Proposal to allocate 0.04% of all Uniswap platform transaction fees to UNI stakers in the form of ETH. Staking pool will be used for both governance and fee distribution.
0.01% of transaction fees will go to the treasury to be used at the DAOs discretion.
Proposal to allocate 0.04% of all Uniswap platform transaction fees to UNI stakers in the form of ETH. Staking pool will be used for both governance and fee distribution.
0.01% of transaction fees will go to the treasury to be used at the DAOs discretion.
Need Gas Token On Uniswap Like Chi Gas Token On 1inch Exchange to Reduce Gas Fee and it also need to be airdropped like UNI to Uniswap User.
Best to be given in form of dai,eth and other new Uniswap tokens , will create above balance and secure future of uni holders
Need Gas Token On Uniswap Like Chi Gas Token On 1inch Exchange to Reduce Gas Fee and it also need to be airdropped like UNI to Uniswap User.
Best to be given in form of dai,eth and other new Uniswap tokens , will create above balance and secure future of uni holders
If this is implemented, a lot of new users could join to stake as Uniswap had shown that it is ready to stand the test of time.
I think having LM boosting (More coins minted) when one time-lock some UNi as in Curve is indeed a bad idea.
I just propose that only people that time-lock their UNI tokens can obtain the 0.0x% trading fee. One holder profit would be equal to ((his number of tokens locked)/(all token locked))*(fee revenue during x time) thus, due to linearity, it will not particularly profit to whales.
Time-locked vesting periods are a great idea for the reasons that you describe.
I wholly agree on the 0.04/0.01 design. Nevertheless I suggest that we could get some inspiration from the CurveDAO where only time-locked UNI coins and ETH-UNI LP can get reward from the fees. That would help create a virtuous circle:
Nice proposal. Reward tokenomics will be good for economic stimuls of tokenholders. People can claim rewards so it can be not only ETH.
If this is implemented, a lot of new users could join to stake as Uniswap had shown that it is ready to stand the test of time.
I think having LM boosting (More coins minted) when one time-lock some UNi as in Curve is indeed a bad idea.
I just propose that only people that time-lock their UNI tokens can obtain the 0.0x% trading fee. One holder profit would be equal to ((his number of tokens locked)/(all token locked))*(fee revenue during x time) thus, due to linearity, it will not particularly profit to whales.
Time-locked vesting periods are a great idea for the reasons that you describe.
I wholly agree on the 0.04/0.01 design. Nevertheless I suggest that we could get some inspiration from the CurveDAO where only time-locked UNI coins and ETH-UNI LP can get reward from the fees. That would help create a virtuous circle:
Nice proposal. Reward tokenomics will be good for economic stimuls of tokenholders. People can claim rewards so it can be not only ETH.
Growth should not be focused on cultivating holding via a general transaction fee to all.
Growth should not be focused on cultivating holding via a general transaction fee to all.
The transaction fee should go towards those who are engaged with governance (such as small users delegating and large whales who are active with proposal improvements).
I'm sorry but that's nonsense. It's only going to serve for a pile of ridiculous proposals, worse than now. The majority of the hodlers will vote anything and everything just to get some tokens.
I do not think it will result in a pile of proposals. The reward would only go to those who have shown intent to align to specific platform goals.
Reward the .05% fees to delegate pools, does not mean spamming proposals. It just means you have a stake in the future direction of the platform.
I definitely think token holders sure be able to earn something, other than the right to vote. for the sake of the whales and making things pretty even, what if we just make a limit to the number of tokens any said token holder could earn rewards on. Like say you have 3,000 tokens, our limit could be 2,000 tokens max for earning.
UNI being a governance token its value is hinged not only on the protocol, but also activity of its participants by voting on innovative proposals.
Growth should not be focused on cultivating holding via a general transaction fee to all.
UNI being a governance token its value is hinged not only on the protocol, but also activity of its participants by voting on innovative proposals.
Growth should not be focused on cultivating holding via a general transaction fee to all.
The transaction fee should go towards those who are engaged with governance (such as small users delegating and large whales who are active with proposal improvements).
Incentive should be aligned with governance engagement.
I agree with unijay 110%. I'd prefer to put resources towards growth.
I agree that this will take a more detailed discussion to determine the best coarse of action, the theory is good but could catch some whales doing what they do.
Nevertheless I suggest that we could get some inspiration from the CurveDAO where only time-locked UNI coins and ETH-UNI LP can get reward from the fees.
Please stop with these timelocked thing, this only favors whales.
Nevertheless I suggest that we could get some inspiration from the CurveDAO where only time-locked UNI coins and ETH-UNI LP can get reward from the fees.
Please stop with these timelocked thing, this only favors whales.
Reduce selling pressure is only a very short-term vision. The higher the volume, the higher the fees and the higher the valuation. Only that matters.
Utility makes value, everything else is artificial and won't last.
How would we convert the fees for pools that don't involve ETH? I imagine logic to transform the fee into eth would cause total gas needed to go up and we'd have to account for slippage on that transaction as well.
Growth and maintaining a competitive platform should be prioritized. IMO it is far to early to think about value extraction. This sector will have explosive growth moving forward and everyone here benefits if Uniswap is established as an important hub in that, far larger, network. The less fees and friction, and the more incentive for participation, the greater Uniswaps market share will be.
I support the idea in theory, eventually. However I think more debate and discussion needs to be had on the benefit of growing V3 and building a moat around that before turning on fees. I’m happy to delay this vote until V3 is out.
Need is a strong word, and you haven't really justified it's use in your post.
From what I'm aware, gas tokens aren't an intentional feature of the ethereum protocol, and I think there are active proposals to remove the ability to use them, so investing dev time might not be a priority for the uniswap team. You can look up the EIPs to see exactly what's being discussed.
Need is a strong word, and you haven't really justified it's use in your post.
From what I'm aware, gas tokens aren't an intentional feature of the ethereum protocol, and I think there are active proposals to remove the ability to use them, so investing dev time might not be a priority for the uniswap team. You can look up the EIPs to see exactly what's being discussed.
When you airdrop a token you inflate it's availability and likely reduce its price, if it goes to people who're just going to sell it. What would we be trying to incentivise, with another airdrop, that would be beneficial for the uniswap project as a whole?
Pursuing another airdrop without a justification sounds like you're just looking for a handout.
Growth should not be focused on cultivating holding via a general transaction fee to all.
Growth should not be focused on cultivating holding via a general transaction fee to all.
The transaction fee should go towards those who are engaged with governance (such as small users delegating and large whales who are active with proposal improvements).
I'm sorry but that's nonsense. It's only going to serve for a pile of ridiculous proposals, worse than now. The majority of the hodlers will vote anything and everything just to get some tokens.
I do not think it will result in a pile of proposals. The reward would only go to those who have shown intent to align to specific platform goals.
Reward the .05% fees to delegate pools, does not mean spamming proposals. It just means you have a stake in the future direction of the platform.
I definitely think token holders sure be able to earn something, other than the right to vote. for the sake of the whales and making things pretty even, what if we just make a limit to the number of tokens any said token holder could earn rewards on. Like say you have 3,000 tokens, our limit could be 2,000 tokens max for earning.
UNI being a governance token its value is hinged not only on the protocol, but also activity of its participants by voting on innovative proposals.
Growth should not be focused on cultivating holding via a general transaction fee to all.
UNI being a governance token its value is hinged not only on the protocol, but also activity of its participants by voting on innovative proposals.
Growth should not be focused on cultivating holding via a general transaction fee to all.
The transaction fee should go towards those who are engaged with governance (such as small users delegating and large whales who are active with proposal improvements).
Incentive should be aligned with governance engagement.
I agree with unijay 110%. I'd prefer to put resources towards growth.
I agree that this will take a more detailed discussion to determine the best coarse of action, the theory is good but could catch some whales doing what they do.
Nevertheless I suggest that we could get some inspiration from the CurveDAO where only time-locked UNI coins and ETH-UNI LP can get reward from the fees.
Please stop with these timelocked thing, this only favors whales.
Nevertheless I suggest that we could get some inspiration from the CurveDAO where only time-locked UNI coins and ETH-UNI LP can get reward from the fees.
Please stop with these timelocked thing, this only favors whales.
Reduce selling pressure is only a very short-term vision. The higher the volume, the higher the fees and the higher the valuation. Only that matters.
Utility makes value, everything else is artificial and won't last.
How would we convert the fees for pools that don't involve ETH? I imagine logic to transform the fee into eth would cause total gas needed to go up and we'd have to account for slippage on that transaction as well.
Growth and maintaining a competitive platform should be prioritized. IMO it is far to early to think about value extraction. This sector will have explosive growth moving forward and everyone here benefits if Uniswap is established as an important hub in that, far larger, network. The less fees and friction, and the more incentive for participation, the greater Uniswaps market share will be.
I support the idea in theory, eventually. However I think more debate and discussion needs to be had on the benefit of growing V3 and building a moat around that before turning on fees. I’m happy to delay this vote until V3 is out.
Need is a strong word, and you haven't really justified it's use in your post.
From what I'm aware, gas tokens aren't an intentional feature of the ethereum protocol, and I think there are active proposals to remove the ability to use them, so investing dev time might not be a priority for the uniswap team. You can look up the EIPs to see exactly what's being discussed.
Need is a strong word, and you haven't really justified it's use in your post.
From what I'm aware, gas tokens aren't an intentional feature of the ethereum protocol, and I think there are active proposals to remove the ability to use them, so investing dev time might not be a priority for the uniswap team. You can look up the EIPs to see exactly what's being discussed.
When you airdrop a token you inflate it's availability and likely reduce its price, if it goes to people who're just going to sell it. What would we be trying to incentivise, with another airdrop, that would be beneficial for the uniswap project as a whole?
Pursuing another airdrop without a justification sounds like you're just looking for a handout.
The protocol fee has not yet been activated, and even when it is it won't start accumulating for 180 days.
https://twitter.com/jiecut42/status/1306542302320566273?s=20
If anything, I expect protocol fees to be most useful as a gentle 'push' factor to incentivize LP migration from v2 to forthcoming v3.
The protocol fee has not yet been activated, and even when it is it won't start accumulating for 180 days.
https://twitter.com/jiecut42/status/1306542302320566273?s=20
If anything, I expect protocol fees to be most useful as a gentle 'push' factor to incentivize LP migration from v2 to forthcoming v3.
