The core team has not publicly identified all of their wallets. There would be no way to know whether or not they participated in a vote.
5 Likes
Probably best to still handle this within the community.
From my understanding, we either need a single delegate with enough votes to kick off the proposal, or enough smaller holders to delegate someone their votes so they can do the same. Correct?
Any ideas on the best way to contact large holders? And/or how to rally small holders to delegate their votes to a representative?
3 Likes
My position is that we need to wait until volume really picks up with L2.
Until then and we need LPs to feel at ease during the migration⌠and w/o incentives (at the moment, it does look like there wonât be any new incentives campaign⌠itâs so quiet on this forum compared to what it was !), the best incentives remains 100% LP fees.
v3 also gives us custom fee switch on a per-pool basis, so when volumes goes through the roof with v3 on L2, we can begin with select pools 
no need to rush the fee switch.
all the impatient UNI holders should really sell if they think the switch needs to be turned on now⌠we need v3 to mature quite a bit before it makes sense ! good things come to those who wait⌠it makes perfect sense in this case
5 Likes
I donât think weâll see LPs leaving over the fee switch implementation. Theyâre much less elastic than many seem to think especially given that when it comes to ETH based DEXs UNI is by far the biggest player by volume, and thatâs unlikely to change. Furthermore, when it comes to migration incentives, having the fee implemented across the board on V2 will help push LPs to migrate to V3 come May. Perhaps Iâm wrong though. Should that be the case, and there be a need to attract more LPs later on, it could be done with a portion of the fees earned from turning on the switch.
So far as Iâve seen the fees earned will accrue to the treasury. From there, itâs a whole other matter what governance decides to do with that additional capital.
1 Like
Tbh my position is that itâs really not productive to be thinking about turning on the fee switch now.
We have so much more to do than just focusing on the easy gains for now.
We have to solidify our position as leading DEX.
We have to ensure a nice migration to v3 and L2.
We have to grow the ecosystem and dev community around v3.
We should be discussing a new liquidity mining campaign to make up for the risks of moving liquidity to L2 (where smart contract risks are next-level compounded).
I really think the main difference between Sushi and Uni is the short-term âmuh gains & rewards nowâ mentality vs. the long-term play and 4d chess Uniswap is playing.
Uni v3 is probably going to reinvent DEX. We want LPs to migrate massively, we want to be as welcoming as possible to both LPs and swappers. We want new types of professional market markers to take advantage of concentrated liquidity so that swappers (retail) gets better prices (less slippage/price impact). Itâs not the time to be feeding on LP profit margins.
When volume is up 10x, that will be the time.
Until then, itâs in our interest to focus on growth, not on rent-seeking.
Also, we already have a HUGE treasury. Whatâs the point to grow it with fees ?
7 Likes
Good point. I think after V3 is a good idea after we get tons more LP providers.
1 Like
@allo, I hear you and I agree with most of what youâre saying. Perhaps I wasnât clear enough in my previous post. I donât see engaging the fee switch on v2 as a short term ârent-seekingâ or âeasy gainsâ move. Rather, it goes hand in hand with the transition to v3, and LP migration incentives. At a base level, engaging the switch on the current protocol would work as a negative incentive for LPs to migrate. They would want to move from v2 pools with higher flat fees to v3 pools with lower or no fees (at inception) as those will naturally provide higher yields for them. In addition, the accrued fees from the switch help bolster the treasury. This increase in treasury funds can then be allocated, if needed, to additional positive incentives (UNI distribution) for LPs to migrate. In this way we can provide both positive, and negative incentives for LPs to migrate to v3 next Month.
2 Likes
I wouldnât be against that.
The problem is that we have no major delegates discussing these matters with us here⌠:-/
Great. That brings me back to my original post then of how best to go about kicking this off. We either need a single delegate with enough votes to kick off the proposal, or enough smaller holders to delegate someone their votes so they can do the same. I think there may be another way that was discussed a bit last year where a form of crowd proposal is created without needing 1% of the UNI supply.
Any ideas for the above? Best way to contact large holders? How to rally small holders to delegate their votes to a representative? Method for creating a proposal that then is backed after the fact?
@chrisblec did you have any success with Twitter?
@DCinvestor is a new delegate who, contrary to the others, seems interested in actually getting proposals out the door.
maybe @rleshner would be interested as wellâŚ
I think we might want to contact big delegates but go the autonomous proposals route
autonomous proposals allow us to submit a proposal w/o the treshold.
I think the penguin party built the tool by forking compound gov code. but I canât find the UI right nowâŚ
I think voting for the v2 fee switch (after v3 goes live on L1 ethereum) would also send a strong signal that UNI governance can vote a fee switch and that there are reasons to hold UNI besides governance.
edit : found the interface Uni Governance
(except thereâs no way to launch a new proposal⌠you probably have to do it through etherscan or somethingâŚ)
1 Like
Hello! Weâre a pretty sizable delegate (around 7,000,000 votes) with a solid following on Twitter and other student groups. Weâre in the process of crafting a recommendation for/against the fee switch. Weâve been working on this for a while now (v3 going live more quickly than anticipated threw a wrench in our plans) and planned on publishing a small Medium post on the pros and cons with our ultimate recommendation. Do you all think this would be beneficial?
7 Likes
I think using a fee switch on V2 to incentivize migration to V3, as _uniswapper suggested, should be considered further.
2 Likes
Yes for sure ! thanks
But keep in mind here we are talking about the v2 (and only v2) fee switch after v3 goes live as a means to :
- incentivize LP migration to L3
- make a statement about the UNI token and UNI governance in general (the fee switch exists and it makes UNI valuable i.e. not just a pure gov. token)
I keep seeing people saying UNI has no utility beyond governance and I think itâs time to show how that narrative is false and that the Uni governance can come together and vote to turn on the v2 fee switch. Or at least just have a good debate on the matter. I guess it will make us, uni holders, feel more alive regardless of the outcome !
3 Likes
Iâm curious to hear your thoughts on what the long term ramifications of turning on the fee switch on v2. In the event it does incentivize migration to v3, might this demonstrate that a fee switch in general can lead LPs to flee Uniswapâi.e. if in the future we wanted to turn on the fee switch in v3 in the future a response weâd face is, âwhen you turned on the switch for v2 it led all the LPs to leave, so if we turn it on in v3, LPs will leave to a different DEX.â
Also, what is justification for awarding UNI holders who donât participate in governance with a fee switch? Is it that it builds excitement to the UNI community, pumps up the price of UNI in the short-medium term, rewards people for acting as investors in the UNI project, or something else altogether?
2 Likes
I think this is a hypothesis that needs to be tested.
might this demonstrate that a fee switch in general can lead LPs to flee Uniswapâi.e. if in the future we wanted to turn on the fee switch in v3 in the future a response weâd face is, âwhen you turned on the switch for v2 it led all the LPs to leave, so if we turn it on in v3, LPs will leave to a different DEX.â
At worst the fee structure would be on par with existing competitors.
UNI holders that donât participate in governance are still holders and shouldnât be punished. Expecting complete participation is impractical. Not all shareholders have the ability and resources to provide value. In addition to the possible outcomes mentioned, at least it would give the impression that the community can experiment and learn, rather than stagnation.
2 Likes
First of all, Iâm super happy that a delegate with a sizeable amount of delegated votes comes here and actually discusses the proposals with us smaller holders/non delegates. Itâs not something that happens a lot. Big delegates have been mostly absent and as a result, governance has been pretty much dead. I think this is changing, and Iâm really happy. We are hearing that community managers are being hired. As a sidenote I think we need more active moderation here. More precisely we need to delete threads about future airdrops as they are really counterproductive and encourage scammers preying on gullible users. We should have a big banner saying there are no more airdrops planned.
Back on topic :
I think we agree that our goal should be to have our LPs transition to v3, just like they transitioned to v2 about a year ago. V2 is the new V1 if you will. The transition should/will happen ; itâs a matter of time essentially, insofar as V3 is a superior product and that it makes V2 (along with protocols who copy-pasted the code) obsolete.
So turning on the fee switch maybe a couple of weeks (the timeframe is what should be debated here in my view) after V3 goes live on L1 (Ethereum mainnet) could help us give a wake up call to LPs who still havenât transitioned. But mostly â at least in my view â it would be a strong symbolic action for governance to take at this point. Because it will also serve as a huge reminder that UNI holders can come together and take a collective decision on a fee switch proposal. In this way, the DeFi community can be reminded that UNI isnât just a pure governance token : one of its main purposes is to act as a stake in future protocol fees.
V2 fee switch also is a very nice compromise/middleground between no fee-switch at all and v3 fee switch.
In any event I donât see the turning on of the v2 fee switch as having any bad consequences. The reason for that is that v2 will be a âlegacyâ product very soon and the volume should naturally drop sharply once v3 goes live (same as when v2 was launched, really).
There are many advantages to a v2 fee switch turn-on proposal but one of them is that the code is extremely easy. As far as I know, itâs a one-liner.
I think one of the next step to envision is to come up with a full proposal and maybe post it on snapshot as an informal temperature check.
But first we really need to debate this idea a bit more (especially the timeframe) and find additional delegates who would be willing to support this proposal.
1 Like
This summary would be a great and valueable contribution, not only to UniSwap but also (likely) from a research-perspective. Iâm no expert in this field but I can imagine that the concept of decentralized / distributed governance opens up quite some new research areas!
I guess (and hope) this pro / con list for the fee switch will consider multiple perspectives though, in order to have a neutral baseline?
About the fee-switch itself: Iâve got to admit that the Uni-Token having some additional financial, passive incentive was / is a (psychologically) nice thing, especially for small fish like myself (rather plancton). I do also understand the party that does reject this mechanism (why should you get money for âhaving stuff sitting around idle?â⌠well⌠banks seem to have an answer about this :D). In the end Iâd have liked something like this: as long as you hold uni-token on an adress, all LP that same address actually provides receives a minor boost in collected fees. The more UNI youâve got, the bigger that bonus (though diminishing returns should really be considered). ALL of this bonus payment can be paid from the marginally increased trading fee that is enabled after activating the fee-switch. This way both UNI-holders and LP-providers would be fine and the distribution of UNI-token should even be optimized over time (due to said diminishing returns).
Iâm not saying this is the best solution as I am very likely missing LOTS of aspects, but to me - so far - it seemed fair and interesting at the same time.
1 Like
I agree with you it makes no sense to turn it now on in V2, but I hope you will propose a vote after the v3 launch!
I think you miss out some points with why reward UNI holders, if you think about it the big value behind it is the network-effect. If UNI holders get rewards, more people trust in the protocol more people want to hold UNI â UNI is in the news. So more people talk about Uniswap, more people use Uniswap â LP get more rewards â UNI holders get more rewards â more people use Uniswap, talk about it and spread it.
The clear benefit is the network-effect and the catalysts for it would be turning on the fee switch in v3 so UNI holders have real value and therefore use the network-effect to get the volume of the DEX to surpass all major centralized exchanges.
1 Like
And to clearify this here, the @Uniswap team wrote on Discord they can not pull the switch or support it on twitter - because of regulatorily issues - they wrote in the Discord the proposal has to come from the community without contribution from the Uniswap Labs Team. (But I guess they would support the vote as it sound)
1 Like
Turning the switch on is actually a complicated process + it is irrational to turn on right now since the volumes will increase dramatically when V3 hits. The fee switch is a mechanism which should be turned on when Uniswap is in a mature position, we are just not there yet.
1 Like