Much like Gnosis, the Uniswap community voted to approve a Moonbeam deployment (Uniswap Interface), but Moonbeam never received it after the events of the Nomad hack. Both communities are in limbo with an approved license but without a deployment. Since the hack, I’ve stayed extremely vocal about Uniswap coming to Moonbeam and would love to see it finally happen.
After seeing some of the recent posts as well as the expiration of the license on April 1st, I would like to suggest that Uniswap should consider the Moonbeam deployment simultaneously, given the shared circumstances. The Nomad hack impacted Moonbeam but has since regained steam and has collaborated closely with several bridges, including the Wormhole team, to provide a reliable bridging.
The Polkadot ecosystem continues to expand, and more new and innovative assets will continue to deploy within Polkadot. I believe that a Uni V3 deployment would get significant traction in the ecosystem and drive adoption for new Polkadot assets as well for the community.
Would there be the ability to take this forward with Wormhole (based on the synergies and seeing they’re live with BNB) to get this finally deployed and show value for the Uniswap community and Moonbeam’s ecosystem?
As a moderator of Moonbeam channels, I can confirm that this is a long-awaited deployment that many of our users are waiting for. The community is showing considerable interest in deploying Uniswap on Moonbeam. That’s why I’m looking forward to witnessing the long-awaited launch. Let’s finally make it happen!
Thank you for your comment, MAD. Yes, there’s been an unfortunately long stalemate since the Nomad debacle. We’ve seen a recent resurgence in the community’s desire to continue where we left off and move forward with the Uni v3 deployment on Moonbeam.
To meet this demand, we (Blockchain at Michigan) are in talks with folks from the Moonbeam ecosystem about reinstating this proposal over the course of the next few weeks. The timeline will become more concrete once we receive more detailed guidelines from the Uniswap Foundation regarding the structure of proposals post BSL expiration. Tentatively, we’ll have clarity regarding this next week.
We are also speaking with Wormhole as a replacement for Nomad. Since the Uni bridge committee is currently finalizing an analysis on Wormhole and the other listed bridges–which is supposed to be published in May–we believe that moving forward with Wormhole in the meantime is a sufficient strategy. We welcome any feedback regarding this choice from the community.
Hi @AbdullahUmar, thanks for your reply. Good to know Uniswap still will consider to deploy on Moonbeam as well:)
I’m the content lead at MAP Protocol, which is the only trustless omnichian layer built upon light client and ZK technology. We have connected to Ethereum, BNB, Polygon, and NEAR, and will soon connect to Moonbeam, Aptos, and other chains in a truly decentralized and secure way.
However, we truly would like to help Uni to go truly decentralized with our trusltess cross-chain technology. May I know will the Uni community be open to other bridge options in the future? If yes, may i know when will it be? Thank you!
Finally , we’ve been waiting for this to happen! I see Gnosis have moved their proposal to a temperature check already and the voting is looking very positive.
It is really unethical and many DeFi users are against it. Moonbeam decided alone to integrate Nomad bridge stack and paid its users to use it. Moonbeam users are still waiting a compensation plan, and Nomad is certainly unable to solve it alone, needs their business partners to participate in a refinancing plan.
If Moonbeam does’t work with Nomad on refinancing solution, it only show users to NOT use, NOT trust Moonbeam, as long as victims are not compensated. The same for Moonwell money market.
I support all users who ask Uniswap to not work with Moonbeam as long as a decend compensation effort have not been made for all parties involved, Moonbeam has been the pricinpal.
