployments.uniswap.eth will be amended to include the reference to the Uniswap v3 Factory contract on Zora Network.
Uniswap V3 contracts have been deployed on Zora at the following addresses:
| Contract Name | Zora Mainnet Address |
|---|---|
| v3CoreFactory | 0x7145F8aeef1f6510E92164038E1B6F8cB2c42Cbb |
| multicall2 | 0xA51c76bEE6746cB487a7e9312E43e2b8f4A37C15 |
| proxyAdmin | 0xd4109824FC80dD41ca6ee8D304ec74B8bEdEd03b |
| tickLens | 0x209AAda09D74Ad3B8D0E92910Eaf85D2357e3044 |
| nftDescriptorLibraryV1_3_0 | 0xffF2BffC03474F361B7f92cCfF2fD01CFBBDCdd1 |
| nonfungibleTokenPositionDescriptorV1_3_0 | 0xf15D9e794d39A3b4Ea9EfC2376b2Cd9562996422 |
| descriptorProxy | 0x843b0b03c3B3B0434B9cb00AD9cD1D9218E7741b |
| nonfungibleTokenPositionManager | 0xbC91e8DfA3fF18De43853372A3d7dfe585137D78 |
| v3Migrator | 0x048352d8dCF13686982C799da63fA6426a9D0b60 |
| v3Staker | 0x5eF5A6923d2f566F65f363b78EF7A88ab1E4206f |
| quoterV2 | 0x11867e1b3348F3ce4FcC170BC5af3d23E07E64Df |
Zora will deploy the open source Uniswap UI to a subdomain at https://zora.energy. This front end will be made available to all Zora Network users similar to https://bridge.zora.energy. Our goal is to ensure that there is an easy to use frontend interface for users to access the superpowers of Uniswap. Overtime, we will work with the Uniswap Labs team to get Zora Network added to the primary Uniswap website over time.
Zora Network is built on the open-source OP Stack. As a result, the bridge for Zora Network operates functionally identical to both OP Mainnet and Base – two OP Stack chains with canonical Uniswap V3 deployments already live. The bridge address is listed below, and more information on the OP Stack Bridge design is available here. As a further convenience, Zora Network hosts a bridging interface at https://bridge.zora.energy.
| Contract Name | Address of Proxy |
|---|---|
| Optimism Portal | 0x1a0ad011913A150f69f6A19DF447A0CfD9551054 |
| L1 ERC721 Bridge | 0x83A4521A3573Ca87f3a971B169C5A0E1d34481c3 |
| L1 Standard Bridge | 0x3e2ea9b92b7e48a52296fd261dc26fd995284631 |
| L1 Cross Domain Messenger | 0xdc40a14d9abd6f410226f1e6de71ae03441ca506 |
This proposal has passed the RFC and temperature check phases. The relevant Uniswap v3 contracts have also been deployed on Zora mainnet. If this onchain vote passes, this deployment will be officially recognized as a canonical v3 deployment through an amendment to the v3deployments.uniswap.eth subdomain.
We at she256 are submitting this proposal on behalf of Zora Labs. Zora Network is an emergent ETH L2 built with the OP stack that has grown to more than 90k weekly active users who drive 600k transactions every week. We propose a canonical deployment of Uniswap v3 on Zora benefitting creators, collectors, and builders of both ecosystems.
Zora Network is onboarding thousands of creators and collectors to Ethereum L2s through a distinctly creative brand and support from protocols like Mint.Fun, Holograph, PartyDAO, and the Zora Creator Toolkit. It is important for Zora Network’s ecosystem of creators, collectors, and developers to have access to premier crypto tooling, including DeFi protocols, that can help them protect and expand the value they are creating onchain.
We believe offering these tools is a material step in supporting creators as they explore and innovate with onchain media. This is particularly true as the amount of people and teams that earn ETH on Zora Network continues to grow from features like Zora’s Protocol Rewards.
This collaboration will position Uniswap to win long term market share on an emergent L2 network with a uniquely differentiated user base. And, it will signal the DAO’s ongoing support of the growing population of creators, collectors, and builders that transact on Zora Network everyday.
Zora Network is an L2 built on top of Ethereum using the OP stack with over half a million addresses onchain and just under 1000 ETH in transaction fees. Zora Network launched last summer on June 21st, the Summer Solstice. It is currently supported by industry leading infrastructure partners such as Rainbow, Opensea, Zerion, Dune, Layer Zero and many more. Zora Network supports a bustling ecosystem of creators, collectors and developers that are exploring creativity onchain.
Zora Network brings a uniquely creative and NFT native audience to the Uniswap ecosystem. Many of the active users on Zora Network are the artists, collectors, and builders that makeup the onchain creative community. Zora Network makes up 30-34% of mint marketshare across Ethereum and its L2s ecosystem. In the last month, there were more than 40,000 NFT contracts created on Zora Network, and today 36% of all unique collectors across Ethereum and its L2 ecosystem are active on Zora Network.
Adoption of Zora Network comes alongside easy to use product features in the Zora Creator Toolkit like email signup and free creation, which position Zora to easily onboard first time users to crypto. As these users grow in their understanding of crypto, it’s important that Zora Network has brand aligned partners, like Uniswap, available to facilitate our users’ next steps in their crypto journey.
The Zora Network developer ecosystem includes a lot of the core infrastructure that developer teams need to get started with a new project in crypto. There are over 10,000 contracts deployed to Zora Network everyday. Examples of teams that support Zora Network today include infrastructure teams like Dune, Third Web, Tenderly, and Gelato as well key developer tools like Wagmi and Privy.
NFT native protocols like those mentioned above, Mint.Fun, Holograph, and Highlight, have also integrated Zora Network alongside others like Gallery and Fair XYZ. One of the more exciting integrations of late has been the Warpcast team’s launch of in-app minting of Zora Network NFTs powered by Warps. Lastly on the developer front — Protocol Rewards on Zora Network, specifically referral rewards, are proving to be a new revenue stream for developers building aggregators, recommendation systems like Daylight, and mobile notification rails like Interface. Zora Network is still early, but it's proving to be valuable for developer teams of all types.
Protocol Rewards on Zora Network makes the need for stablecoins and fiat on/off-ramps increasingly apparent. Creators, collectors, and developers in the Zora ecosystem are earning six figures of ETH in protocol rewards everyday. For some creators, protocol rewards are helping to pay their rent or just grab a slice of pizza. And for platforms, rewards are quickly becoming a core part of their business model and a key to their success.
There is a growing need on Zora Network for swaps and stablecoins that can better protect the value these individuals and teams create. Today, creators are required to bridge their ETH from Zora Network to a chain where Uniswap is supported, which costs gas and eats into their earnings. Only then will they be able to swap to a stablecoin. Adding swaps natively on Zora Network will make taking this action cheaper and easier for onchain creators that are making their living with Protocol Rewards.
Our goal with this proposal is to bring a canonical instance of world class DeFi tooling to Zora Network participants to help them more efficiently convert and expand their Protocol Rewards into value that they can transact with in their everyday lives. We think this is an exciting long tail opportunity for Uniswap.
Uniswap would be the first DeFi protocol on Zora Network giving it a first mover advantage to win consideration from the network’s unique audience of creators and collectors.
Recent market data from cross-chain minting activations indicate that, when given the option and equal incentive, creators tend to choose Zora Network as the destination for their work onchain. Uniswap and Zora Network coming together is a great opportunity to expand the Uniswap audience to Zora Network’s creative community.
Zora Network is home to tens of thousands of creators of all disciplines: visual artists, musicians, photographers, podcasters, and more. Incredible crypto native talent like Chase Chapman, Nick Hollins from UFO, and more have made Zora Network their L2 of choice. This is all happening alongside some of the world’s best YouTube channels like Color Studios or breakout brands like KidSuper making Zora their home as well.
Uniswap V3 on Zora Network is an opportunity for Uniswap to market to a new, non-DeFi audience that is excited to support one another’s creativity. You can get a feel for who makes up the Zora community in the latest Me + My Imagination campaign.
Uniswap will be the first DEX to come to market on Zora Network. It will start out with 100% marketshare on this emergent L2 network. The more than half a million addresses on Zora Network will have a single destination for DeFi.
Zora Network has an increasingly active user base with active addresses on Zora Network are up 50% MoM from December to January. And, that user base is earning ETH at a good rate with more than $100k of ETH paid out daily on Zora Network in Protocol Rewards. Given these earnings and these levels of activity, there is a good chance these users will need stablecoins and other opportunities to protect the value their creating.
Zora will mint a commemorative artwork to celebrate the launch of Uniswap V3. Zora plans to split the creator rewards from this mint 70-30, with 70% of rewards from this mint at the discretion of the Uniswap DAO and 30% going to Zora. We will add the Protocol Guild as the beneficiary split recipient on this commemorative mint for Uniswap DAO's share of the split, benefitting core protocol development as collectors mint the artwork in celebration of the launch.
For Uniswap, this is a unique opportunity to become the sole DEX on Zora Network, a breakout L2 for onchain creativity. This will help Uniswap win increasing amounts of creator affinity as you support the thousands of active creators and collectors around the world using Zora Network.
In addition, we consider this successful for Uniswap if we are able to:
We want to give network participants the tools they need to convert the value they create on Zora Network into stablecoins and real world currencies they can use everyday. By weaving Uniswap V3 seamlessly into this emergent network, we aspire to strengthen the ties between Uniswap and Zora, ensuring a mutually beneficial collaboration between both thriving communities.
Brand Marketing
Mint Performance
Uniswap Core Metrics
Dev Education
As is the case with all canonical v3 deployments, this deployment will be subject to Ethereum Layer 1 Uniswap Protocol governance. The text record of the uniswap.eth ENS subdomain titled v3-deployments.uniswap.eth will be amended to include the reference to the Uniswap v3 Factory contract on Zora Network.
Uniswap V3 contracts have been deployed on Zora at the following addresses:
| Contract Name | Zora Mainnet Address |
|---|---|
| v3CoreFactory | 0x7145F8aeef1f6510E92164038E1B6F8cB2c42Cbb |
| multicall2 | 0xA51c76bEE6746cB487a7e9312E43e2b8f4A37C15 |
| proxyAdmin | 0xd4109824FC80dD41ca6ee8D304ec74B8bEdEd03b |
| tickLens | 0x209AAda09D74Ad3B8D0E92910Eaf85D2357e3044 |
| nftDescriptorLibraryV1_3_0 | 0xffF2BffC03474F361B7f92cCfF2fD01CFBBDCdd1 |
| nonfungibleTokenPositionDescriptorV1_3_0 | 0xf15D9e794d39A3b4Ea9EfC2376b2Cd9562996422 |
| descriptorProxy | 0x843b0b03c3B3B0434B9cb00AD9cD1D9218E7741b |
| nonfungibleTokenPositionManager | 0xbC91e8DfA3fF18De43853372A3d7dfe585137D78 |
| v3Migrator | 0x048352d8dCF13686982C799da63fA6426a9D0b60 |
| v3Staker | 0x5eF5A6923d2f566F65f363b78EF7A88ab1E4206f |
| quoterV2 | 0x11867e1b3348F3ce4FcC170BC5af3d23E07E64Df |
Zora will deploy the open source Uniswap UI to a subdomain at https://zora.energy. This front end will be made available to all Zora Network users similar to https://bridge.zora.energy. Our goal is to ensure that there is an easy to use frontend interface for users to access the superpowers of Uniswap. Overtime, we will work with the Uniswap Labs team to get Zora Network added to the primary Uniswap website over time.
Zora Network is built on the open-source OP Stack. As a result, the bridge for Zora Network operates functionally identical to both OP Mainnet and Base – two OP Stack chains with canonical Uniswap V3 deployments already live. The bridge address is listed below, and more information on the OP Stack Bridge design is available here. As a further convenience, Zora Network hosts a bridging interface at https://bridge.zora.energy.
| Contract Name | Address of Proxy |
|---|---|
| Optimism Portal | 0x1a0ad011913A150f69f6A19DF447A0CfD9551054 |
| L1 ERC721 Bridge | 0x83A4521A3573Ca87f3a971B169C5A0E1d34481c3 |
| L1 Standard Bridge | 0x3e2ea9b92b7e48a52296fd261dc26fd995284631 |
| L1 Cross Domain Messenger | 0xdc40a14d9abd6f410226f1e6de71ae03441ca506 |
This proposal has passed the RFC and temperature check phases. The relevant Uniswap v3 contracts have also been deployed on Zora mainnet. If this onchain vote passes, this deployment will be officially recognized as a canonical v3 deployment through an amendment to the v3deployments.uniswap.eth subdomain.
https://gov.uniswap.org/t/rfc-deploy-uniswap-v3-on-zora/22724/6?u=kaereste
https://gov.uniswap.org/t/rfc-deploy-uniswap-v3-on-zora/22724/6?u=kaereste
I agree!
You should read this if you haven't yet. Completely altered the way I thought about Uniswap - https://jacob.energy/hyperstructures.html
I agree!
You should read this if you haven't yet. Completely altered the way I thought about Uniswap - https://jacob.energy/hyperstructures.html
Uniswap is building a hyperstructure and we should not be tempted by short term incentives and lose sight of the bigger picture
I am surprised no one has mentioned anything about hyperstrucutres? Quote from the article:
" I would even go as far as to say that being "for-profit" is a skeuomorphic mode of operation, and leads to a local optima that misses the broader opportunities that come from a diverse platform ecosystem on top of your protocol. The nature of the medium of token ownership and unstoppability means we no longer need to extract profits to realize value creation."
I am surprised no one has mentioned anything about hyperstrucutres? Quote from the article:
" I would even go as far as to say that being "for-profit" is a skeuomorphic mode of operation, and leads to a local optima that misses the broader opportunities that come from a diverse platform ecosystem on top of your protocol. The nature of the medium of token ownership and unstoppability means we no longer need to extract profits to realize value creation."
Definitely agree with your points here.
My name is Derek and I'm an intern at Variant, a crypto-native token fund investing in the ownership economy. The fund is one of Uniswap's earliest investors.
Variant Fund believes that flipping the Uniswap fee switch should be further researched, but in the short run, scale and user acquisition should be prioritized over protocol revenue. We support researching the Uniswap fee switch for the following reasons:
My name is Derek and I'm an intern at Variant, a crypto-native token fund investing in the ownership economy. The fund is one of Uniswap's earliest investors.
Variant Fund believes that flipping the Uniswap fee switch should be further researched, but in the short run, scale and user acquisition should be prioritized over protocol revenue. We support researching the Uniswap fee switch for the following reasons:
As the DEX space becomes increasingly competitive, protocol revenue could help Uniswap defend its leading position. Nevertheless, we believe there should be a more detailed use of funds before a grant of up to 1m UNI (~$10m) as stated in the Snapshot proposal is issued; a more suitable path might be requesting funds through the Uniswap Grants Program for this initial exploration. After a comprehensive use of funds is released, we support researching possible scenario models and timelines to switch on fees in the long run.
We feel various conditions and assumptions should be further researched in order to move forward with the fee switch. These include the following, among others:
We are supporters of a long-term approach to switching on fees for the two reasons stated above: Uniswap’s competitive yields and additional growth capital.
First, many in the community have expressed concerns that the fee switch could lead LPs to shift to other platforms. We believe that these concerns are over exaggerated and Uniswap will still offer one of the most competitive yield opportunities for LPs.
Trading Volume / TVL is a ratio that represents yield potential; it is proportional to trading fees collected per every dollar of LP capital. Uniswap’s Vol / TVL is tracking at ~3x Sushiswap’s, ~5x Bancor’s, and ~9x Balancer’s; even with some IL, Uniswap clearly offers the most competitive passive, organic yields. These metrics largely come from Uniswap controlling ~75% of the DEX market. Uniswap can maintain this position through strong network effects; it is commonly the first dApp for new crypto users, which drives volume growth and new token listings, further attracting LPs.
Importantly, even with the fee switch turned on and the parameter set to its maximum value (25% of total revenue), Uniswap will still offer the most competitive unincentivized yields:
Average APR with Max Fee Switch: 1. Uniswap = 13.1% 2. Sushiswap = 7.5% 3. Bancor = 2.4% 4. Balancer* = 2.2% 5. Curve = 1.3%
Notes: Average APR calculated by dividing annualized supply-side revenue by TVL (Source: Token Terminal) *Balancer is currently facing a vote to increase its protocol fees
Second, new protocol fees could be used to ensure Uniswap maintains its position as a market leader. Below are example use cases for additional funds allocated to the treasury:
Importantly, these uses of funds aim to generate additional volume for the protocol and support the UNI token; in other words, LPs could see their yields actually increase from additional top-line revenue. In the long-run, revenue could be redistributed to token holders as well, but the more pressing need for funds is protocol development. These initiatives could be funded through the Uniswap treasury in the short run, but continuously funding them with UNI would place selling pressure on the token; we believe initiatives like these should be explored further.
The DEX space is becoming increasingly competitive; not only are peer AMMs launching additional features and upgrades, but alternative DEX models - notably orderbook-based - are also emerging quickly as alternatives to Uniswap. Protocol revenue should thus be considered a necessity to ensure Uniswap’s long-term success, and we firmly believe more research is required.
I think we know who is holding lots of uni...
Hey thanks for the feedback, I really appreciate it! I totally agree on the points re reviewing Uniswap's governance procedures.
Hi @monet-supply, thanks for the thoughtful comment. I'm actually planning to do some research on this question. If you have any suggestions how to go about it, feel free to reach out to me.
I feel like the proposal that passed adding the .01% fee tier proves meaningful proposals can be passed without incentives, no?
Uniswap is building a hyperstructure and we should not be tempted by short term incentives and lose sight of the bigger picture
I am surprised no one has mentioned anything about hyperstrucutres? Quote from the article:
" I would even go as far as to say that being "for-profit" is a skeuomorphic mode of operation, and leads to a local optima that misses the broader opportunities that come from a diverse platform ecosystem on top of your protocol. The nature of the medium of token ownership and unstoppability means we no longer need to extract profits to realize value creation."
I am surprised no one has mentioned anything about hyperstrucutres? Quote from the article:
" I would even go as far as to say that being "for-profit" is a skeuomorphic mode of operation, and leads to a local optima that misses the broader opportunities that come from a diverse platform ecosystem on top of your protocol. The nature of the medium of token ownership and unstoppability means we no longer need to extract profits to realize value creation."
Definitely agree with your points here.
My name is Derek and I'm an intern at Variant, a crypto-native token fund investing in the ownership economy. The fund is one of Uniswap's earliest investors.
Variant Fund believes that flipping the Uniswap fee switch should be further researched, but in the short run, scale and user acquisition should be prioritized over protocol revenue. We support researching the Uniswap fee switch for the following reasons:
My name is Derek and I'm an intern at Variant, a crypto-native token fund investing in the ownership economy. The fund is one of Uniswap's earliest investors.
Variant Fund believes that flipping the Uniswap fee switch should be further researched, but in the short run, scale and user acquisition should be prioritized over protocol revenue. We support researching the Uniswap fee switch for the following reasons:
As the DEX space becomes increasingly competitive, protocol revenue could help Uniswap defend its leading position. Nevertheless, we believe there should be a more detailed use of funds before a grant of up to 1m UNI (~$10m) as stated in the Snapshot proposal is issued; a more suitable path might be requesting funds through the Uniswap Grants Program for this initial exploration. After a comprehensive use of funds is released, we support researching possible scenario models and timelines to switch on fees in the long run.
We feel various conditions and assumptions should be further researched in order to move forward with the fee switch. These include the following, among others:
We are supporters of a long-term approach to switching on fees for the two reasons stated above: Uniswap’s competitive yields and additional growth capital.
First, many in the community have expressed concerns that the fee switch could lead LPs to shift to other platforms. We believe that these concerns are over exaggerated and Uniswap will still offer one of the most competitive yield opportunities for LPs.
Trading Volume / TVL is a ratio that represents yield potential; it is proportional to trading fees collected per every dollar of LP capital. Uniswap’s Vol / TVL is tracking at ~3x Sushiswap’s, ~5x Bancor’s, and ~9x Balancer’s; even with some IL, Uniswap clearly offers the most competitive passive, organic yields. These metrics largely come from Uniswap controlling ~75% of the DEX market. Uniswap can maintain this position through strong network effects; it is commonly the first dApp for new crypto users, which drives volume growth and new token listings, further attracting LPs.
Importantly, even with the fee switch turned on and the parameter set to its maximum value (25% of total revenue), Uniswap will still offer the most competitive unincentivized yields:
Average APR with Max Fee Switch: 1. Uniswap = 13.1% 2. Sushiswap = 7.5% 3. Bancor = 2.4% 4. Balancer* = 2.2% 5. Curve = 1.3%
Notes: Average APR calculated by dividing annualized supply-side revenue by TVL (Source: Token Terminal) *Balancer is currently facing a vote to increase its protocol fees
Second, new protocol fees could be used to ensure Uniswap maintains its position as a market leader. Below are example use cases for additional funds allocated to the treasury:
Importantly, these uses of funds aim to generate additional volume for the protocol and support the UNI token; in other words, LPs could see their yields actually increase from additional top-line revenue. In the long-run, revenue could be redistributed to token holders as well, but the more pressing need for funds is protocol development. These initiatives could be funded through the Uniswap treasury in the short run, but continuously funding them with UNI would place selling pressure on the token; we believe initiatives like these should be explored further.
The DEX space is becoming increasingly competitive; not only are peer AMMs launching additional features and upgrades, but alternative DEX models - notably orderbook-based - are also emerging quickly as alternatives to Uniswap. Protocol revenue should thus be considered a necessity to ensure Uniswap’s long-term success, and we firmly believe more research is required.
I think we know who is holding lots of uni...
Hey thanks for the feedback, I really appreciate it! I totally agree on the points re reviewing Uniswap's governance procedures.
Hi @monet-supply, thanks for the thoughtful comment. I'm actually planning to do some research on this question. If you have any suggestions how to go about it, feel free to reach out to me.
I feel like the proposal that passed adding the .01% fee tier proves meaningful proposals can be passed without incentives, no?
Didn't you receive a UGP grant? I find it troublesome you are viewing it as a "soft rug".
Do you think a proposal should be created to stop funding UGP and have the DeFi Fund return its funds?
The UNI fee switch is a good endeavour and will easily gather support.
I find several issues with how this is proposed. The word "we" is used, but I have no clarity on who is proposing, who is on the team and if they have the capability to follow through to the outline.
The UNI fee switch is a good endeavour and will easily gather support.
I find several issues with how this is proposed. The word "we" is used, but I have no clarity on who is proposing, who is on the team and if they have the capability to follow through to the outline.
I also find it problematic that the cost is very high (10 million USD) and the deliverables are unclear. You also are defaulting to Uniswap Labs building out UI/UX around the fee switch. If legal issues are a concern then this would not be possible. I would find more confidence if you had a team capable of executing considering the money being asked.
My hope is the community can find a more direct and actionable route to the fee switch.
For example a proposal that analyzes a pair that would be suitable for a V3 fee switch and does an individual proposal for that pair, which sets a framework for future fee switches. Similar to how the .01% basis fee pair was initialized.
This proposal is too bureaucratic in nature and unclear to it's research expertise. Value for UNI is a must, but let's do it in a more streamlined way.
What are the main benefits of turning the fee switch. Do you think we can do it in a way that makes TVL and trading volume increase?
Fair point, I wasn't sure if the fee could be turned off once turned on.
Seems like a good approach then, I agree that a lot of research should go into this topic.
As a UNI holder, I believe our most important goal is to improve the quality of the Uniswap DEX, which ultimately would result in it being used by more people. I believe that goal is more important than making the UNI token an income generating token to simply increase our profits. Turning the fee switch would make uniswap less competitive because of reduced LP profits (less TVL and more slippage). The question is, can the fees generated by the fee switch be directed towards the improvement of the Uniswap DEX in a way that would compensate for reduced LP profits? Simply directing the fee to UNI holders would initially make UNI more valuable, but with the drop in trading volume in Uniswap, the UNI value might drop too. Forcing LPs to buy UNI to get trading fees that they are not getting anymore doesn't seem logical to me because they could simply hold the assets and then buy UNI instead of LPing, especially if their fee income no longer covers impermanent loss. Your proposal already assumes that turning the fee switch is good for the protocol, but I think its more responsible to use part of that 0.3-1 million UNI to first conduct research to see if thats even the case.
I'm really interested in finding out whether turning the fee switch will be good for the protocol and I understand that currently the UNI token doesn't have many uses. Maybe trying to find new uses cases for it would be an alternative to turning the fee switch. If your research shows evidence that turning the fee switch will be good for the protocol then I would support it.
If the fee is turned on, what's the advantage of uniswap compared with so many AMMs out there? I can expect the TVL to drop if this happens, which will cause uni price to also dump.
I think it is important to see the cost breakdown of the 3.6 million - 12 million USD (at current prices) to flip the fee switch. It seems quite high for an already coded into the protocol fee switch.
Do you have a team in mind for Ultrasound UNI? Will Ultrasound be developing its own UI/UX around the fee switch's (v2 & v3)?
I think it is important to see the cost breakdown of the 3.6 million - 12 million USD (at current prices) to flip the fee switch. It seems quite high for an already coded into the protocol fee switch.
Do you have a team in mind for Ultrasound UNI? Will Ultrasound be developing its own UI/UX around the fee switch's (v2 & v3)?
I think it is imperative to get the ball running on an initiative like this, but need more information to evaluate if this is the right approach.
Didn't you receive a UGP grant? I find it troublesome you are viewing it as a "soft rug".
Do you think a proposal should be created to stop funding UGP and have the DeFi Fund return its funds?
The UNI fee switch is a good endeavour and will easily gather support.
I find several issues with how this is proposed. The word "we" is used, but I have no clarity on who is proposing, who is on the team and if they have the capability to follow through to the outline.
The UNI fee switch is a good endeavour and will easily gather support.
I find several issues with how this is proposed. The word "we" is used, but I have no clarity on who is proposing, who is on the team and if they have the capability to follow through to the outline.
I also find it problematic that the cost is very high (10 million USD) and the deliverables are unclear. You also are defaulting to Uniswap Labs building out UI/UX around the fee switch. If legal issues are a concern then this would not be possible. I would find more confidence if you had a team capable of executing considering the money being asked.
My hope is the community can find a more direct and actionable route to the fee switch.
For example a proposal that analyzes a pair that would be suitable for a V3 fee switch and does an individual proposal for that pair, which sets a framework for future fee switches. Similar to how the .01% basis fee pair was initialized.
This proposal is too bureaucratic in nature and unclear to it's research expertise. Value for UNI is a must, but let's do it in a more streamlined way.
What are the main benefits of turning the fee switch. Do you think we can do it in a way that makes TVL and trading volume increase?
Fair point, I wasn't sure if the fee could be turned off once turned on.
Seems like a good approach then, I agree that a lot of research should go into this topic.
As a UNI holder, I believe our most important goal is to improve the quality of the Uniswap DEX, which ultimately would result in it being used by more people. I believe that goal is more important than making the UNI token an income generating token to simply increase our profits. Turning the fee switch would make uniswap less competitive because of reduced LP profits (less TVL and more slippage). The question is, can the fees generated by the fee switch be directed towards the improvement of the Uniswap DEX in a way that would compensate for reduced LP profits? Simply directing the fee to UNI holders would initially make UNI more valuable, but with the drop in trading volume in Uniswap, the UNI value might drop too. Forcing LPs to buy UNI to get trading fees that they are not getting anymore doesn't seem logical to me because they could simply hold the assets and then buy UNI instead of LPing, especially if their fee income no longer covers impermanent loss. Your proposal already assumes that turning the fee switch is good for the protocol, but I think its more responsible to use part of that 0.3-1 million UNI to first conduct research to see if thats even the case.
I'm really interested in finding out whether turning the fee switch will be good for the protocol and I understand that currently the UNI token doesn't have many uses. Maybe trying to find new uses cases for it would be an alternative to turning the fee switch. If your research shows evidence that turning the fee switch will be good for the protocol then I would support it.
If the fee is turned on, what's the advantage of uniswap compared with so many AMMs out there? I can expect the TVL to drop if this happens, which will cause uni price to also dump.
I think it is important to see the cost breakdown of the 3.6 million - 12 million USD (at current prices) to flip the fee switch. It seems quite high for an already coded into the protocol fee switch.
Do you have a team in mind for Ultrasound UNI? Will Ultrasound be developing its own UI/UX around the fee switch's (v2 & v3)?
I think it is important to see the cost breakdown of the 3.6 million - 12 million USD (at current prices) to flip the fee switch. It seems quite high for an already coded into the protocol fee switch.
Do you have a team in mind for Ultrasound UNI? Will Ultrasound be developing its own UI/UX around the fee switch's (v2 & v3)?
I think it is imperative to get the ball running on an initiative like this, but need more information to evaluate if this is the right approach.
I think the best way to boost the utility of uni token is to create new markets, like NFT. For FT market, uniswap is already in its best shape.
Good stuff that I sold it a while back. Im pissed for all those who still are though. (Otherwise, I would have voted, "Yes" for the snapshot.)
I truly hope your post is a satire because yeah, you are right. The best way to participate in the success of the Uniswap Protocol is by NOT holding any UNI whatsoever and laugh at those who do by saying, "Look, I know you are -75 % off the ATH, ppl laugh at you on Twitter on the regular, but the BRAND VALUE you are acquiring is THROUGH THE ROOF THOUGH!"
I think we can all agree that the best way forward is to work together and bring value to the ecosystem which does not have to be necessarily of monetary value, but should result at least in the token holders not losing out on value in long term. This is my goal as a community member = not to leave anybody behind.
I truly hope your post is a satire because yeah, you are right. The best way to participate in the success of the Uniswap Protocol is by NOT holding any UNI whatsoever and laugh at those who do by saying, "Look, I know you are -75 % off the ATH, ppl laugh at you on Twitter on the regular, but the BRAND VALUE you are acquiring is THROUGH THE ROOF THOUGH!"
I think we can all agree that the best way forward is to work together and bring value to the ecosystem which does not have to be necessarily of monetary value, but should result at least in the token holders not losing out on value in long term. This is my goal as a community member = not to leave anybody behind.
I didnt think highly of you before, but you just hit a new low in my eyes. Not even an ounce of self-reflection or empathy, but brazen enough to say to people, "You are in so much profit."
Truly sickening to read and to some extent really good trolling.
Agree on the size of the funding is not justified. This type research is shouldn’t be this expensive. If we pay a phd student 100k a year, 10mm can hire 100phds to research on this. It is not rocket science and it should be less than 500k.
I know Getty and GFX lab has been pretty involved in some DAOs and proved to be efficient and constructive. If we going to start with some budgets to improve the governance, including turn on the fee switch and revamp the tokenomics of UNI, we should get Getty involved as well.
Thanks for bringing this up because this is yet another perfect example.
What did the UNI token holders get for making the Uniswap Protocol become the market leader in stablecoin swaps? Nothing.
Thanks for bringing this up because this is yet another perfect example.
What did the UNI token holders get for making the Uniswap Protocol become the market leader in stablecoin swaps? Nothing.
What did Getty and Alex get for their time, concentrated effort, and execution for making Uniswap compete with Curve? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. In fact, they lost because they had to pay for all the gas fees associated with it. Both of them are in net minus.
This is what they got for making Uniswap matter in the billion stablecoin swap business. Absolutely mad. The only real winner here is the Uniswap Labs who gained by making their product look more attractive.
Both Getty and Alex absolutely SHOULD get compensated for their contribution and thats why we need a community run organization that will compensate them for their work funded either through the treasury or partially through the fee switch.
Nice said. Fully agreed. Those so called UNI delegations do not care about Uniswap at all! UNI swap treasury is just a big honey pot for them to dilute and soft rug the remaining UNI holders.
Does receiving a grant mean that I will have to shut up and not disclose my honest opinion? For all its worth, having received a grant should imply a better informed opinion.
I am simply calling these programes what they are - a soft rug. They are inherently taking money out of the holder´s pocket and redistributing them elsewhere. This does not mean they have to be wound up, but Im not going to sit here and scream that they provide extreme value for the token holder when its simply not the case. UNI token is a wealth redistribution mechanism a.k.a a soft rug. It has no inherent value without the fee switch.
Does receiving a grant mean that I will have to shut up and not disclose my honest opinion? For all its worth, having received a grant should imply a better informed opinion.
I am simply calling these programes what they are - a soft rug. They are inherently taking money out of the holder´s pocket and redistributing them elsewhere. This does not mean they have to be wound up, but Im not going to sit here and scream that they provide extreme value for the token holder when its simply not the case. UNI token is a wealth redistribution mechanism a.k.a a soft rug. It has no inherent value without the fee switch.
The Harvard students havent logged in over 6 months. In one of their posts, they stated they would not dump the UNI day one "because it would be problematic". Bam, day one. Half is gone. If you do not want to call that a soft rug, then I do not know what else you want to call it.
Another example is the UGP sponsorship of Team Secret, what value do the token holders get by giving an esports team 250 000 USD in UNI?? How does it improve the value proposition of the Uniswap ecosystem or the value of the token besides B level marketing? Are we really saying that using 250k to pay for an AD is a good use of funds? Wouldnt it be better to allocate the 250k to other projects that are actually BUILDING stuff?
I see it as imperative the UNI token holders have their own association sponsored by the UNI treasury to finally accrue value for the UNI holders. Its high time. If this is not done, the UNI token will remain a laughing stock.
Im not one of those people that will bullshit you and tell you everything is all right and dandy if thats what you are looking for.
$10mm is too expensive for this endeavor. 500k is probably more acceptable.
thanks :) :) waiting for it
could we move for a temperature check ?
i support fee switch activation
I think the best way to boost the utility of uni token is to create new markets, like NFT. For FT market, uniswap is already in its best shape.
Good stuff that I sold it a while back. Im pissed for all those who still are though. (Otherwise, I would have voted, "Yes" for the snapshot.)
I truly hope your post is a satire because yeah, you are right. The best way to participate in the success of the Uniswap Protocol is by NOT holding any UNI whatsoever and laugh at those who do by saying, "Look, I know you are -75 % off the ATH, ppl laugh at you on Twitter on the regular, but the BRAND VALUE you are acquiring is THROUGH THE ROOF THOUGH!"
I think we can all agree that the best way forward is to work together and bring value to the ecosystem which does not have to be necessarily of monetary value, but should result at least in the token holders not losing out on value in long term. This is my goal as a community member = not to leave anybody behind.
I truly hope your post is a satire because yeah, you are right. The best way to participate in the success of the Uniswap Protocol is by NOT holding any UNI whatsoever and laugh at those who do by saying, "Look, I know you are -75 % off the ATH, ppl laugh at you on Twitter on the regular, but the BRAND VALUE you are acquiring is THROUGH THE ROOF THOUGH!"
I think we can all agree that the best way forward is to work together and bring value to the ecosystem which does not have to be necessarily of monetary value, but should result at least in the token holders not losing out on value in long term. This is my goal as a community member = not to leave anybody behind.
I didnt think highly of you before, but you just hit a new low in my eyes. Not even an ounce of self-reflection or empathy, but brazen enough to say to people, "You are in so much profit."
Truly sickening to read and to some extent really good trolling.
Agree on the size of the funding is not justified. This type research is shouldn’t be this expensive. If we pay a phd student 100k a year, 10mm can hire 100phds to research on this. It is not rocket science and it should be less than 500k.
I know Getty and GFX lab has been pretty involved in some DAOs and proved to be efficient and constructive. If we going to start with some budgets to improve the governance, including turn on the fee switch and revamp the tokenomics of UNI, we should get Getty involved as well.
Thanks for bringing this up because this is yet another perfect example.
What did the UNI token holders get for making the Uniswap Protocol become the market leader in stablecoin swaps? Nothing.
Thanks for bringing this up because this is yet another perfect example.
What did the UNI token holders get for making the Uniswap Protocol become the market leader in stablecoin swaps? Nothing.
What did Getty and Alex get for their time, concentrated effort, and execution for making Uniswap compete with Curve? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. In fact, they lost because they had to pay for all the gas fees associated with it. Both of them are in net minus.
This is what they got for making Uniswap matter in the billion stablecoin swap business. Absolutely mad. The only real winner here is the Uniswap Labs who gained by making their product look more attractive.
Both Getty and Alex absolutely SHOULD get compensated for their contribution and thats why we need a community run organization that will compensate them for their work funded either through the treasury or partially through the fee switch.
Nice said. Fully agreed. Those so called UNI delegations do not care about Uniswap at all! UNI swap treasury is just a big honey pot for them to dilute and soft rug the remaining UNI holders.
Does receiving a grant mean that I will have to shut up and not disclose my honest opinion? For all its worth, having received a grant should imply a better informed opinion.
I am simply calling these programes what they are - a soft rug. They are inherently taking money out of the holder´s pocket and redistributing them elsewhere. This does not mean they have to be wound up, but Im not going to sit here and scream that they provide extreme value for the token holder when its simply not the case. UNI token is a wealth redistribution mechanism a.k.a a soft rug. It has no inherent value without the fee switch.
Does receiving a grant mean that I will have to shut up and not disclose my honest opinion? For all its worth, having received a grant should imply a better informed opinion.
I am simply calling these programes what they are - a soft rug. They are inherently taking money out of the holder´s pocket and redistributing them elsewhere. This does not mean they have to be wound up, but Im not going to sit here and scream that they provide extreme value for the token holder when its simply not the case. UNI token is a wealth redistribution mechanism a.k.a a soft rug. It has no inherent value without the fee switch.
The Harvard students havent logged in over 6 months. In one of their posts, they stated they would not dump the UNI day one "because it would be problematic". Bam, day one. Half is gone. If you do not want to call that a soft rug, then I do not know what else you want to call it.
Another example is the UGP sponsorship of Team Secret, what value do the token holders get by giving an esports team 250 000 USD in UNI?? How does it improve the value proposition of the Uniswap ecosystem or the value of the token besides B level marketing? Are we really saying that using 250k to pay for an AD is a good use of funds? Wouldnt it be better to allocate the 250k to other projects that are actually BUILDING stuff?
I see it as imperative the UNI token holders have their own association sponsored by the UNI treasury to finally accrue value for the UNI holders. Its high time. If this is not done, the UNI token will remain a laughing stock.
Im not one of those people that will bullshit you and tell you everything is all right and dandy if thats what you are looking for.
$10mm is too expensive for this endeavor. 500k is probably more acceptable.
thanks :) :) waiting for it
could we move for a temperature check ?
i support fee switch activation
That’s not gonna happen
Having learned that Dan does have the necessary UNI behind the proposal to put it onchain, I do think its a wothwhile endeavour to pursue.
The success of the Uniswap Protocol has been and still is exponential, but the UNI token holders got nothing in return....The only thing that governance has delivered to the token holders is a soft rug in a form of the DeFi Fund and continuous UGP funding. I do not mean to bash these entities. I am simply stating a fact that the UNI token holders have been generous with their wealth and patience.
Having learned that Dan does have the necessary UNI behind the proposal to put it onchain, I do think its a wothwhile endeavour to pursue.
The success of the Uniswap Protocol has been and still is exponential, but the UNI token holders got nothing in return....The only thing that governance has delivered to the token holders is a soft rug in a form of the DeFi Fund and continuous UGP funding. I do not mean to bash these entities. I am simply stating a fact that the UNI token holders have been generous with their wealth and patience.
Its beyond time to stop the ridicule the token has been getting on Twitter by many influencers and let everybody know the UNI token holders are serious.
If we dont turn on fee switch, we would never know if turning on fee switch will drive LP away. This is not a one way street. Fee switch is on pool by pool basis, so if we see the LTV meaningfully dropped for a certain pool, we can always turn off the fee switch for that pool or add liquidity mining reward.
Do you have enough UNI to start an on chain vote? If not, this is kinda pointless. UPDATE: We do! Lets do this.
Another missing part is the governance of using this funding. Like who will manage this funding, who are the multisigs, who are the potential parties that will get involved in this projects etc. the issue is important but thess governance and planing are also important.
I like the idea, but isn’t this something better to get a grant from Uniswap Grant?
That’s not gonna happen
Having learned that Dan does have the necessary UNI behind the proposal to put it onchain, I do think its a wothwhile endeavour to pursue.
The success of the Uniswap Protocol has been and still is exponential, but the UNI token holders got nothing in return....The only thing that governance has delivered to the token holders is a soft rug in a form of the DeFi Fund and continuous UGP funding. I do not mean to bash these entities. I am simply stating a fact that the UNI token holders have been generous with their wealth and patience.
Having learned that Dan does have the necessary UNI behind the proposal to put it onchain, I do think its a wothwhile endeavour to pursue.
The success of the Uniswap Protocol has been and still is exponential, but the UNI token holders got nothing in return....The only thing that governance has delivered to the token holders is a soft rug in a form of the DeFi Fund and continuous UGP funding. I do not mean to bash these entities. I am simply stating a fact that the UNI token holders have been generous with their wealth and patience.
Its beyond time to stop the ridicule the token has been getting on Twitter by many influencers and let everybody know the UNI token holders are serious.
If we dont turn on fee switch, we would never know if turning on fee switch will drive LP away. This is not a one way street. Fee switch is on pool by pool basis, so if we see the LTV meaningfully dropped for a certain pool, we can always turn off the fee switch for that pool or add liquidity mining reward.
Do you have enough UNI to start an on chain vote? If not, this is kinda pointless. UPDATE: We do! Lets do this.
Another missing part is the governance of using this funding. Like who will manage this funding, who are the multisigs, who are the potential parties that will get involved in this projects etc. the issue is important but thess governance and planing are also important.
I like the idea, but isn’t this something better to get a grant from Uniswap Grant?
I agree with you that uniswap has two most important tasks at present:
Rapidly expand the market share and monopolize the market as much as possible in the DEX field
Multi chain expansion and reduce transaction costs as much as possible. At present, the high cost of gas in the chain will limit the development of DEX and will not bring any benefits to uni.
In addition, I have some suggestions:
I agree with you that uniswap has two most important tasks at present:
Rapidly expand the market share and monopolize the market as much as possible in the DEX field
Multi chain expansion and reduce transaction costs as much as possible. At present, the high cost of gas in the chain will limit the development of DEX and will not bring any benefits to uni.
In addition, I have some suggestions:
For the standardization of governance process, it is hoped that a special team will be responsible for promoting the governance progress. As long as any person's opinion reaches a certain amount of support, it can be handed over to a professional team to promote the governance progress;
Increase the approval rate from the current 50% approval rate to more than 66% support rate. The 50-66% support rate should be regarded as a controversial proposal and need to be revised.
Support the development of uni ecological track and give some support in promotion, such as the current project focusing on uni V3 LP: visor, universe
Hi monet-supply,
Perhaps the proposal is too ambitious? I'd love to see how we can work together on funding a smaller research initiative on the topic of the fee switch. Please check your DMs! I am also drafting another temperature check to address your points noted.
Hi monet-supply,
Perhaps the proposal is too ambitious? I'd love to see how we can work together on funding a smaller research initiative on the topic of the fee switch. Please check your DMs! I am also drafting another temperature check to address your points noted.
Though I do have a little trouble with your definition of token holders accruing "value". It seems to me this is somewhat an inaccurate statement since the price of $UNI has fallen from one of the top 10 cryptocurrencies in market capitalization at its peak (excluding stablecoins), and is now down to the bottom 30. It's almost as if the bullish on-chain analytics of the Uniswap protocol appears to be inversely proportional with the collapsing price of $UNI.
The fund aims to solve simple altruistic questions:
The fund also aims to maintain the value of $UNI and the level of participation in Uniswap governance:
Hey all,
I voted against in the temp check, here's my reasoning:
Hi jonsnow,
Getty and his cohort at GFX Labs is one of the main prospective groups we would like to work with on progressing the fee switch. His notable work in leading the 1-basis point fee tier and helping Mihalio for the polygon on-chain vote is indispensable to this proposal. If the temperature check passes, we aim to reach out to several delegates (i.e., Ken Ng., Jesse Walden., John Palmer, Robert Leshner, Monet Supply, etc.) and university governance committees in support of future action to be detailed in the consensus check phase.
Hi pedrosoft,
The snapshot voting poll will be live for 8 days, from Sunday, February 13 to Monday, February 21 (1:00PM).
A link to the snapshot proposal: Snapshot
Hi mgomes,
This is the comment we’ve been looking for. We want to approach the fee switch in a progressive and extremely conservative manner. It would be reckless to blindly apply the fee switch throughout the V3 protocol without an economically justified basis of the fraction of swap fees collected from LPs. It isn’t entirely clear whether applying the fee switch is inherently “good” for the protocol, and for that reason, the organization plans to fund such analysis to demonstrate the optimal fraction of swap fees collected as one part of a multi-action initiative. As you may already note, the fee switch can be applied on a per pool basis on V3, also, the fraction of swap fees collected can be adjusted based on a range set within Uniswap’s V3 limit to ensure LPs are negligibly affected. Overall, we want to ensure a healthy balance between swap fees collected to avoid driving away liquidity on Uniswap.
Hi Apple,
Thank you for flagging down the proposed cost of 0.3 – 1M UNI anticipated for funding the activation of the fee switch. By allocating the proposed funds, we want to achieve a level of rigor in covering all fronts of making the fee switch enablement a success to UNI holders. We appreciate any scrutinization toward the purposeful application of funds. If we reach a consensus check, further details on the proposed distribution will be made based on eliminating risk factors that enabling the fee switch may introduce. As a long-time Uniswap governance member and investor, I share the same frustration in recent developments regarding the controversy surrounding the unannounced sale of ~ $10M worth of UNI. We want to ensure that these funds are vested and used appropriately, or returned to the treasury in good faith. We also anticipate that with the objective of maximizing staked UNI APY that the public good of this proposal is a negligible cost to UNI holders.
Hi Jonsnow,
We originally intended that our proposal be passed through the Uniswap Grants Program (UGP). However, as we progressed with investigating the high-level complexities of enabling the fee switch, we came to the conclusion that UGP would not be the ideal place to start.
Hi Jonsnow,
We originally intended that our proposal be passed through the Uniswap Grants Program (UGP). However, as we progressed with investigating the high-level complexities of enabling the fee switch, we came to the conclusion that UGP would not be the ideal place to start.
In the effort of transparency, we wanted to start off with the community to judge on the formation of a fund on spearheading action toward enabling the fee switch. We also wanted to encourage public discourse on optimally applying the fee switch, and gather valuable insights on potential issues that may arise externally from interacting with Uniswap protocol's smart contracts. Finally, the UGP also has a loose association with Uniswap Labs, and as such, we believe that a governance submission is the only path forward.
Please note the following text: "UNI holders are responsible for ensuring that governance decisions are made in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. To help facilitate this, the fee switch has been initialized to a contract UNI holders can use to vote on tokens for which they will collect fees. The community is encouraged to consult knowledgeable legal and regulatory professionals before implementing any specific proposal." ref
I agree with you that uniswap has two most important tasks at present:
Rapidly expand the market share and monopolize the market as much as possible in the DEX field
Multi chain expansion and reduce transaction costs as much as possible. At present, the high cost of gas in the chain will limit the development of DEX and will not bring any benefits to uni.
In addition, I have some suggestions:
I agree with you that uniswap has two most important tasks at present:
Rapidly expand the market share and monopolize the market as much as possible in the DEX field
Multi chain expansion and reduce transaction costs as much as possible. At present, the high cost of gas in the chain will limit the development of DEX and will not bring any benefits to uni.
In addition, I have some suggestions:
For the standardization of governance process, it is hoped that a special team will be responsible for promoting the governance progress. As long as any person's opinion reaches a certain amount of support, it can be handed over to a professional team to promote the governance progress;
Increase the approval rate from the current 50% approval rate to more than 66% support rate. The 50-66% support rate should be regarded as a controversial proposal and need to be revised.
Support the development of uni ecological track and give some support in promotion, such as the current project focusing on uni V3 LP: visor, universe
Hi monet-supply,
Perhaps the proposal is too ambitious? I'd love to see how we can work together on funding a smaller research initiative on the topic of the fee switch. Please check your DMs! I am also drafting another temperature check to address your points noted.
Hi monet-supply,
Perhaps the proposal is too ambitious? I'd love to see how we can work together on funding a smaller research initiative on the topic of the fee switch. Please check your DMs! I am also drafting another temperature check to address your points noted.
Though I do have a little trouble with your definition of token holders accruing "value". It seems to me this is somewhat an inaccurate statement since the price of $UNI has fallen from one of the top 10 cryptocurrencies in market capitalization at its peak (excluding stablecoins), and is now down to the bottom 30. It's almost as if the bullish on-chain analytics of the Uniswap protocol appears to be inversely proportional with the collapsing price of $UNI.
The fund aims to solve simple altruistic questions:
The fund also aims to maintain the value of $UNI and the level of participation in Uniswap governance:
Hey all,
I voted against in the temp check, here's my reasoning:
Hi jonsnow,
Getty and his cohort at GFX Labs is one of the main prospective groups we would like to work with on progressing the fee switch. His notable work in leading the 1-basis point fee tier and helping Mihalio for the polygon on-chain vote is indispensable to this proposal. If the temperature check passes, we aim to reach out to several delegates (i.e., Ken Ng., Jesse Walden., John Palmer, Robert Leshner, Monet Supply, etc.) and university governance committees in support of future action to be detailed in the consensus check phase.
Hi pedrosoft,
The snapshot voting poll will be live for 8 days, from Sunday, February 13 to Monday, February 21 (1:00PM).
A link to the snapshot proposal: Snapshot
Hi mgomes,
This is the comment we’ve been looking for. We want to approach the fee switch in a progressive and extremely conservative manner. It would be reckless to blindly apply the fee switch throughout the V3 protocol without an economically justified basis of the fraction of swap fees collected from LPs. It isn’t entirely clear whether applying the fee switch is inherently “good” for the protocol, and for that reason, the organization plans to fund such analysis to demonstrate the optimal fraction of swap fees collected as one part of a multi-action initiative. As you may already note, the fee switch can be applied on a per pool basis on V3, also, the fraction of swap fees collected can be adjusted based on a range set within Uniswap’s V3 limit to ensure LPs are negligibly affected. Overall, we want to ensure a healthy balance between swap fees collected to avoid driving away liquidity on Uniswap.
Hi Apple,
Thank you for flagging down the proposed cost of 0.3 – 1M UNI anticipated for funding the activation of the fee switch. By allocating the proposed funds, we want to achieve a level of rigor in covering all fronts of making the fee switch enablement a success to UNI holders. We appreciate any scrutinization toward the purposeful application of funds. If we reach a consensus check, further details on the proposed distribution will be made based on eliminating risk factors that enabling the fee switch may introduce. As a long-time Uniswap governance member and investor, I share the same frustration in recent developments regarding the controversy surrounding the unannounced sale of ~ $10M worth of UNI. We want to ensure that these funds are vested and used appropriately, or returned to the treasury in good faith. We also anticipate that with the objective of maximizing staked UNI APY that the public good of this proposal is a negligible cost to UNI holders.
Hi Jonsnow,
We originally intended that our proposal be passed through the Uniswap Grants Program (UGP). However, as we progressed with investigating the high-level complexities of enabling the fee switch, we came to the conclusion that UGP would not be the ideal place to start.
Hi Jonsnow,
We originally intended that our proposal be passed through the Uniswap Grants Program (UGP). However, as we progressed with investigating the high-level complexities of enabling the fee switch, we came to the conclusion that UGP would not be the ideal place to start.
In the effort of transparency, we wanted to start off with the community to judge on the formation of a fund on spearheading action toward enabling the fee switch. We also wanted to encourage public discourse on optimally applying the fee switch, and gather valuable insights on potential issues that may arise externally from interacting with Uniswap protocol's smart contracts. Finally, the UGP also has a loose association with Uniswap Labs, and as such, we believe that a governance submission is the only path forward.
Please note the following text: "UNI holders are responsible for ensuring that governance decisions are made in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. To help facilitate this, the fee switch has been initialized to a contract UNI holders can use to vote on tokens for which they will collect fees. The community is encouraged to consult knowledgeable legal and regulatory professionals before implementing any specific proposal." ref
Hey all,
I voted against in the temp check, here's my reasoning:
I'd support a smaller initiative to research fee switch and have a better idea on how large of protocol fees the market can bear - personally I'm assuming DEX trade execution will become a very efficient market which will be difficult to monetize directly, but this is just my intuition and I'd love to have some data to confirm/refute my hypothesis.
One other comment, just because Uniswap isn't actively paying out revenue to token holders doesn't mean that token holders aren't accruing value. UNI dex market share has been rising steadily, and many more users consider Uniswap to be synonymous with Ethereum DEX trading (brand value). We're also winning the war of attrition with other dex projects like Sushi, who are forced to pay out unsustainable incentives to maintain TVL just to remain competitive. Among all major dex protocols, Uniswap has by far the best profitability (including both revenues and cost of token incentives).
Hi Apple,
Thank you for flagging down the proposed cost of 0.3 – 1M UNI anticipated for funding the activation of the fee switch. By allocating the proposed funds, we want to achieve a level of rigor in covering all fronts of making the fee switch enablement a success to UNI holders. We appreciate any scrutinization toward the purposeful application of funds. If we reach a consensus check, further details on the proposed distribution will be made based on eliminating risk factors that enabling the fee switch may introduce. As a long-time Uniswap governance member and investor, I share the same frustration in recent developments regarding the controversy surrounding the unannounced sale of ~ $10M worth of UNI. We want to ensure that these funds are vested and used appropriately, or returned to the treasury in good faith. We also anticipate that with the objective of maximizing staked UNI APY that the public good of this proposal is a negligible cost to UNI holders.
Regarding your question on the topic of team composition, we plan to onboard members as see fit and based on elements that require addressing before pushing a proposal on toggling the fee switch. We expect that USL is capable of creating the necessary contracts and UX/UI extensions to the app.uniswap.org website, however, the creation of a separate UI/UX entity can be funded through this proposal if required.
Hey all,
I voted against in the temp check, here's my reasoning:
I'd support a smaller initiative to research fee switch and have a better idea on how large of protocol fees the market can bear - personally I'm assuming DEX trade execution will become a very efficient market which will be difficult to monetize directly, but this is just my intuition and I'd love to have some data to confirm/refute my hypothesis.
One other comment, just because Uniswap isn't actively paying out revenue to token holders doesn't mean that token holders aren't accruing value. UNI dex market share has been rising steadily, and many more users consider Uniswap to be synonymous with Ethereum DEX trading (brand value). We're also winning the war of attrition with other dex projects like Sushi, who are forced to pay out unsustainable incentives to maintain TVL just to remain competitive. Among all major dex protocols, Uniswap has by far the best profitability (including both revenues and cost of token incentives).
Hi Apple,
Thank you for flagging down the proposed cost of 0.3 – 1M UNI anticipated for funding the activation of the fee switch. By allocating the proposed funds, we want to achieve a level of rigor in covering all fronts of making the fee switch enablement a success to UNI holders. We appreciate any scrutinization toward the purposeful application of funds. If we reach a consensus check, further details on the proposed distribution will be made based on eliminating risk factors that enabling the fee switch may introduce. As a long-time Uniswap governance member and investor, I share the same frustration in recent developments regarding the controversy surrounding the unannounced sale of ~ $10M worth of UNI. We want to ensure that these funds are vested and used appropriately, or returned to the treasury in good faith. We also anticipate that with the objective of maximizing staked UNI APY that the public good of this proposal is a negligible cost to UNI holders.
Regarding your question on the topic of team composition, we plan to onboard members as see fit and based on elements that require addressing before pushing a proposal on toggling the fee switch. We expect that USL is capable of creating the necessary contracts and UX/UI extensions to the app.uniswap.org website, however, the creation of a separate UI/UX entity can be funded through this proposal if required.
