Should the fee switch be flipped on at the earliest possible time? (March 15th)
The entire governance process from pre-proposal to formal onchain voting and execution of the code takes roughly 16 days not factoring additional time for debate to set specifics. So it is time to discuss the fee switch. Uniswap dwarfs the transaction volume of all the other dex’s on Eth combined and LP’s, while not earning UNI farming, make a killing from the transaction fees compared to lp’ing anywhere else.
My contention is a 5bps reduction will not have a material impact on people, and especially whales, lp’ing in uniswap due the offset by the high transaction fees generated. Furthermore, large lp’s are likely to also be large uniswap stake holders and will also benefit.
Therefore I believe not only must we flip the fee switch, but the mechanism for rewarding uni stakers should be a buyback and distribution of uni tokens just like the sushiswap model. Burns simply do not work in practice as they do on paper for the material impact on the price of the token.
Thoughts? And also why the lack of active discussion on such a monumental topic that could turn staking Uni tokens into a source of income for people for decades to come.
Lets do it!! (I think there is lack of knowledge on uniswap governance in here. We need to make a youtube video on it). If no one responds soon lets push to consensus.
For the sake of credibility, you should not misrepresent it as “just 5bps” or “.005%”. The difference for an LP is 16.6% of income, it is not immaterial.
What about less-than-large LPs? What about those that don’t hold UNI or hold few relative to their LP shares?
Why don’t you collect address data and present a thorough analysis for everyone, so community can compare guaranteed losses of liquidity providers and potential gains in case they happen to hold UNI? I find the current proposal quite heavy on opinion and light on details.
I hear your points, but im not technically inclined enough to get the information you are looking for. More so I wanted to begin the discussion since such a critical opportunity is coming up and there is little to no discussion on the subject.
As for non-whale lp’s, if bottom line was their biggest concern they would be lp’ing on sushiswap already because you can earn sushi on top of transaction fees. So a further exodus is imo overblown.
However I would be curious for someone to analyze the overlap between all uniswap lp’s and uni holders. I would wager its greater than 70% when compared to overall liquidity provided by the overlap.
To be, turning on the fee switch is an easy no brainer decision with much much more benefit than risks. People thought, without the liquidity reward, LPs would leave, but as it turned out, they did come back. Fee earned is only one factor in any LP’s mind. security, volume and leading tech innovation (V3, L2 etc.) will all be reasons for LPs to stay with Uniswap even after 16.6% loss of income. Also, we will never know if LP will leave or not if we don’t turn on the fee switch to try it out. So let’s just turn it on to see what happens. If it really leads to significant LP leaving, which I think won’t happen after all, community can always vote to add liquidity reward to attract LPs back.
I concur to this change. Uniswap can not become stagnant in the realm of Defi and LPs. With the competition and how everything appears to be headed, this can benefit all but what is to come of the lower amount stakes? I feel there should be some incentive to bring in more stakers who do not have the ability to add thousands or millions to an LP.
Im not sure if this applies here as well but it appears that very few participate in governance which does not help UNI as a whole, an incentive for those who partake in governance should be also considered.
I think that Uniswap team could remember, in a full trasparent way with a tweet or better a blog post, that sice March 15 it’s possible to vote to activate fees switch.
The core team can neither vote for or against a fee switch at all, legally that makes uniswap more like a security. The fee switch implementation needs to come from the community and be voted on by the community.
Why not automatic staking with no reinvestment for V3? There definitely needs to be a small return to UNI holders off of transactions…
now if UNI could somehow boost transaction completion or improve user experience when actually making swaps, like a toggable attachment to wallets to allow for automatic transfer approvals then that would be great as a means to keep liquidity providers in because it will draw more volume