The core issue is that the demand for the OKU front end is not driven by user interest in utilizing it across other chains. Rather, these chains are compensating OKU primarily for the access it provides to the enshrined Uniswap contracts. GFX can demonstrate its value to users and liquidity providers by providing actual analytics—something it has not addressed in its communications with other stakeholders.
You are correct that similar fees might be charged by other deployers or distributors. However, the fees associated with OKU are higher because it operates for profit. This raises the question: why shouldn’t these Layer 2 networks engage directly with the Uniswap Foundation and pay fees for deployment directly to them? At least in that case, the DAO would directly benefit from the associated revenue.
As always, if you want to understand the outcomes, look to the incentives that drive them.