Deploy Uniswap V3 on Polygon/Matic

Governance should signal its preference for a deployment of V3 on Polygon.

It’s a win-win situation. It wouldn’t exclude deployment on Optimism, of course.

There is literally 0 risk here. Matic is Ethereum friendly. Aave, Curve and Sushi already on it.

Many L2s is better than just one L2. While I really love and support the work of Optimism, I see no reason for Uniswap to put all its eggs in one L2 basket (Optimism) at this point.

I just can’t see why it would be a bad idea, considering all the congestion.

PS : Even with the new licensing scheme, nobody can stop an anon from deploying their pirate fork/version of V3 on L2s. Governance should frontrun such anons.

Edit : Polygon isn’t an L2 technically, it’s a sidechain.


Agree and I’ll add that Uni should be working with Arbitrum launching 5/28 since they’re beating optimism to market and will likely be a more useful L2 overall.


If anyone can give me the cons of deploying V3 to Polygon, I’d be happy.
Right now I only see pros.



Why not deploying uniswap v3 in xDai chain? its EVM compatible


AAVE, Compound,Open Sea, many NFT projects, Sushi, Mani games , METAVERSE are migrating to Polygon


this thread is interesting for the ‘cons’

1 Like

Terminology is important, but that should not stop us to go to Polygon.

Actually, I believe Uniswap v3 should deploy on every EVM compatible chain with some real volume. Uniswap can be the king of EVM trading if it allowed itself.

What are the required steps to successfully launch on Polygon?

  • Approval from UNI holders
  • Contract migration
  • UI changes to support multiple networks
  • Testing

I also agree. Uniswap should deploy to the Polygon sidechain, and should not play favourites as Arbitrum and zkSync 2.0 roll out alongside Optimism in the coming months. Uniswap v3’s improved capital efficiency makes it uniquely capable of offering good liquidity with low TLV. Uniswap benefits from dominating the DEX market on Ethereum sidechains and L2s.


You have to keep in mind the incredible amount of legitimacy deploying uniswap on a chain brings. uniswap being on any chain will bring an incredible numbers of users. This gives a lot of power to the protocol. Chains need uniswap, uniswap doesn’t need chains. In which direction do we want resources/people to go? Should we provide legitimacy to a centeralized “blockchain”(more like a database/bank) like BSC? Should we provide legitimacy to Polygon, whose largest validator is binance? is Polygon decenteralized enough? Do we want to support multichain and go to DOT?

Answers to questions like this are important when evaluating EVM compatible chains.


Polygon is where all the action currently is and all the other big projects already deployed there.
Would be shame to clusterize at this point and just UNI to be on Optimism.

I strongly support Uni on Polygon and it should even come before Optimism.


The critical mass liquidity is moving to Polygon.

Aave, Sushi, Curve… the blue chip Defi apps are on Polygon.

Once you bridge to Polygon POS, there isn’t much incentive to bridge back to L1 when gas costs are fractions of a cent on Matic.

Polygon, unlike BSC is a bet on Ethereum not against it.

Seems like a no-brainer to me. :man_shrugging:t2:

Polygon is a commit chain (it make regular commit to L1) with open validators.


I think Uniswap is snobbing Polygon because the security properties are a step-down from Ethereum mainnet.

I agree that it’s not “technically” a L2, and it’s really more of a “sidechain”.

But when Optimism gets delayed for a 5th (or so) time, etc., maybe it’s just time to drop the purism and the haughty take on the ecosystem and just deploy on Polygon as a means to maintain market domination.

Maybe they have some kind of contract with Optimism we are not aware of. In any case, they seem to have deep ties with the team.

In the Discord AMA the team clearly stated that they were not ‘maried’ so to speak with Optimism.

Maybe it’s time to prove it… idk.

Also, maybe let the users choose which is the best EVM sidechain or L2 for them ? If Optimism is indeed a better solution, I think Polygon will become a ghosttown when it really lands on Ethereum…

It’s an interesting bet to say the least. And it’s pretty much an “all-in” bet right now. Like, it seems there are just no possible compromise in their minds. As it’s been highlighted many times now on Twitter, Sushi is basically doing the opposite : taking literally ANY opportunity, opening up to multiple communities at once. And in doing so, beefing up support on social media, etc. (But with clearly inferior infrastructure post-V3).

In any event, it would be nice to get a symbolic proposal going. UNI holders signaling support for Polygon deployment or not. Governance doesn’t technically control deployment to other networks.

I’m thinking the Optimism public mainnet eployment might be, very soon (still july on their website though). That’s maybe why they want to refrain from deploying on Polygon at this precise point in time.

There are just 0 updates from them on their blog, or even on their twitter !

1 Like

I agree UNI V3 to Polygon.


Ok let’s do this ASAP

1 Like



UNI to the Moon !

I personally think, polygon multisig maybe the reason why Uniswap is still not confident for it.

As polygon multisig is under 8 memebers where 5 members if act bad can bring down whole network.

In coming months governance will be enabled on Polygon, maybe by that time Uniswap team will be even more confident with Polygon network.

1 Like

Even if they go with Optimism, why not port to Polygon too?

Uniswap could easily dominate that market as well…

Even if Optimism is better ‘techwise’, the network effects on Polygon (AAVE, 1Inch, etc…) are so powerful now it might not even matter much. From a business (not engineering) perspective, seems like they are missing an opportunity.


thanks for your input !

Maybe put a poll up? Seems like there is good support.

1 Like