We Blockchain at Michigan are submitting this proposal for initiating Uniswap v3 deployment on the Avalanche blockchain. With the BSL expiring on April 1st, the Uniswap Foundation has stated the importance of Uniswap v3 expansion to popular EVM chains. Establishing Uniswap on alt L1s–and not just on Ethereum L2s–is vital for establishing a robust, multichain future. After consulting with the Ava Labs team, we believe that this is a crucial and opportune time for Uniswap to expand to Avalanche’s growing ecosystem.
The primary urgency behind this proposal is the upcoming BSL expiration on April 1st. As soon as the license expires, all entities will have the legal right to duplicate Uniswap v3 and utilize the forked code for commercial purposes. Invariably, large chains like Avalanche will see a rapid influx of v3 copycats, which will dilute the markets on those respective chains. It is therefore imperative for Uniswap v3 to get ahead of the competitors by launching on large chains before duplicates arise. Trader Joe v2, the current leading DEX on Avalanche, did $92.45M of volume in the past 24 hours (Feb 23)–indicative of the demand for a concentrated liquidity AMM. Due to the continual growth of the Avalanche ecosystem, along with the liquidity present on the platform, we believe that this proposal be enacted as soon as possible to ensure that Uniswap establishes a foothold in the Avalanche DEX market.
We realize that beyond the chain of deployment, the community must also consider the required cross-chain messaging protocol. Although the DAO previously coalesced to utilize Wormhole for the BNB Chain deployment, we believe that such a decision should not set a precedent for bridge selection. A vendor lock-in model would prevent the further testing of equally renowned messaging protocols like LayerZero. A handful of delegates and tokenholders have also pioneered a more novel approach to governance messaging, where cross-chain governance relies not on a single bridge but simultaneously on a handful of bridges. Although we see the merits of a multi-bridge system, it will take time for this approach to garner attention and be fully vetted. The DAO can decide to opt into a multi bridge system in the future–but for an agile deployment that can be implemented in the present, we believe that LayerZero is the best solution.
Avalanche is a blockchain platform that utilizes three separate blockchains, the Platform Chain (P-Chain), Contract Chain (C-Chain), and Exchange Chain (X-Chain), to improve scalability and interoperability. These three chains compose a consortium of validators called the Primary Network, which is responsible for Avalanche’s security.
Avalanche operates with the Avalanche consensus algorithm, which is designed to be more efficient than alternative consensus mechanisms and enables EVM-compatibility. The consensus mechanism checks validators’ transaction confirmations randomly by allowing all nodes to work in parallel, increasing the probability that a transaction is valid. The C-Chain leverages the Snowman consensus protocol, which mimics Avalanche consensus but is optimized for smart contract integration. Therefore, most Avalanche dAPP activity currently transpires on the C-chain.
In comparison to other smart contract platforms, Avalanche touts 2-second time-to-finality, faster than any of its peers (ex. Ethereum finality is 10 minutes). Uniswap on Avalanche would thereby enhance the user experience for both application users and liquidity providers.
Avalanche also allows for an unbounded number of validators without sacrificing block time. This allows for an increasing degree of decentralization over time. In Q4 2022, the platform’s Nakamoto coefficient increased from 30 to 32–surpassing most other L1s–and is poised to continue in an upward direction. Currently, there are 1,228 validators and over 233M AVAX tokens staked. The expanding validator set and staked AVAX tokens exemplify a robust L1.
The Avalanche architecture permits a high degree of scalability through its ecosystem of subnets. Similar to Ethereum’s L2s, subnets allow for outsourcing blockspace from the Primary Network to alternative blockchains. Application-specific blockchains can be launched under customized subnets, granting builders control over their development stack (subnets specify their own execution logic, fee regime, state, networking, and security). Large protocols that initially relied on the C-Chain, like DFK and StepNetwork, are now migrating to their individualized subnets. The increase in subnets furthers the security of Avalanche since each subnet’s validators must simultaneously secure the Primary Network.
Increased application activity on the C-Chain and subnets presents Avalanche as an expanding ecosystem. At the time of writing, according to DeFi Llama, Avalanche holds over $950M of TVL across 281 different protocols.
Since launching in Q3 2020, Avalanche’s txn count has cumulatively increased to nearly 700M. Messari reported that between Nov 2021 - Nov 2022 alone, the network experienced YoY txn growth of 1,507%. Although daily active users remained relatively steady since Summer 2022, average daily transactions increased from ~1M to ~3M, indicating the emergence of power users. A reliable user base is imperative for a properly functioning Uniswap protocol. The presence of long-term liquidity provision would aid in bootstrapping individual subnets as well as making the C-Chain more robust.
Post deployment, the most fierce competitor for Uni v3 will be Trader Joe. Since Trader Joe recently released a Uni v3-like, capital efficient AMM, Uniswap has an incentive to capture as much of Avalanche’s DEX market prior to Trader Joe v2 locking in a concrete user base. Plus, after the BSL expires in April, numerous Uni v3 forks will invariably launch on Avalanche. Therefore, to minimize Uniswap’s dilution in the Avalanche ecosystem, the DAO is incentivized to launch v3 as soon as possible.
Due to Uniswap’s strong brand, it has the ability to capture market share from existing DEXs and attract liquidity from new users. A notable historical anecdote is Polygon. Once Uni v3 launched on Polygon, it quickly acquired market share from both Quickswap and Sushiswap. Although this experiment is yet to be tested on an alt L1, it is likely that a similar pattern will surface on Avalanche–although Trader Joe may present a higher degree of friction. Nonetheless, it is not necessary that the DEX competition will result in a zero-sum game and can favor both Trader Joe and Uniswap simultaneously.
Apart from DeFi developments, Avalanche has also made strides in other sectors like gaming, NFTs, and user adoption. Further facilitation of each of these categories is enabled by a DEX like Uniswap. And in turn, Uniswap liquidity providers–and maybe token holders–will attain economic value from the protocol’s increased usage.
We propose using LayerZero, an omnichain bridging solution, to facilitate cross-chain message passing between Ethereum and Avalanche. LayerZero has pre-existing support for both Avalanche and Ethereum.
The first use case of Omnichain Fungible Token (OFT) transfer has been active for nearly 4 months on Avalanche. LayerZero allows Avalanche BTC (BTC.b) bridging between all LayerZero-supported chains, creating a composable, unified liquidity system for BTC. From the 25+ supported chains, two, DFK and Swimmer, are run as their own subnets. Apart from cross-chain asset transferring, LayerZero also supports arbitrary message passing–which includes governance communication between Uniswap on Ethereum to Avalanche.
LayerZero is backed by the likes of a16z, Sequoia, Uniswap Labs, Coinbase, and numerous others–it is supported by thousands of cross-chain builders with over 2,000 contracts deployed on mainnet, ~700 unique applications, ~2M total messages, ~$5B transactional volume, and billions of dollars in TVL.
Is the bridge secured by a trusted entity, by a multi sig, or a protocol/set of incentivized nodes?
LayerZero endpoints rely on an architecture leveraging Ultra Light Nodes and two off-chain entities called oracles and relayers to securely relay messages between endpoints on a source and destination chain. The oracle is responsible for relaying block headers, and with the default LayerZero setup, will be handled by Chainlink. A transaction proof is sent using the relayer; the default relayer is operated by LayerZero. Hence, the security of the system relies on 2 entities. The primary assumption behind this setup is that the oracle and relayer remain independent at all times. Collusion between the entities would lead to a compromised system. Uniswap will have the option to operate one or both of these entities which would decrease the possibility of collusion.
Is the bridge secured by a trusted entity, by a multi sig, or a protocol/set of incentivized nodes?
LayerZero leverages direct MPT validation construction of the source transaction and verifies the merkle inclusion proof directly on the destination chain via the protocol’s novel Ultra Light Node (ULN).
Is it possible for a fraudulent message to be passed to the destination chain? If so, are there any recall mechanisms?
Malicious message transmission is a possibility if there is a compromise of both the oracle and relayer sets. Both entities would have to agree to approve a fraudulent message together and against the same application. For example, the decentralized Chainlink DON would have to actively collude with the LayerZero Labs relayer at the same time to enable passing of a malicious message. If the application selects multiple oracles and multiple relayers, thereby pricing its security higher, fraudulent message passing would require more independent parties to be simultaneously compromised.
What are the ramifications of fraud to the malicious actor?
Unlike some other bridges, LayerZero does not pose an economic stake or bond to punish malicious actors via a slashing mechanism. Instead, if the default oracle-relayer configuration is compromised, then there is a reputational backlash that would beset LayerZero and Chainlink–since they are the entities responsible for the relayer and oracle, respectively. However, if Uniswap decides to control the messaging stack by running either the oracle or relayer, then Uniswap itself will have to answer for its shortcomings if there happens to be malicious activity.
LayerZero is also designed to be censorship resistant. Oracles and Relayers cannot censor messages without censoring all messages due to the sequential nonce ordered enforcement on the receiving chain. As a result, if an attacker obtained control of the Uniswap-selected Oracles or Relayers, and succeeded in censoring a message, every subsequent message would also be censored and the vote would stop. Uniswap could then expediently resolve the issue by updating configurations and messaging would resume.
Has the bridge code been audited? By a third party? What attack vectors and vulnerabilities were identified, if any? Have the identified vulnerabilities been remedied?
Immutability is part and parcel to LayerZero’s infrastructure. Its smart contracts are not upgradable and therefore aren’t prone to bugs due to smart contract updates. Smart contract bugs is the predominant historical cause for bridge exploits, as was the case with Wormhole’s $300M and Nomad’s $190M hack in 2022. To ensure that the current LayerZero contracts are reliable enough to be set in stone and entirely independent from LayerZero Labs’ future involvements, the protocol has been audited 35+ times and reviewed at least 3+ times by the LayerZero Labs team.
LayerZero is the only major cross-chain messaging protocol to have secured significant transaction volume (~$5B) over time without any exploit, compromise of key infrastructure, or loss of user funds. Additionally, LayerZero has the largest live bug bounty across the industry at up to $15M.
Following deployment, if Uniswap governance would like to switch to a different bridge setup, the DAO can do so with a future proposal. There are current ruminations regarding a multi bridge messaging setup–but that is too early to implement for this proposal. Much like the recent BNB Chain deployment proposal, we recommend utilizing a single bridge for the time being and integrating a more novel system later on after the BSL expiration.
We are requesting an exemption via an Additional Use Grant (license change enacted via the ENS domain uniswap.eth) that would allow LayerZero to use the Licensed Work to deploy it on Avalanche, provided that the deployment is subject to Ethereum layer 1 Uniswap Protocol governance and control. Uniswap v3 will be deployed on Avalanche by LayerZero Labs through the “Deploy Uniswap V3 Script”. LayerZero Labs would be permitted to use subcontractors to do this work.
Once the on-chain governance proposal is completed, LayerZero Labs will deploy the Uniswap v3 smart contracts on the Avalanche C-Chain. Uniswap Labs will handle the front-end integration updates and include Avalanche to the auto router. Altogether, this deployment will take ~5 weeks to complete.
We Blockchain at Michigan are submitting this proposal for initiating Uniswap v3 deployment on the Avalanche blockchain. With the BSL expiring on April 1st, the Uniswap Foundation has stated the importance of Uniswap v3 expansion to popular EVM chains. Establishing Uniswap on alt L1s–and not just on Ethereum L2s–is vital for establishing a robust, multichain future. After consulting with the Ava Labs team, we believe that this is a crucial and opportune time for Uniswap to expand to Avalanche’s growing ecosystem.
The primary urgency behind this proposal is the upcoming BSL expiration on April 1st. As soon as the license expires, all entities will have the legal right to duplicate Uniswap v3 and utilize the forked code for commercial purposes. Invariably, large chains like Avalanche will see a rapid influx of v3 copycats, which will dilute the markets on those respective chains. It is therefore imperative for Uniswap v3 to get ahead of the competitors by launching on large chains before duplicates arise. Trader Joe v2, the current leading DEX on Avalanche, did $92.45M of volume in the past 24 hours (Feb 23)–indicative of the demand for a concentrated liquidity AMM. Due to the continual growth of the Avalanche ecosystem, along with the liquidity present on the platform, we believe that this proposal be enacted as soon as possible to ensure that Uniswap establishes a foothold in the Avalanche DEX market.
We realize that beyond the chain of deployment, the community must also consider the required cross-chain messaging protocol. Although the DAO previously coalesced to utilize Wormhole for the BNB Chain deployment, we believe that such a decision should not set a precedent for bridge selection. A vendor lock-in model would prevent the further testing of equally renowned messaging protocols like LayerZero. A handful of delegates and tokenholders have also pioneered a more novel approach to governance messaging, where cross-chain governance relies not on a single bridge but simultaneously on a handful of bridges. Although we see the merits of a multi-bridge system, it will take time for this approach to garner attention and be fully vetted. The DAO can decide to opt into a multi bridge system in the future–but for an agile deployment that can be implemented in the present, we believe that LayerZero is the best solution.
Avalanche is a blockchain platform that utilizes three separate blockchains, the Platform Chain (P-Chain), Contract Chain (C-Chain), and Exchange Chain (X-Chain), to improve scalability and interoperability. These three chains compose a consortium of validators called the Primary Network, which is responsible for Avalanche’s security.
Avalanche operates with the Avalanche consensus algorithm, which is designed to be more efficient than alternative consensus mechanisms and enables EVM-compatibility. The consensus mechanism checks validators’ transaction confirmations randomly by allowing all nodes to work in parallel, increasing the probability that a transaction is valid. The C-Chain leverages the Snowman consensus protocol, which mimics Avalanche consensus but is optimized for smart contract integration. Therefore, most Avalanche dAPP activity currently transpires on the C-chain.
In comparison to other smart contract platforms, Avalanche touts 2-second time-to-finality, faster than any of its peers (ex. Ethereum finality is 10 minutes). Uniswap on Avalanche would thereby enhance the user experience for both application users and liquidity providers.
Avalanche also allows for an unbounded number of validators without sacrificing block time. This allows for an increasing degree of decentralization over time. In Q4 2022, the platform’s Nakamoto coefficient increased from 30 to 32–surpassing most other L1s–and is poised to continue in an upward direction. Currently, there are 1,228 validators and over 233M AVAX tokens staked. The expanding validator set and staked AVAX tokens exemplify a robust L1.
The Avalanche architecture permits a high degree of scalability through its ecosystem of subnets. Similar to Ethereum’s L2s, subnets allow for outsourcing blockspace from the Primary Network to alternative blockchains. Application-specific blockchains can be launched under customized subnets, granting builders control over their development stack (subnets specify their own execution logic, fee regime, state, networking, and security). Large protocols that initially relied on the C-Chain, like DFK and StepNetwork, are now migrating to their individualized subnets. The increase in subnets furthers the security of Avalanche since each subnet’s validators must simultaneously secure the Primary Network.
Increased application activity on the C-Chain and subnets presents Avalanche as an expanding ecosystem. At the time of writing, according to DeFi Llama, Avalanche holds over $950M of TVL across 281 different protocols.
Since launching in Q3 2020, Avalanche’s txn count has cumulatively increased to nearly 700M. Messari reported that between Nov 2021 - Nov 2022 alone, the network experienced YoY txn growth of 1,507%. Although daily active users remained relatively steady since Summer 2022, average daily transactions increased from ~1M to ~3M, indicating the emergence of power users. A reliable user base is imperative for a properly functioning Uniswap protocol. The presence of long-term liquidity provision would aid in bootstrapping individual subnets as well as making the C-Chain more robust.
Post deployment, the most fierce competitor for Uni v3 will be Trader Joe. Since Trader Joe recently released a Uni v3-like, capital efficient AMM, Uniswap has an incentive to capture as much of Avalanche’s DEX market prior to Trader Joe v2 locking in a concrete user base. Plus, after the BSL expires in April, numerous Uni v3 forks will invariably launch on Avalanche. Therefore, to minimize Uniswap’s dilution in the Avalanche ecosystem, the DAO is incentivized to launch v3 as soon as possible.
Due to Uniswap’s strong brand, it has the ability to capture market share from existing DEXs and attract liquidity from new users. A notable historical anecdote is Polygon. Once Uni v3 launched on Polygon, it quickly acquired market share from both Quickswap and Sushiswap. Although this experiment is yet to be tested on an alt L1, it is likely that a similar pattern will surface on Avalanche–although Trader Joe may present a higher degree of friction. Nonetheless, it is not necessary that the DEX competition will result in a zero-sum game and can favor both Trader Joe and Uniswap simultaneously.
Apart from DeFi developments, Avalanche has also made strides in other sectors like gaming, NFTs, and user adoption. Further facilitation of each of these categories is enabled by a DEX like Uniswap. And in turn, Uniswap liquidity providers–and maybe token holders–will attain economic value from the protocol’s increased usage.
We propose using LayerZero, an omnichain bridging solution, to facilitate cross-chain message passing between Ethereum and Avalanche. LayerZero has pre-existing support for both Avalanche and Ethereum.
The first use case of Omnichain Fungible Token (OFT) transfer has been active for nearly 4 months on Avalanche. LayerZero allows Avalanche BTC (BTC.b) bridging between all LayerZero-supported chains, creating a composable, unified liquidity system for BTC. From the 25+ supported chains, two, DFK and Swimmer, are run as their own subnets. Apart from cross-chain asset transferring, LayerZero also supports arbitrary message passing–which includes governance communication between Uniswap on Ethereum to Avalanche.
LayerZero is backed by the likes of a16z, Sequoia, Uniswap Labs, Coinbase, and numerous others–it is supported by thousands of cross-chain builders with over 2,000 contracts deployed on mainnet, ~700 unique applications, ~2M total messages, ~$5B transactional volume, and billions of dollars in TVL.
Is the bridge secured by a trusted entity, by a multi sig, or a protocol/set of incentivized nodes?
LayerZero endpoints rely on an architecture leveraging Ultra Light Nodes and two off-chain entities called oracles and relayers to securely relay messages between endpoints on a source and destination chain. The oracle is responsible for relaying block headers, and with the default LayerZero setup, will be handled by Chainlink. A transaction proof is sent using the relayer; the default relayer is operated by LayerZero. Hence, the security of the system relies on 2 entities. The primary assumption behind this setup is that the oracle and relayer remain independent at all times. Collusion between the entities would lead to a compromised system. Uniswap will have the option to operate one or both of these entities which would decrease the possibility of collusion.
Is the bridge secured by a trusted entity, by a multi sig, or a protocol/set of incentivized nodes?
LayerZero leverages direct MPT validation construction of the source transaction and verifies the merkle inclusion proof directly on the destination chain via the protocol’s novel Ultra Light Node (ULN).
Is it possible for a fraudulent message to be passed to the destination chain? If so, are there any recall mechanisms?
Malicious message transmission is a possibility if there is a compromise of both the oracle and relayer sets. Both entities would have to agree to approve a fraudulent message together and against the same application. For example, the decentralized Chainlink DON would have to actively collude with the LayerZero Labs relayer at the same time to enable passing of a malicious message. If the application selects multiple oracles and multiple relayers, thereby pricing its security higher, fraudulent message passing would require more independent parties to be simultaneously compromised.
What are the ramifications of fraud to the malicious actor?
Unlike some other bridges, LayerZero does not pose an economic stake or bond to punish malicious actors via a slashing mechanism. Instead, if the default oracle-relayer configuration is compromised, then there is a reputational backlash that would beset LayerZero and Chainlink–since they are the entities responsible for the relayer and oracle, respectively. However, if Uniswap decides to control the messaging stack by running either the oracle or relayer, then Uniswap itself will have to answer for its shortcomings if there happens to be malicious activity.
LayerZero is also designed to be censorship resistant. Oracles and Relayers cannot censor messages without censoring all messages due to the sequential nonce ordered enforcement on the receiving chain. As a result, if an attacker obtained control of the Uniswap-selected Oracles or Relayers, and succeeded in censoring a message, every subsequent message would also be censored and the vote would stop. Uniswap could then expediently resolve the issue by updating configurations and messaging would resume.
Has the bridge code been audited? By a third party? What attack vectors and vulnerabilities were identified, if any? Have the identified vulnerabilities been remedied?
Immutability is part and parcel to LayerZero’s infrastructure. Its smart contracts are not upgradable and therefore aren’t prone to bugs due to smart contract updates. Smart contract bugs is the predominant historical cause for bridge exploits, as was the case with Wormhole’s $300M and Nomad’s $190M hack in 2022. To ensure that the current LayerZero contracts are reliable enough to be set in stone and entirely independent from LayerZero Labs’ future involvements, the protocol has been audited 35+ times and reviewed at least 3+ times by the LayerZero Labs team.
LayerZero is the only major cross-chain messaging protocol to have secured significant transaction volume (~$5B) over time without any exploit, compromise of key infrastructure, or loss of user funds. Additionally, LayerZero has the largest live bug bounty across the industry at up to $15M.
Following deployment, if Uniswap governance would like to switch to a different bridge setup, the DAO can do so with a future proposal. There are current ruminations regarding a multi bridge messaging setup–but that is too early to implement for this proposal. Much like the recent BNB Chain deployment proposal, we recommend utilizing a single bridge for the time being and integrating a more novel system later on after the BSL expiration.
We are requesting an exemption via an Additional Use Grant (license change enacted via the ENS domain uniswap.eth) that would allow LayerZero to use the Licensed Work to deploy it on Avalanche, provided that the deployment is subject to Ethereum layer 1 Uniswap Protocol governance and control. Uniswap v3 will be deployed on Avalanche by LayerZero Labs through the “Deploy Uniswap V3 Script”. LayerZero Labs would be permitted to use subcontractors to do this work.
Once the on-chain governance proposal is completed, LayerZero Labs will deploy the Uniswap v3 smart contracts on the Avalanche C-Chain. Uniswap Labs will handle the front-end integration updates and include Avalanche to the auto router. Altogether, this deployment will take ~5 weeks to complete.
https://gov.uniswap.org/t/deploy-uniswap-v3-on-avalanche/20587/11?u=eek637
https://gov.uniswap.org/t/deploy-uniswap-v3-on-avalanche/20587/11?u=eek637
Uniswap v3 contracts are deployed on Avalanche at the following addresses:
| Contract | Address |
|---|---|
| UniswapV3Factory | 0x740b1c1de25031C31FF4fC9A62f554A55cdC1baD |
| Multicall2 | 0x0139141Cd4Ee88dF3Cdb65881D411bAE271Ef0C2 |
| ProxyAdmin | 0x9AdA7D7879214073F40183F3410F2b3f088c6381 |
| TickLens | 0xEB9fFC8bf81b4fFd11fb6A63a6B0f098c6e21950 |
| NFTDescriptor | 0x27Dd7eE7fE723e83Bf3612a75a034951fe299E99 |
| NonfungibleTokenPositionDescriptor | 0xe89B7C295d73FCCe88eF263F86e7310925DaEBAF |
| DescriptorProxy | 0xE1f93a7cB6fFa2dB4F9d5A2FD43158A428993C09 |
| NonfungibleTokenPositionManager | 0x655C406EBFa14EE2006250925e54ec43AD184f8B |
| V3Migrator | 0x44f5f1f5E452ea8d29C890E8F6e893fC0f1f0f97 |
| V3Staker | 0xCA9D0668C600c4dd07ca54Be1615FE5CDFd76Ac3 |
| QuoterV2 | 0xbe0F5544EC67e9B3b2D979aaA43f18Fd87E6257F |
| SwapRouter02 | 0xbb00FF08d01D300023C629E8fFfFcb65A5a578cE |
Uniswap v3 contracts are deployed on Avalanche at the following addresses:
| Contract | Address |
|---|---|
| UniswapV3Factory | 0x740b1c1de25031C31FF4fC9A62f554A55cdC1baD |
| Multicall2 | 0x0139141Cd4Ee88dF3Cdb65881D411bAE271Ef0C2 |
| ProxyAdmin | 0x9AdA7D7879214073F40183F3410F2b3f088c6381 |
| TickLens | 0xEB9fFC8bf81b4fFd11fb6A63a6B0f098c6e21950 |
| NFTDescriptor | 0x27Dd7eE7fE723e83Bf3612a75a034951fe299E99 |
| NonfungibleTokenPositionDescriptor | 0xe89B7C295d73FCCe88eF263F86e7310925DaEBAF |
| DescriptorProxy | 0xE1f93a7cB6fFa2dB4F9d5A2FD43158A428993C09 |
| NonfungibleTokenPositionManager | 0x655C406EBFa14EE2006250925e54ec43AD184f8B |
| V3Migrator | 0x44f5f1f5E452ea8d29C890E8F6e893fC0f1f0f97 |
| V3Staker | 0xCA9D0668C600c4dd07ca54Be1615FE5CDFd76Ac3 |
| QuoterV2 | 0xbe0F5544EC67e9B3b2D979aaA43f18Fd87E6257F |
| SwapRouter02 | 0xbb00FF08d01D300023C629E8fFfFcb65A5a578cE |
| Contract | Address |
|---|---|
| OmnichainProposalSender | 0xeb0BCF27D1Fb4b25e708fBB815c421Aeb51eA9fc |
| OmnichainGovernanceExecutor | 0xeb0BCF27D1Fb4b25e708fBB815c421Aeb51eA9fc |
Hello everyone, I'm one of the core contributors to BENQI, and I'm excited to have Uniswap deploy on Avalanche. Thanks everyone for sharing their thoughts on the proposal so far!
Avantgarde's suggestions seems to make the most sense to me thus far given the ongoing debate on both sides regarding the bridge. Is there a rush to decide on a bridge provider at this point? A decision by the Bridge Assessment Committee post deployment seems like the most prudent, and expedient, approach.
Thank you Kari for sharing with the Uni members here about MAP Protocol. As the omnichain layer for Web3, we envision a future where every chain can be connected seamlessly and users can use dApps just like the way they use Web2 apps -- intuitive, easy, but more privacy-preserving. We also will plan to add Avalanche to our omnichain network to enable greater interoperability.
Hello everyone, Kari from MAP Protocol here. (MAP Protocol is the interoperable omnichain layer built upon ZK and light client) :eyeglasses:
Thanks @AbdullahUmar for putting the well-written proposal. Deploying Uniswap v3 on Avalanche will be a plus for a DEX product like Uniswap, especially with Avalanche's star defi products such as traderjoe and gmx. And Just like @paulsengh mentioned, putting the burden of LP on initial users would not be fair and a better way should be bootstrapping the network.
Hello everyone, Kari from MAP Protocol here. (MAP Protocol is the interoperable omnichain layer built upon ZK and light client) :eyeglasses:
Thanks @AbdullahUmar for putting the well-written proposal. Deploying Uniswap v3 on Avalanche will be a plus for a DEX product like Uniswap, especially with Avalanche's star defi products such as traderjoe and gmx. And Just like @paulsengh mentioned, putting the burden of LP on initial users would not be fair and a better way should be bootstrapping the network.
Great to know that you've already had a bridge option for the deployment. If the DAO implemented the multi-bridge system, will that mean Avalanche will also consider other bridge options for the deployment?
Thanks for the comments everyone. We appreciate @Ldemeo88 and the Avalanche community’s desire to work with the wishes of the Uniswap DAO. Avalanche is a thriving ecosystem and a prime candidate for a Uniswap V3 deployment. So, for the avoidance of doubt, we at Wormhole are excited to throw our hat in the ring here.
To comment on the landscape where this vote falls - we understand that this proposal comes on the back of a contentious vote for BNB along with the ongoing work to do a full evaluation of bridge providers.
Thanks for the comments everyone. We appreciate @Ldemeo88 and the Avalanche community’s desire to work with the wishes of the Uniswap DAO. Avalanche is a thriving ecosystem and a prime candidate for a Uniswap V3 deployment. So, for the avoidance of doubt, we at Wormhole are excited to throw our hat in the ring here.
To comment on the landscape where this vote falls - we understand that this proposal comes on the back of a contentious vote for BNB along with the ongoing work to do a full evaluation of bridge providers.
However, given the pending BSL expiry and recently having been voted in to service the BNB deployment, we believe that Wormhole is a strong contender as the most pragmatic choice until consensus is reached by the community.
Given that the BNB deployment is live and should be added to the UI within a week, we feel confident in Wormhole’s ability to deliver for the Uniswap and Avalanche communities.
We look forward to comments and questions!
Thank you for the comment @blueberryboy . As far as I am concerned and Ava Labs in particular, we would not be opposed to other bridges being selected if the Uniswap community explicitly desired - whether that was Wormhole, Axelar, Synapse or others. We worked with LayerZero particularly on this proposal and also value them on their merits as well. As @AbdullahUmar mentioned, we also look forward to the multi-bridge system by the DAO.
Thanks for submitting this in-depth proposal @AbdullahUmar
It's a no-brainer to me: it makes total sense for Uniswap V3 to expand to blockchains with active DeFi ecosystems and less competition for concentrated liquidity AMMs before the license expires and fork season begins.
Thanks for submitting this in-depth proposal @AbdullahUmar
It's a no-brainer to me: it makes total sense for Uniswap V3 to expand to blockchains with active DeFi ecosystems and less competition for concentrated liquidity AMMs before the license expires and fork season begins.
You briefly mention the possibility of implementing a multi-bridge system and I think that could be the right approach here. How open are you to using multiple bridges as opposed to only using LayerZero?
The leverage capabilities from concentrating liquidity certainly can help individual LPs earn a larger share of fees compared to other LPs, but the "chicken or egg" problem still exists for the network at large––initial traders will be drawn to more liquid markets on Avalanche, and initial LPs will be dissuaded by the lack of trading fees. To be sure, it is very well possible that liquidity will be raised (as in your example of Trader Joe), but I am not convinced that those initial LPs will be profitable on a risk-adjusted basis. Given that those initial LPs will likely be excited Uniswap community members, I still urge the DAO to negotiate for incentives to bootstrap the network.
It certainly does help that Ava Labs is working with LPs to seed the pools, but given that this is a trustless environment, it's hard to take comfort without more explicit guarantees from Ava Labs. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts, and shaping this proposal so we can see Uniswap V3 on Avalanche as soon as possible!
Thank you for the comment @paulsengh. I will say from my perspective, the beauty of concentrated liquidity DEXs, especially those such as Uniswap that have a reputation and more battle tested code is that incentives are not typically required. For example, Trader Joe's liquidity book on Avalanche has amassed $30m in TVL in a few months for a brand new concentrated liquidity DEX protocol with no incentives by them or Avalanche. By simply looking at the yields on Liquidity Book pools, it is clear there is demand for similar products on this network. To provide additional comfort, Ava Labs has been and is in touch with liquidity providers who will seed pools on a deployment.
Hello everyone!
My name is Paul Sengh, and I'm a contributor to Delta One (deltaone.xyz). Thank you to Abdullah and the team at Michigan for the well-written proposal.
Hello everyone!
My name is Paul Sengh, and I'm a contributor to Delta One (deltaone.xyz). Thank you to Abdullah and the team at Michigan for the well-written proposal.
Bootstrapping liquidity pools on a new venue is no easy feat, and these early network participants will need to be compensated fairly. Rather than putting this burden on the initial users of the new Uniswap deployment, the network should be bootstrapped––in true crypto fashion––through incentives from the other beneficiaries of the proposal (namely, Avalanche and Layer Zero). In return for the improvement in daily active users, transaction volumes, and reputation that Uniswap is providing to the other ecosystems, the DAO should request a fitting grant as a stipulation for the deployment.
We look forward to engaging with the Uniswap, Avalanche, and Layer Zero communities to get their thoughts.
Hello all -
My name is Luigi D'Onorio DeMeo and I am the Head of DeFi at Ava Labs. We are very excited by this proposal from the University of Michigan. Ava Labs worked with and endorses this proposal to deploy Uniswap V3 on the Avalanche C Chain with LayerZero. As mentioned in the proposal, the timing of this proposal is key as the BSL is ending and we fear many low effort Uni v3 forks will enter the fray. The opportunity set for DEXs on Avalanche is unique - as new subnets come online with very large user sets, many are architecting them such that liquidity will remain on the C chain. With the addition of Avalanche Warp Messaging (AWM), this is only pronounced and provides a major opportunity for new DEX volumes, unique to Avalanche. We very much look forward to engaging with the Uniswap community!
Voted in support of this proposal. First, thank you @AbdullahUmar, for bringing this proposal forward. As discussed through other deployments, Uniswap cross-chain provides users with a trusted medium for decentralized exchange. This vote also supports our long-standing position around protocol competitiveness.
With April 1 approaching, we do not see the BSL argument as a driving factor right now. Although the timing of this proposal intersects with the Cross Chain Bridge Committee’s work, Avalanche is a strong L1.
Uniswap v3 contracts are deployed on Avalanche at the following addresses:
| Contract | Address |
|---|---|
| UniswapV3Factory | 0x740b1c1de25031C31FF4fC9A62f554A55cdC1baD |
| Multicall2 | 0x0139141Cd4Ee88dF3Cdb65881D411bAE271Ef0C2 |
| ProxyAdmin | 0x9AdA7D7879214073F40183F3410F2b3f088c6381 |
| TickLens | 0xEB9fFC8bf81b4fFd11fb6A63a6B0f098c6e21950 |
| NFTDescriptor | 0x27Dd7eE7fE723e83Bf3612a75a034951fe299E99 |
| NonfungibleTokenPositionDescriptor | 0xe89B7C295d73FCCe88eF263F86e7310925DaEBAF |
| DescriptorProxy | 0xE1f93a7cB6fFa2dB4F9d5A2FD43158A428993C09 |
| NonfungibleTokenPositionManager | 0x655C406EBFa14EE2006250925e54ec43AD184f8B |
| V3Migrator | 0x44f5f1f5E452ea8d29C890E8F6e893fC0f1f0f97 |
| V3Staker | 0xCA9D0668C600c4dd07ca54Be1615FE5CDFd76Ac3 |
| QuoterV2 | 0xbe0F5544EC67e9B3b2D979aaA43f18Fd87E6257F |
| SwapRouter02 | 0xbb00FF08d01D300023C629E8fFfFcb65A5a578cE |
Uniswap v3 contracts are deployed on Avalanche at the following addresses:
| Contract | Address |
|---|---|
| UniswapV3Factory | 0x740b1c1de25031C31FF4fC9A62f554A55cdC1baD |
| Multicall2 | 0x0139141Cd4Ee88dF3Cdb65881D411bAE271Ef0C2 |
| ProxyAdmin | 0x9AdA7D7879214073F40183F3410F2b3f088c6381 |
| TickLens | 0xEB9fFC8bf81b4fFd11fb6A63a6B0f098c6e21950 |
| NFTDescriptor | 0x27Dd7eE7fE723e83Bf3612a75a034951fe299E99 |
| NonfungibleTokenPositionDescriptor | 0xe89B7C295d73FCCe88eF263F86e7310925DaEBAF |
| DescriptorProxy | 0xE1f93a7cB6fFa2dB4F9d5A2FD43158A428993C09 |
| NonfungibleTokenPositionManager | 0x655C406EBFa14EE2006250925e54ec43AD184f8B |
| V3Migrator | 0x44f5f1f5E452ea8d29C890E8F6e893fC0f1f0f97 |
| V3Staker | 0xCA9D0668C600c4dd07ca54Be1615FE5CDFd76Ac3 |
| QuoterV2 | 0xbe0F5544EC67e9B3b2D979aaA43f18Fd87E6257F |
| SwapRouter02 | 0xbb00FF08d01D300023C629E8fFfFcb65A5a578cE |
| Contract | Address |
|---|---|
| OmnichainProposalSender | 0xeb0BCF27D1Fb4b25e708fBB815c421Aeb51eA9fc |
| OmnichainGovernanceExecutor | 0xeb0BCF27D1Fb4b25e708fBB815c421Aeb51eA9fc |
Hello everyone, I'm one of the core contributors to BENQI, and I'm excited to have Uniswap deploy on Avalanche. Thanks everyone for sharing their thoughts on the proposal so far!
Avantgarde's suggestions seems to make the most sense to me thus far given the ongoing debate on both sides regarding the bridge. Is there a rush to decide on a bridge provider at this point? A decision by the Bridge Assessment Committee post deployment seems like the most prudent, and expedient, approach.
Thank you Kari for sharing with the Uni members here about MAP Protocol. As the omnichain layer for Web3, we envision a future where every chain can be connected seamlessly and users can use dApps just like the way they use Web2 apps -- intuitive, easy, but more privacy-preserving. We also will plan to add Avalanche to our omnichain network to enable greater interoperability.
Hello everyone, Kari from MAP Protocol here. (MAP Protocol is the interoperable omnichain layer built upon ZK and light client) :eyeglasses:
Thanks @AbdullahUmar for putting the well-written proposal. Deploying Uniswap v3 on Avalanche will be a plus for a DEX product like Uniswap, especially with Avalanche's star defi products such as traderjoe and gmx. And Just like @paulsengh mentioned, putting the burden of LP on initial users would not be fair and a better way should be bootstrapping the network.
Hello everyone, Kari from MAP Protocol here. (MAP Protocol is the interoperable omnichain layer built upon ZK and light client) :eyeglasses:
Thanks @AbdullahUmar for putting the well-written proposal. Deploying Uniswap v3 on Avalanche will be a plus for a DEX product like Uniswap, especially with Avalanche's star defi products such as traderjoe and gmx. And Just like @paulsengh mentioned, putting the burden of LP on initial users would not be fair and a better way should be bootstrapping the network.
Great to know that you've already had a bridge option for the deployment. If the DAO implemented the multi-bridge system, will that mean Avalanche will also consider other bridge options for the deployment?
Thanks for the comments everyone. We appreciate @Ldemeo88 and the Avalanche community’s desire to work with the wishes of the Uniswap DAO. Avalanche is a thriving ecosystem and a prime candidate for a Uniswap V3 deployment. So, for the avoidance of doubt, we at Wormhole are excited to throw our hat in the ring here.
To comment on the landscape where this vote falls - we understand that this proposal comes on the back of a contentious vote for BNB along with the ongoing work to do a full evaluation of bridge providers.
Thanks for the comments everyone. We appreciate @Ldemeo88 and the Avalanche community’s desire to work with the wishes of the Uniswap DAO. Avalanche is a thriving ecosystem and a prime candidate for a Uniswap V3 deployment. So, for the avoidance of doubt, we at Wormhole are excited to throw our hat in the ring here.
To comment on the landscape where this vote falls - we understand that this proposal comes on the back of a contentious vote for BNB along with the ongoing work to do a full evaluation of bridge providers.
However, given the pending BSL expiry and recently having been voted in to service the BNB deployment, we believe that Wormhole is a strong contender as the most pragmatic choice until consensus is reached by the community.
Given that the BNB deployment is live and should be added to the UI within a week, we feel confident in Wormhole’s ability to deliver for the Uniswap and Avalanche communities.
We look forward to comments and questions!
Thank you for the comment @blueberryboy . As far as I am concerned and Ava Labs in particular, we would not be opposed to other bridges being selected if the Uniswap community explicitly desired - whether that was Wormhole, Axelar, Synapse or others. We worked with LayerZero particularly on this proposal and also value them on their merits as well. As @AbdullahUmar mentioned, we also look forward to the multi-bridge system by the DAO.
Thanks for submitting this in-depth proposal @AbdullahUmar
It's a no-brainer to me: it makes total sense for Uniswap V3 to expand to blockchains with active DeFi ecosystems and less competition for concentrated liquidity AMMs before the license expires and fork season begins.
Thanks for submitting this in-depth proposal @AbdullahUmar
It's a no-brainer to me: it makes total sense for Uniswap V3 to expand to blockchains with active DeFi ecosystems and less competition for concentrated liquidity AMMs before the license expires and fork season begins.
You briefly mention the possibility of implementing a multi-bridge system and I think that could be the right approach here. How open are you to using multiple bridges as opposed to only using LayerZero?
The leverage capabilities from concentrating liquidity certainly can help individual LPs earn a larger share of fees compared to other LPs, but the "chicken or egg" problem still exists for the network at large––initial traders will be drawn to more liquid markets on Avalanche, and initial LPs will be dissuaded by the lack of trading fees. To be sure, it is very well possible that liquidity will be raised (as in your example of Trader Joe), but I am not convinced that those initial LPs will be profitable on a risk-adjusted basis. Given that those initial LPs will likely be excited Uniswap community members, I still urge the DAO to negotiate for incentives to bootstrap the network.
It certainly does help that Ava Labs is working with LPs to seed the pools, but given that this is a trustless environment, it's hard to take comfort without more explicit guarantees from Ava Labs. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts, and shaping this proposal so we can see Uniswap V3 on Avalanche as soon as possible!
Thank you for the comment @paulsengh. I will say from my perspective, the beauty of concentrated liquidity DEXs, especially those such as Uniswap that have a reputation and more battle tested code is that incentives are not typically required. For example, Trader Joe's liquidity book on Avalanche has amassed $30m in TVL in a few months for a brand new concentrated liquidity DEX protocol with no incentives by them or Avalanche. By simply looking at the yields on Liquidity Book pools, it is clear there is demand for similar products on this network. To provide additional comfort, Ava Labs has been and is in touch with liquidity providers who will seed pools on a deployment.
Hello everyone!
My name is Paul Sengh, and I'm a contributor to Delta One (deltaone.xyz). Thank you to Abdullah and the team at Michigan for the well-written proposal.
Hello everyone!
My name is Paul Sengh, and I'm a contributor to Delta One (deltaone.xyz). Thank you to Abdullah and the team at Michigan for the well-written proposal.
Bootstrapping liquidity pools on a new venue is no easy feat, and these early network participants will need to be compensated fairly. Rather than putting this burden on the initial users of the new Uniswap deployment, the network should be bootstrapped––in true crypto fashion––through incentives from the other beneficiaries of the proposal (namely, Avalanche and Layer Zero). In return for the improvement in daily active users, transaction volumes, and reputation that Uniswap is providing to the other ecosystems, the DAO should request a fitting grant as a stipulation for the deployment.
We look forward to engaging with the Uniswap, Avalanche, and Layer Zero communities to get their thoughts.
Hello all -
My name is Luigi D'Onorio DeMeo and I am the Head of DeFi at Ava Labs. We are very excited by this proposal from the University of Michigan. Ava Labs worked with and endorses this proposal to deploy Uniswap V3 on the Avalanche C Chain with LayerZero. As mentioned in the proposal, the timing of this proposal is key as the BSL is ending and we fear many low effort Uni v3 forks will enter the fray. The opportunity set for DEXs on Avalanche is unique - as new subnets come online with very large user sets, many are architecting them such that liquidity will remain on the C chain. With the addition of Avalanche Warp Messaging (AWM), this is only pronounced and provides a major opportunity for new DEX volumes, unique to Avalanche. We very much look forward to engaging with the Uniswap community!
Voted in support of this proposal. First, thank you @AbdullahUmar, for bringing this proposal forward. As discussed through other deployments, Uniswap cross-chain provides users with a trusted medium for decentralized exchange. This vote also supports our long-standing position around protocol competitiveness.
With April 1 approaching, we do not see the BSL argument as a driving factor right now. Although the timing of this proposal intersects with the Cross Chain Bridge Committee’s work, Avalanche is a strong L1.
Voted in support of this proposal. First, thank you @AbdullahUmar, for bringing this proposal forward. As discussed through other deployments, Uniswap cross-chain provides users with a trusted medium for decentralized exchange. This vote also supports our long-standing position around protocol competitiveness.
With April 1 approaching, we do not see the BSL argument as a driving factor right now. Although the timing of this proposal intersects with the Cross Chain Bridge Committee’s work, Avalanche is a strong L1.
We do not see any impacts to protocol security and would like this conversation to continue.
As always, we support the bridging committee, community innovations like the MMA, and ongoing process discussions.
We voted for the Uniswap v3 deployment to Avalanche. Our primary reasoning coincides with the support from the Ava Labs team to proceed with a deployment due to time considerations with the BSL expiring. We fully support the bridge committee process, and we look forward to seeing their output, but we feel conducting the deployment with L0 and re-evaluating the bridge later based on a multi-bridge proposal, or the committee's final analysis, is an equally viable option with a low degree of risk.
Voted in support of this proposal. First, thank you @AbdullahUmar, for bringing this proposal forward. As discussed through other deployments, Uniswap cross-chain provides users with a trusted medium for decentralized exchange. This vote also supports our long-standing position around protocol competitiveness.
With April 1 approaching, we do not see the BSL argument as a driving factor right now. Although the timing of this proposal intersects with the Cross Chain Bridge Committee’s work, Avalanche is a strong L1.
We do not see any impacts to protocol security and would like this conversation to continue.
As always, we support the bridging committee, community innovations like the MMA, and ongoing process discussions.
We voted for the Uniswap v3 deployment to Avalanche. Our primary reasoning coincides with the support from the Ava Labs team to proceed with a deployment due to time considerations with the BSL expiring. We fully support the bridge committee process, and we look forward to seeing their output, but we feel conducting the deployment with L0 and re-evaluating the bridge later based on a multi-bridge proposal, or the committee's final analysis, is an equally viable option with a low degree of risk.
Hi Everyone,
While GFX Labs supports further deployments, we will be abstaining from this vote and all deployments until the Bridge Commitee delivers their report. The committee is expected to deliver the report on the 27th. Given that the governance and deployment processes take over three weeks and the report is similarly three weeks away, it's best to wait for the report and revisit this deployment and the several other chains we're aware of who would also like a deployment of Uniswap v3.
Thank you for your comment, @kari. Liquidity bootstrapping is always a plus for any deployment but should be looked at in the context of the network. If the deployment is on a comparatively more robust chain like Avalanche, then the requirement for bootstrapping is less. Plus, the demand for a concentrated liquidity AMM is present on Avalanche--in fact, Trader Joe v2 is responsible for most of Avalanche's present DEX activity. Ava Labs is also in close contact with market makers. Conversations will naturally transpire regarding liquidity on Avalanche post deployment.
For a seamless deployment, we are proposing just using LayerZero. If the DAO wants to reassess the active bridge in the future, that conversation is encouraged.
Hi Everyone,
While GFX Labs supports further deployments, we will be abstaining from this vote and all deployments until the Bridge Commitee delivers their report. The committee is expected to deliver the report on the 27th. Given that the governance and deployment processes take over three weeks and the report is similarly three weeks away, it's best to wait for the report and revisit this deployment and the several other chains we're aware of who would also like a deployment of Uniswap v3.
Thank you for your comment, @kari. Liquidity bootstrapping is always a plus for any deployment but should be looked at in the context of the network. If the deployment is on a comparatively more robust chain like Avalanche, then the requirement for bootstrapping is less. Plus, the demand for a concentrated liquidity AMM is present on Avalanche--in fact, Trader Joe v2 is responsible for most of Avalanche's present DEX activity. Ava Labs is also in close contact with market makers. Conversations will naturally transpire regarding liquidity on Avalanche post deployment.
For a seamless deployment, we are proposing just using LayerZero. If the DAO wants to reassess the active bridge in the future, that conversation is encouraged.
I hate to be a stick in the mud here, but we'll be voting against this in its current form.
I am on the record explaining Avantgarde's vote in the Binance proposal. In that case, we believed that the benefits of getting an official deployment on that chain before the BSL expired outweighed the risks presented by doing so with a bridge that hadn't been formally evaluated.
I hate to be a stick in the mud here, but we'll be voting against this in its current form.
I am on the record explaining Avantgarde's vote in the Binance proposal. In that case, we believed that the benefits of getting an official deployment on that chain before the BSL expired outweighed the risks presented by doing so with a bridge that hadn't been formally evaluated.
Having to make that evaluation at all was a wake up call that the DAO's process for assessing bridges in cross-chain deployments was broken. In the aftermath of that vote, and the furious politicking that went on behind closed doors, the UF has tasked the newly-formed Bridge Assessment Committee with creating a framework for the community to make better-informed decisions on these issues going forward.
In the context of this proposal, and the Kava proposal, and the multitude of "Deploy on X Chain" proposals that are sure to pop up in the forum between now and April 1, we do not believe the "deploy before the bsl expires and worry about the bridge provider later" tradeoff still holds. While we still don't believe there is a material risk to the protocol of deploying with Layer Zero, it will increase the burden of the inevitable clean up that we need to do when it comes time to unify the DAOs approach to cross chain messaging. And in the case of every chain/bridge combo we vote on between now and April 1, that technical debt is incurred without a corresponding upside - the BSL will expire before these deployments are pushed to production on the front end. (Having integrated with v3 so that Enzyme users can provide liquidity from their vaults, I am not convinced that there would be any meaningful contract-level liquidity provision from the drop. I would be happy to be proven wrong on that... but there's been zero volume on Binance and the contracts were deployed three weeks ago).
Said more plainly - we do want to deploy to Avalanche (and to Kava, and probably to many other chains), but we believe that the costs (technical debt) outweigh the benefits (having an official deployment sometime soonish after the BSL expires). Additionally, voting yes to this proposal incentivizes other chains and bridge providers to make additional deployment proposals which will increase our technical debt which will make cleanup harder which will... you get the picture.
We would be supportive of granting Ava Labs an Additional Use Grant with no bridge specified and then running a Snapshot vote post-Bridge Assessment Committee to approve a bridge provider.
Also, as a side note, I just noticed that this proposal is to grant Layer Zero an additional use grant which, though the wording in the proposal is specific to avalanche, seems potentially problematic (not being a lawyer I'd appreciate if someone else who is or has legal counsel on hand to weigh in on that).
Appreciate the comment, @blueberryboy.
Yes, the possibility of implementing a multi-bridge system is ever growing; however, nothing in that vein has fully materialized. That structure is currently being reviewed, debated, and tested. No previous deployment has implemented such a standard. Due to the novel nature of a multi-bridge architecture, this proposal prompts Uni delegates and tokenholders to choose LayerZero as the messaging system because it's simply the path of least resistance--not to mention LZ has worked actively with Avalanche in the past. The relationship is there. And LZ has a proven history of reliability due to active interrogations with a multitude of applications. If in the future the DAO selects to opt into a multi-bridge system, that's its prerogative. But for now, LZ is the most seamless means forward.
Appreciate the comment, @blueberryboy.
Yes, the possibility of implementing a multi-bridge system is ever growing; however, nothing in that vein has fully materialized. That structure is currently being reviewed, debated, and tested. No previous deployment has implemented such a standard. Due to the novel nature of a multi-bridge architecture, this proposal prompts Uni delegates and tokenholders to choose LayerZero as the messaging system because it's simply the path of least resistance--not to mention LZ has worked actively with Avalanche in the past. The relationship is there. And LZ has a proven history of reliability due to active interrogations with a multitude of applications. If in the future the DAO selects to opt into a multi-bridge system, that's its prerogative. But for now, LZ is the most seamless means forward.
If you'd like more context on the multi-bridge system, check out this forum page: https://gov.uniswap.org/t/cross-chain-bridge-assessment-process/20148
Hello, the Deployment Accountability Committee has reviewed this proposal and found no specific commitment to support the Uniswap Ecosystem, and also no specific expectation from such deployment. And those "broad" expectations seem to be overall still valid (for example, Trader Joe's TVL is almost 19 times larger than Uniswap's TVL on Avalanche but the author is correct that Uniswap did "capture market share")
Due to Uniswap’s strong brand, it has the ability to capture market share from existing DEXs and attract liquidity from new users.
Hello, the Deployment Accountability Committee has reviewed this proposal and found no specific commitment to support the Uniswap Ecosystem, and also no specific expectation from such deployment. And those "broad" expectations seem to be overall still valid (for example, Trader Joe's TVL is almost 19 times larger than Uniswap's TVL on Avalanche but the author is correct that Uniswap did "capture market share")
Due to Uniswap’s strong brand, it has the ability to capture market share from existing DEXs and attract liquidity from new users.
And in turn, Uniswap liquidity providers–and maybe token holders–will attain economic value from the protocol’s increased usage.
I hate to be a stick in the mud here, but we'll be voting against this in its current form.
I am on the record explaining Avantgarde's vote in the Binance proposal. In that case, we believed that the benefits of getting an official deployment on that chain before the BSL expired outweighed the risks presented by doing so with a bridge that hadn't been formally evaluated.
I hate to be a stick in the mud here, but we'll be voting against this in its current form.
I am on the record explaining Avantgarde's vote in the Binance proposal. In that case, we believed that the benefits of getting an official deployment on that chain before the BSL expired outweighed the risks presented by doing so with a bridge that hadn't been formally evaluated.
Having to make that evaluation at all was a wake up call that the DAO's process for assessing bridges in cross-chain deployments was broken. In the aftermath of that vote, and the furious politicking that went on behind closed doors, the UF has tasked the newly-formed Bridge Assessment Committee with creating a framework for the community to make better-informed decisions on these issues going forward.
In the context of this proposal, and the Kava proposal, and the multitude of "Deploy on X Chain" proposals that are sure to pop up in the forum between now and April 1, we do not believe the "deploy before the bsl expires and worry about the bridge provider later" tradeoff still holds. While we still don't believe there is a material risk to the protocol of deploying with Layer Zero, it will increase the burden of the inevitable clean up that we need to do when it comes time to unify the DAOs approach to cross chain messaging. And in the case of every chain/bridge combo we vote on between now and April 1, that technical debt is incurred without a corresponding upside - the BSL will expire before these deployments are pushed to production on the front end. (Having integrated with v3 so that Enzyme users can provide liquidity from their vaults, I am not convinced that there would be any meaningful contract-level liquidity provision from the drop. I would be happy to be proven wrong on that... but there's been zero volume on Binance and the contracts were deployed three weeks ago).
Said more plainly - we do want to deploy to Avalanche (and to Kava, and probably to many other chains), but we believe that the costs (technical debt) outweigh the benefits (having an official deployment sometime soonish after the BSL expires). Additionally, voting yes to this proposal incentivizes other chains and bridge providers to make additional deployment proposals which will increase our technical debt which will make cleanup harder which will... you get the picture.
We would be supportive of granting Ava Labs an Additional Use Grant with no bridge specified and then running a Snapshot vote post-Bridge Assessment Committee to approve a bridge provider.
Also, as a side note, I just noticed that this proposal is to grant Layer Zero an additional use grant which, though the wording in the proposal is specific to avalanche, seems potentially problematic (not being a lawyer I'd appreciate if someone else who is or has legal counsel on hand to weigh in on that).
Appreciate the comment, @blueberryboy.
Yes, the possibility of implementing a multi-bridge system is ever growing; however, nothing in that vein has fully materialized. That structure is currently being reviewed, debated, and tested. No previous deployment has implemented such a standard. Due to the novel nature of a multi-bridge architecture, this proposal prompts Uni delegates and tokenholders to choose LayerZero as the messaging system because it's simply the path of least resistance--not to mention LZ has worked actively with Avalanche in the past. The relationship is there. And LZ has a proven history of reliability due to active interrogations with a multitude of applications. If in the future the DAO selects to opt into a multi-bridge system, that's its prerogative. But for now, LZ is the most seamless means forward.
Appreciate the comment, @blueberryboy.
Yes, the possibility of implementing a multi-bridge system is ever growing; however, nothing in that vein has fully materialized. That structure is currently being reviewed, debated, and tested. No previous deployment has implemented such a standard. Due to the novel nature of a multi-bridge architecture, this proposal prompts Uni delegates and tokenholders to choose LayerZero as the messaging system because it's simply the path of least resistance--not to mention LZ has worked actively with Avalanche in the past. The relationship is there. And LZ has a proven history of reliability due to active interrogations with a multitude of applications. If in the future the DAO selects to opt into a multi-bridge system, that's its prerogative. But for now, LZ is the most seamless means forward.
If you'd like more context on the multi-bridge system, check out this forum page: https://gov.uniswap.org/t/cross-chain-bridge-assessment-process/20148
Hello, the Deployment Accountability Committee has reviewed this proposal and found no specific commitment to support the Uniswap Ecosystem, and also no specific expectation from such deployment. And those "broad" expectations seem to be overall still valid (for example, Trader Joe's TVL is almost 19 times larger than Uniswap's TVL on Avalanche but the author is correct that Uniswap did "capture market share")
Due to Uniswap’s strong brand, it has the ability to capture market share from existing DEXs and attract liquidity from new users.
Hello, the Deployment Accountability Committee has reviewed this proposal and found no specific commitment to support the Uniswap Ecosystem, and also no specific expectation from such deployment. And those "broad" expectations seem to be overall still valid (for example, Trader Joe's TVL is almost 19 times larger than Uniswap's TVL on Avalanche but the author is correct that Uniswap did "capture market share")
Due to Uniswap’s strong brand, it has the ability to capture market share from existing DEXs and attract liquidity from new users.
And in turn, Uniswap liquidity providers–and maybe token holders–will attain economic value from the protocol’s increased usage.
