Single use delegation - Activate Protocol Fee Switch for UNI Holders

I’ve been waiting to delegate my UNI to someone who wants to activate a critical part of the UNI token governance and no one has done it.

Delegate to me your votes and I will only use it for one single purpose:

Activation of the protocol fee switch and nothing else.

Call to action:

None yet, but community member can make a page that shows current delegated votes and any proposals that I have done.

Reasons why as Uni token holders we want to do this:

  1. The switch allows governance to divert 0.05% of all swap fees to where ever Uniswap Governance decides. This delegation will not get into the politics of where that money should go and how it will be spent.
  2. Control over the Uniswap fee switch is subject to a 180 day time lockdelay. Let’s not waste time. Activating it doesn’t mean we HAVE to do something with it. We can just choose NOT to divert the funds from the swap fees, but at least we will have the option.
  3. 1% of UNI total supply (delegated) to submit a governance proposal. 1 million votes are required to submit proposal. 4% of UNI (4 million) supply required to vote ’yes’ to reach quorum. The development team purposely designed the protocol fee switch as a community governance issue because of legal issues, so they are UNLIKELY to vote on this issue.
    This is up to us as a community to make this happen.

Uniswap is averaging $500,000,000 in volume a day for the past month.
$500,000,000 * .3% = $1,500,000 or $1.5 million per day
Protocol Fee Switch
$500,000,000 * .05% = $250,000 or $250k per day
If governance decided to divert these funds to UNI token holders (Not saying we should do this).
In 180 days there will be approximately 450 million UNI tokens and if we assume that Uniswap does not grow in fee volume:
$250,000 / 450,000,000 = $0.000556 per day per UNI
Approximately $0.203 per year per UNI token


Step one: “UNI holders are responsible for ensuring that governance decisions are made in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. To help facilitate this, the fee switch has been initialized to a contract UNI holders can use to vote on tokens for which they will collect fees. The community is encouraged to consult knowledgeable legal and regulatory professionals before implementing any specific proposal”


Sounds like team is covering their butts which was smart. What is your point? If your gonna post at least be helpful.

I thought it was pretty apparent what they were saying.

Who in the community is a lawyer, and where are you from?

This is where the community comes together and says “I know someone who/I did blockchain regulation for a company!” This is still a network just like before, the team had advisors. The community will need advisors.

We need to set up an advisor portion of the forum where we can group experts in certain things for reference in decisions. The effective use of the many experts among us is paramount to our success as a community.

It also means if the team was covering their butts, so should the community.

1 Like

Why do you think it is necessary for the community to have advisors? This is a permission less decentralized public network application. This is like saying you need an advisor when you put up liquidity on Uniswap. I didn’t see Uniswap and team say we need a community advisor, they just said DYOR and this is not without risk.

Each person is welcome to get an advisor but the community does not NEED one.Vote with your tokens, do whatever you feel is right.


I am all for activating the switch immediately. We are clearly bootstrapped enough at this stage to start collecting and the liquidity mining programmes that will of course continue to keep running will likely more than make up for what is taken from LPs.

I agree. I am disappointed by the lack activity on this forum and in governance in general. Looks like this will be a long term goal unless we get some people to promote this idea.

Yeah, strange. Just came from another thread that has descended into anarchy so maybe the lack of comments isn’t the worst thing in the world lol. I have a fair amount of votes for what its worth and I’d think traders/investors with big stakes are more aligned with turning it on right now. You know, if not now, when? Doesn’t really make sense not to.

Yeah, which is why I apathy absurd. The devs put a switch in the code but being located in USA could not activate it themselves due to legal reasons. It has to be done via a decentralized method as to not be classified as a security. They did the community a favor by programming in the switch but seems no one cares.

Let’s get this thing activated.


I highly recommend you to use Twitter (which you have initiated). Constantly tagging influencers and right people can bring the attention that’s needed.

Also, is it possible to see the fund delegation progress?

Are you 100% sure it is possible to override the timelock ?

Can’t override the timelock. It will require 180 days to activate after voting.

1 Like

Quick question, if I delegate my votes to someone, does that give them access to spend my UNI for votes ?
As in each vote is like 1 UNI less in my wallet ?

No does not move your Uni from you wallet. It just allows them to vote on your behalf.

I think your post could have stood alone as you completely missed the crux of my point.

I wasn’t talking about the literal community as a whole getting advisors, but of ensuring we make use of the expertise among us and listen to reason as decisions are made.

Mob-mentality and emotions can ship a sink much faster than most people realize.

So, do we eat the apple everyone?

1 Like

Who are the “experts?” I think you miss the point that this is a world wide decentralized system. Are you an expert? What qualifies you as an expert? Are you able to understand each societies moral and social dispositions? Do you even know who the “community” is?

It’s simple, if you want this to pass, you delegate and I will pass it. If you don’t want this to pass, move on and get off your horse or unicorn.

1 Like

Thanks for bringing this to the governance community’s attention.

The litigation risk discussed here seems nebulous (unsure how a specific countries laws could be applied to a decentralized group of token holders). The only con I can see with this is that it would eat in to LP profits.

That being said, historical liquidity providers are UNI holders / have been granted a large share of UNI. This change could appreciate the price of their stack of UNI, since it gives UNI a new dimension of value and potentially a profit-flow for holders. UNI sentiment is very low due to their being no clear use case for holding the token. This protocol fee switch is a compelling use case, it basically allows people to get exposure to Uniswap protocol fees without the risk of impermanent loss that come with being a liquidity provider.

I agree that the least we should do is put this up for a vote. Perhaps one of the hesitations is that people are unsure how the fee will be used, and perhaps need to know that before voting yes?

FWIW I am in support of turning it on, and since there are 180 days until it activates, I think there is plenty of time to discuss how we can use the fee. I am also curious to hear why people would be against this.

1 Like

Plenty of time to discuss. They put in a 180 day timelock for a reason.
Most holders have no interest in governance, they just want to see number go up. I think it will take further consolidation before large token holders decide that this should be done. Either way this is going to get done, just a matter of time.

That is an extremely nuanced question and I’m not saying I have any answers to it.

I’m not trying to sit on a high horse, I’m giving my two cents from decades of community management and moderation.

No matter how decentralized a system gets, it doesn’t make the average user any more or less educated. It simply gives everyone a voice to vote (or delegate votes to someone) regardless of whether or not they or the delegate have the least bit of understanding on the subject at hand.

While the idea that everyone’s voice should hold equal weight in a governance system is a nice one, it’s denying certain facts about human behavior: Most people (including delegates) will not “DYOR”, and will act on uninformed emotion instead of reason.

Roles like the one you’re filling are extremely valuable. I’m simply pointing out the fact that a governance system isn’t better just because it’s decentralized if the knowledge/ignorance of the user base remains the same.