Restoring UNI value after LP & airdrop sell-off

In order to involve the community in DAO “governance” by voting, to reward the brave and flex the muscle of “Decentralized Finance”, a sketch of a proposal is outlined below:

Consider that X percentage of the 0.05% TX fee after the switching be distributed to original airdrop wallets as a subsequent airdrop, provided; “the wallets held/hold a balance of 300 UNI during/for some critically defined period of time (to be defined before the vote.)”

The purpose of this is to fix the issue that centralized whale LP miners dump UNI rewards and this causes an additional cascade sell-pressure feedback loop that causes wide-spread sell-off devastating to UNI price. So it would go some way to restore the originally intended tokenomics of decentralized supply.


original airdrop wallets already got enough rewards for early support to the project, the best thing to do is add value to uni holder, like tx fee distribution, fee discount by pay with uni, stake uni for the benefit, and longer gets more, when uni has more value, people would buy and hold it, and since everyone can buy it freely, it will become more and more decentralized as a result.


Yes, in the long term I think you provide some correct solutions, but I think we need a more direct short term mechanism to put the LP whales on notice, as well as warn and support the so-called "early adopters’, many of whom will have an eye on UNI but unfortunately had little option but to sell out, since the LP whales quickly set the market price towards a downward spiral. The justification would be that: There was an absence of governance at t0 that naturally favored “centralized power” via the “profit motive”, above all else.


Most “Early adopters” had only made a few Tx of very low value. They are watchful!


people come farming for apy, and airdrops earn it “Unexpected”, since it’s no benefits holding it, they have to sell it to achieve apy or get the real money, and yes, whales could try to get down the price and collect more uni “secretly”, then get more control, that’s an issue.
about this, may learn some from curve had done to crv.
the most wanted governance vote would be what mining pools for next round imo, haha, if theres one, I think a lot of uni holder would come for it, but there’s no.
the recent 2 Proposals are not so interested, that’s for big holders, may be that’s why it didnt even have enough votes, if it’s about how to share the tx fees, every holder would come for it ;P, that’s real people would care about.


yeah, some even scammers

1 Like

please clarify as it is not clear to me. Might be me, but still please clarify.

“the most wanted governance vote would be what mining pools for next round imo, haha, if theres one, I think a lot of uni holder would come for it, but there’s no.”

If you are referring to UNI/XXX Mining pools, that pay out the third token: WETH, USD(X) or WBTC, I would agree, this is a very important mechanism to explore.

1 Like

I mean we are looking for what pools would have uni rewards after the first round ends, but there’s no this kind of proposals to vote, that’s people care about.
I personally hold btc and eth, and wbtc/eth pool rewards uni, then it’s good to be LP on uniswap compare to just hold btc & eth, I can earn some tx fees and get uni rewards, but it’s ending and no further plan, disappointed about it, I came to uniswap for benefits, then I get to know it, besides pools rewards I buy more uni directly from uniswap cause I think it would be valuable, now I am a eth/uni LP as well.


Yes, I think I see and understand your point. I tested the ETH/WBTC pool. I put 0.5 ETH worth in WETH and 0.5ETH in WBTC to mix my LP token. I recall i earned about 1 UNI in 1 week. I think it is roughly equivalent to a 17% annual interest account, right? Not sure how it maps exactly to APY but I think I take your point that it is a high yielding account and so some LP will be leaving, but will those who stay still make enough gains, by arb trading? Plus there will be other pools right? Is there an issue with the other pools? Or is your point that you prefer for LP to stay within the UNI ecosystem bonded by UNI rewards?

actually,with eth/uni pool, it got 40%+ apy without uni rewards for now, I am pretty enjoy it, since I would hold uni and eth anyway, not so care about the impermanent loss for short-term.
it depends on individuals, some just come for high apy, they might just go anywhere offer the best apy, some are long-term holders like me, they would happy with stable & reasonable apy and not going to move frequently.
so, maybe the stop of uni rewards wasn’t that bad, will show what exactly how it goes without uni rewards, that’s real stable TVL.


Where did you get that?

uniswap eth/uni pool


Please vote (2 day vote limit), in the snapshot here:

I made a transaction using my Coinbase wallet before the announced deadline and never received anything.

Oh, did the coinbase wallet use a proxy-contract?

Although the proposal did not get to the stage of a formal vote, since it didn’t pass the “temperature check”, via snapshot, in fact, another airdrop to UNI wallet holders was indeed enacted, for those wallets that maintained 100 UNI?

Can someone please confirm?

1 Like

Спасибо тебе Uni!

Будем держать дальше!)

1 Like

There are some problems with this.

First off, the original airdrop led to exectly the mechanisms which you say led to a decline in the price of UNI. What makes you think something different is going to happen this time? If anything, the large liquidity providers and those with multiple wallets will end up with more control.

Also, the token economic model is very sound. We cannot control Market forces, and doing another airdrop to try would be futile. The initial surge of tokens would mean all the people who originally sold would probably sell again, this time at a much higher price, further dropping the price of UNI and allowing whales to scoop it up.

In order to maintain optimal tokenomics, the application should function within it’s utility. Occam’s Razor - the simplest solution is usually the best solution.
New distribution models and somewhat arbitrary data would only convolute the system and weaken the overall peeception of competence in government on Uniswap, which is important for the price; if a system makes poor governance decisions, small token holders are more likely to sell, large groups are more likely to come in and completely reorganize the system.

Additionally, the market is healthy. We’re experiencing a normal correction currently.

I personally think the best way to accomplish better LPs and more distributed addresses is to bring back incentivized pools, but include a _maxPoolPercentage function that scales with CurrentLiquidityETHValue param.

In this manner, the first liquidity provider could obviously have 100% of the pool, but from N+10 accounts and approaching a higher number, the maximum percent of pool each address can hold goes down until UNI reward parity is reached. This should only be the case for incentivized pools, as it is beneficial when a whale provides a lot of liquidity on one token pair.

I think there’s plenty to work with and on in the current model before introducing separate governance expansions. For data purposes, I would be interested to see how the first cohort deals with the first major community led upgrade.

1 Like