So it’s not currently planned to be scalable from day 1.
Now the problem is that if V3 is really awesome, and they release it now, Binance will copy it.
Users will still be heavily limited by the cost of transaction on Ethereum, and if V3 is great (which I think it will be), users might decide to sacrifice decentralization in order to be able to afford to use it.
They’ll end up on the Binance chain using “Pancakeswap V3”, and Uniswap V3 could greatly benefit Binance instead of Ethereum (where most won’t be able to afford to use it).
Pancakeswap and BSC are clearly an attack to knock Uniswap out of the top position. I dont think BSC will be decentralized at all. Gas fees are the only thing holding us back.
I absolutely agree that something has to be done quickly as this is a clearly aimed killshot at Uniswap. For now, most of the Pancakeswap liquidity and volume comes from the BNB/wBNB pair so its not a real problem YET, but we have to have a serious conversation about what Uniswap has in store in order to counter it
Obviously, CZ has all the incentives to pump his BSC in order to attract more people to it. Maybe this is because he is scared of what Uniswap has in store. Afterall, we are talking about a significant amount of financial means that could be lost. So the wager is on, the question is: Does Hayden and others know what to do in order to stay on top? How can we contribute as well?
It’s quite decentralized, and the fork actually made a lot of improvements to the native Ethereum code. Not only gas fees, but transaction speed is something ETH has never been able to match. There’s already a fully competing suite of DApps on BSC, however BSC does not attempt to compete at all, as they have a built in bridge feature that allows you to seamlessly transfer assets across chains back and forth.
While Uniswap should be running on BSC (if this is something that we as a community want to do, I can help. I’ve already migrated a number of DApps to BSC.
This would be optimal, as it gives users the choice to use Uniswap on either chain.
The thing about BSC is that it makes no claim to be a successor to Ethereum, it is a complement. They went through the trouble to create a very easy to use bridging system to move assets, LP shares, and other tokens between chains almost instantly.
If Uniswap has anything in store, I hope it’s launching dual-chain on Ethereum & BSC, because BSC is absolutely not afraid of Uniswap, and why should it be? SUSHI proved that a clone could generate as much use and even match the price and market cap of Uniswap.
BSC is working on chain interoperability and they’re doing an amazing job at it at a pace that is blistering. Sincerely hope that Uniswap goes multi-chain, it’s not difficult to do (I’ve migrated a few apps to BSC already and the process is straightforward).
I already have most of my UNI and Uniswap LP tokens migrated over to BSC anyway so I can actually do something with them without spending $70/transaction. When it’s reasonable to do so on Ethereum, I’ll migrate back, but in the meantime I’m happy getting incentivized farms on multiple chains.
That’s just pancake swap. With ETH and UNI both migrated to BSC, there’s liquidity on Beefy.finance, AutoSwap, etc. All of these are incentivized at the moment and for the end-user (me), it makes no sense to keep my assets on Ethereum when I can bridge them to BSC in bulk for a low cost and interact with and update my positions in a matter of seconds with an average transaction fee of $0.23
Personally, I haven’t touched Ethereum since late November. I’ve migrated most of my assets over to BSC, including UNI, SUSHI, and my LP tokens. It makes no sense to have them collect dust on Ethereum when I can actively manage them on BSC. That’s nothing against Uniswap, it is just the nature of the game. The rate that apps have been popping up on BSC is blistering, and I’ve already rebuilt most of my liquidity pools including ETH-UNI LP on BSC with much higher returns, a bigger percentage of the pool, plus the benefit of incentivized $CAKE and $AUTO harvesting.
Uniswap has one option: Cross chain compatability. Again, if this is something the community decides on I’m more than happy to help update the code-base to make it happen.
They’ve done this in the past many times with different chains, there’s really no cause for concern… They are simply in the same position as the end-user: Ethereum gas fees are eating into profits. Keep in mind when Binance does a token transfer, it’s many ERC20 tokens from multiple wallets. The number of tokens being transferred out means huge gas fees.
One place where Ethereum nailed scaling on the head:
Your gas fees sure scale with your wealth!
Binance requests a fee from users in order to transfer tokens and eth out.
Based on the current price billed to users, transfers going out is actually a profitable event.
This just happened at a moment at which, by comparison to the past weeks, the gas fee happens to be rather low
If you don’t see why this is happening now I can’t really make it clearer than this.
Regardless, Uniswap is grossly dragging their feet with version 3 when they mentioned last summer they would be previewing it and here we are 6-7 months later. And governance is grossly apathetic when we are still not discussing the fee switch and getting ready to vote on it 3.5 weeks before it can be flipped on.
Define “Quite decentralized” the last time I checked it was run by 21 node operators, so you pay for your transaction costs with the very fact that you are using a chain that is more or less centralized. This is why BSC is not trying to compete with ETH because it is NOT decentralized.
@Hindel@UniswapFeeSwitch On a very high level, you’re “kind of right”, but you’re overlooking the fundamentals that prevent any of this from happening…
You’re forgetting that, the code is not proprietary, and anyone can verify the latest release on GitHub and that BSC is actually running it by either directly querying the validator nodes or by running a full node yourself.
Binance requests a fee because they are the facilitator of the bridge. There’s no free lunch in crypto. Since The Ethereum Foundation didn’t put any effort into bridging and Binance runs the entire thing on their network, it only makes sense that both incoming and outgoing events would be profitable to the network.
This happened at a moment when Ethereum users had been dealing with ridiculous fees for months, to the point where unless you’re moving thousands of USD at a time you’re not profiting on any transaction. Talk about a vector for centralized forces to take over the network… There’s a new player in town and they’ve been bootstrapping the full suite of DeFi protocols on their normal custodial platform for over a year. Between Trust Wallet Token release, slow ETH transactions, and fully developed DApps going live very fast on BSC people are trying out something new. Can you blame them?
It’s happening right now because Binance has had a very detailed roadmap and has stuck to it, it could have failed, but at the end of the day there is an exodus of people going from Ethereum to trying out BSC. Users comfortable with multi-chain interaction is GREAT for crypto!
And the same thing will happen when other smart contract/EVM compatible chains emerge, people will want to try it. Uniswap needs to be ready for the inevitable fact that Ethereum is no longer the only player in DeFi and the total locked value will soon be distributed across multiple chains.
Either get the system ready and operating in a multi-chain environment or continue to fall behind. We’re already behind Pancakeswap in TLV and AUTO & Beefy.finance are coming in hot.
By the way, ETH 2.0 is moving towards major consensus taking place among a relatively small subset of validator nodes backed up by full nodes. BSC does not solely rely on the validator nodes, I personally run an accelerator node for BSC, and just like ETH has in store, after consensus takes place among validators, the signing full nodes verify that they are all in agreement and that the runtime environment is in agreement with the source code.
At the end of the day, the strongest projects in crypto that achieved network effect were all bootstrapped by a centralized party for some time before going fully decentralized.
Expecting a purpose-driven EVM-compatible chain with the existing liquidity, protocols, and assets in storage of the scope of BSC to dive head first into full decentralization is nutty. There is a such thing as too many hands in the pot. Hate them of love them, CZ & Binance have onboarded more people to crypto around the world than almost any other person/organization.
If the validator nodes didn’t have to run the open-source code including the rules which govern what a validator can and cannot do perhaps I would be concerned. It’s real easy to be ignorant and not explore the code base on this one and just play the “screw CZ & Binance card” but you’re doing a disservice by shunning a pretty impressive platform, they’re onto something that may be niche, but is good for crypto.
Just some thoughts from a contributor to over a dozen blockchain networks and from a life lived watching internet companies and protocols rise and fall over the last 30 years in my role as a software and network engineer.
You can be salty, you can not like BSC, but it’s evolve or die. This space moves fast, clearly faster than the community governance can keep up with (one more thing to be said about a non-decentralized core team doing the bootstrapping of upgrades and additions before global release).
BSC is not trying to compete with ETH because it cannot. Their only choice was to maximize interoperability. If they became a walled garden, you isolate people based on geographic regions ,laws, and other criteria that’s bad for business.
So yes, in a Proof of Staked Authority system, you put up collateral assets in order to run a node. News flash, ETH is moving to the same principle… 32 ETH to run a validator, pure staking, it’s either hard fork and really throw a wrench in things while we have so much value locked in DeFi, or upgrade.
Again, since BSC is the only facilitator of the bridge feature and it wasn’t a co-op between The Ethereum Foundation/Developers and them, they can take transaction fees on assets coming in and out, that’s their right as the network running the bridge.
“Binance’s chain is a real problem for Uniswap V3”
It’s the other way around though. DEXes grew enough to threaten Binance’s business, so Binance decided to masquerade as DEX and then as entire DeFi chain (ambitions, ambitions).
What will follow is a classical Embrace, extend, extinguish corporate game. First start with full EVM compatibility and two-way bridge, then keep introducing “unique innovations” that gradually lock developers into BSC, throw in various inconveniences for people moving assets off BSC (but not into it), etc.
All that is pretty clear to me. What is a real mystery is why would anyone think that Uniswap has a bright future on BSC? How are we going to eat Binance by going to the chain controlled by Binance?
I think you are grossly minimizing the centralization of binance chain. Just look yesterday at the backlog of bridge transactions due to their aws going down. Bsc is straight up like using binance, period.
Interesting that this is your thought today when less than 6 months ago you wrote that DeFi “is about providing a means to transact assets without a third party.”
So why would you now choose the chain on which a third party is at the core of everything, from nodes to liquidity?
I honestly doubt that this change in mentality happened without a juicy payment. Why else would you have jumped ship to the most centralized chain available?
Lol you can shill your cz masters crap as much as you want. But crypto is about decentralization and we the Unisawp users will never move to CZ crap. Btw when you copy paste without a shame, at least create a new logo. Jeez.
