# \[RFC\] Proposal to active 2, 3, 4 bps fee-tiers on Base **URL:** \ **Category:** Requests for Comment\ **Created:** [July 31, 2024, 4:01pm UTC](https://gov.uniswap.org/t/rfc-proposal-to-active-2-3-4-bps-fee-tiers-on-base/24346 "2024-07-31T16:01:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 15
**Author:** ![404DAO](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/gov.uniswap.org/404dao/32/8120_2.png) [@404DAO](https://gov.uniswap.org/u/404DAO)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2024, 7:20pm UTC](https://gov.uniswap.org/t/rfc-proposal-to-active-2-3-4-bps-fee-tiers-on-base/24346/15 "2024-08-15T19:20:52Z")
Hi @aadams, thank you for the proposal. We would like to voice concern around the theorized motivation for why aerodrome has overtaken Uni on Base. While the fee tier could be the reason, it very well could be the token incentives driving deeper liquidity which subsequently would lead to Aerodrome being the preferred outlet for larger traders. If the current assumptions presented around the fee tier do not end up being the real cause for the decline in market share, then we risk collateral damage by hurting lp margins who then may take their capital to aerodrome where they are already offering a competitive, albeit subsidized, rate. Undercutting fees because we are losing market share is a knee-jerk reaction and does not take into account the full situation. To be clear, we are not categorically against this proposal but there needs to be more research before any decisions are made. --- _[View the full topic](https://gov.uniswap.org/t/rfc-proposal-to-active-2-3-4-bps-fee-tiers-on-base/24346)._