Gauntlet communicated its position following the temperature check, highlighting outstanding questions regarding the proposal and requesting feedback around the second and third-order effects of introducing multiple lower fee-tier pools.
Gauntlet is not outright against the proposal. At this time, Gauntlet has opted not to actively vote for it, with outstanding questions around its effects on liquidity providers and evidence that this will result in a favorable market position for Uniswap.
The proposal focuses on vampiring volume from aggregators with a focus on lower trading fees. We’re most interested in research on how liquidity is affected if Aerodrome cuts fees in response to Uniswap’s lower fee-tier pools. For example, in a scenario where Aerodrome has undercut Uniswap’s most competitive fee-tier pool, Uniswap may find itself with a similar market share; only Uniswap LPs are making less revenue because they’re in a lower fee tier. Will Aerodrome pools become more attractive at lower fee-tiers than Uniswap because AERO incentives account for a larger percentage of LP revenue?
As for the Conflict of Interest claims Gauntlet has been working with a wide range of Base ecosystem projects, including Uniswap, to grow USDC TVL on Base. Gauntlet is not compensated by Aerodrome.