Further … the Uniswap “team” has delegated governance to the community. Let’s take action. The one thing Sushi dominates on is community participation… I’ll give them that. Let’s all step up.
While I agree with a deployment on Arbitrum (in addition to Optimism), I disagree with a deployment on Polygon.
Despite billing itself as fully Ethereum friendly, in its current form Polygon is an Ethereum competitor.
It has its own consensus mechanism, has its own currency, and has Binance as a main investor.
Those who watched their marketing material are probably thinking “hey but it’s a commit chain!”.
Yes, and let me ask you this: what would you think of an excel spreadsheet committing to Ethereum every 10 blocks? Would you trust it with your funds?
“Committing” doesn’t mean “sharing security”, at all.
Polygon isn’t secure enough. Let’s stick with Ethereum and its real L2s.
I think deploying Uniswap V3 to Polygon is a great idea. The fees are super low (practically free) and transactions are ridiculously fast.
Polygon has pretty much become the de-facto scaling solution for Ethereum and currently handles 5x daily transaction as Ethereum.
Surely our community deserve to have the benefits which the users of AAVE, 1inch, QuickSwap and countless other currently enjoy!
Does someone want to create a poll so we can gauge current support?
I see people saying that Polygon is less secure than Ethereum. Ok, point taken. But at least one person said that it’s not secure “enough”. @Hindel how did you reach that judgement? What facts about Polygon (about its consensus mechanism, about its commits to ETH, etc) lead you to believe that?
We have two choices in front of us:
- Wait a few more days for Uniswap to be available first to Arbitrum, then to Optimism. This option solves the scalability/gas fee issue (for now), while maintaining the same level of security through Ethereum. No compromise on security.
- Deploy on Polygon now, which has a lesser security and is a way more centralized solution.
My point is that “less good than Ethereum” is not good enough. Uniswap is Ethereum’s leading application by a vast margin, the risk is not worth it at all.
Why would we even make any compromise on security when we no longer have to?
Extremely valid concerns here @Hindel, especially with the 5 multisig complexity and security concerns are real. Impatience won’t offset that risk.
Getting to arbitrum first is a no brainer, and the security is much clearer — the week long delay return of funds has long been debated, but feels like the right balance if security is the key risk. Optimism’s launch is up in the air so …
That said, I’d lean to getting onto Polygon in the short term; the security risk is a very small corner case and right now the market is defined by momentum; would be a shame to be overly cautious in a spot where being the leader requires continued bold moves.
I happen to believe the exact opposite:
A leader with more than a 60% market share (Uniswap’s situation right now) shouldn’t be the one making bold moves and taking risks.
The competition should, they are so small that they have to do something about it.
Of course I’d have a different opinion if the market share was dropping, but it’s not.
There’s absolutely no reason for Uniswap to compromise on security and sacrifice decentralization right now.
I like this concept and think we should consider this seriously. Just my 2 cents & a bitcoin