That doesn’t seem to logically follow that YFI, because it has a lot of liquidity on uniswap, should have incentives added to it vis-à-vis even more free $UNI.
Perhaps we should be looking at projects that are specifically symbiotic with uniswap, i.e. they help make uniswap better in some way, or projects that will make uniswap more desirable to use if we incentivise those pools?
I’m not against adding a YFI pool, I’m just not following the rationale. I don’t think we should all just be rushing to add our bags.
APY for Uni pool is already down to 30%. Adding another pool and splitting the rewards will drop them down to 24%… You’re gonna be losing money trying to provide LP in an YFI:ETH pool from IL with only 24% interest.
This proposal is hurtful to Uniswap ecosystem development.
It only benefits people who already own YFI tokens at the expense of current and future Uniswap ecosystem participants.
At this point YFI token does not possess store of value capabilities. And it’s supply distribution is heavily centralized between a couple of big liquidity providers.
I don’t think it would be good for Uniswap’s reputation to offer UNI tokens for providing liquidity on highly speculative pairs, as it would create incentive for people to buy into these assets and expose them for high risk of losing money.
You don’t want to lock funds for 4 years into providing liquidity for volatile assets with centralized wealth distribution.
I agree with you, we shouldn’t add a non-stable token into the liquidity campaign, doing so will imply to give away our governance (UNI) to a lower level token (YFI). Andre Cronje knows the potential reach of UNI, that’s why his interest in it.
Btc/uni? Usdt has long position off site as of now. To me , no pair will suite a fixable issue. However, unibank, uni ATM, uni advance could really fix a lot of issues. As for gas prices I’d like to purpose uni bank/ and uniwallet. Zero cost if sent from bank to wallet or vice versa.
，真的很棒