Should we continue the same UNI liquidity incentives for 2 more months?

Uniswap liquidity has already dropped by nearly 40% according to DeFi Pulse.

As Uniswap dominance quickly dwindles, are you prepared to vote to simply continue the UNI incentives we’ve had since v2 launch (not halving it, but spending another 20m UNI out of the total 172 UNI Year 1 vesting) for 2 more months while we research our long-term strategy?

  • Yes, let’s extend the same incentives 2 months
  • No, let’s do something else (or take no action)

0 voters

1 Like

Markets are fickle. The incentives gave a lot more people a taste of Uniswap and what it can do. It’s best not to continue to subsidize TVL or else the market will continue to expect it. I would be curious to see how much Uniswap TVL grew compared to before $UNI incentives and a week after $UNI incentives end. My guess is that TVL will still be meaningfully higher.

4 Likes

Reward seems like a good compromise.

4 Likes

Can some of the no voters explain me:
Why have the market forces changed, compared to the moment when uniswap decided to hand out incentives? Wont poeple run off and search the biggest profit?

Why will uniswap keep high amounts of TVL when the same mechanic (defi pools/ROI) is offered with an incentive on top, next door? We are in a money business with uniswap. Not in a cult.

1 Like

I say yes. I’m happy with any returns lol

Reduce by half the reward of the genesis pools as proposed here: [Discussion] Uniswap Liquidity Incentive Plan

But I would say, that the perhaps using the other half ( 10M Uni per month; which would retain the same mining rate as genesis) to incentivize the next in line top volume traded pairs in centralized exchanges. At the end Uniswap is competing with the centralized exchanges right?

Without data I vote no, but I am open to the idea. The initial 60-day period served the purpose of UNI distribution in a decentralized way to those who did not get an airdrop. It also increased the reward pools liquidity, which is great, but did it serve a material benefit other than distribution?

What is the main goal that such a decision is trying to achieve? Subsidizing liquidity? Widening UNI distribution? Or increasing yield until it is higher than the competition? I see the benefit of increased liquidity, but how much did the protocol benefit from that liquidity? I do not know. To assume it is worth $60M+ seems wasteful to me.

2 Likes

Right now I prefer to see whats happening with the volume without incentive, for me as a lp the higher APY due to larger relativ trading volume seems a benefit, although I don’t earn UNI anymore I get more Eth/DAI and I earn more as I would get in one of the clones, at least more as I would get at Sushiswap (haven’t checked all others), so I prefer to stay and imho many others too (and some who left might come back). For me it seems more important to focus on trading volume (which is still much higher on uniswap compared to sushi) and not so much on the TVL, cause if there is high TVL and low trading it’s of no benefit to the lp and they will leave as soon as an incentive runs out. And if something isn’t sustainable without incentive will will not survive for long.

7 Likes