I’m a bit divided here and would probably abstain from voting. Basically, I feel this initiative comes too late, the optimal time would have been in 2021.
With the v4 deployment expected sometime this year or the next, implementing additional v2 deployments would lead to further liquidity fragmentation, increased overheads (such as documentation and integration), and potentially divert community attention from more important things (v4 and UniswapX).
Also, v4 is likely to share some benefits with v2, e.g.:
- Cheaper swaps compared to v3
I’ll admit that v2 has some benefits too:
- Battle-tested and secure contracts
- Numerous existing third-party integrations, documentation, and community familiarity
However, v4 resembles more of a protocol layer than just a DEX. Ideally, I’d like to see v4 develop a “v2-style AMM” mode — a standardized set of hooks suitable for less common assets, featuring:
- Enforced wide-range or full-range liquidity provisioning, to guarantee liquidity at any price
- Extra wide tick spacing (to reduce gas costs for swapping)
- Support for fee-on-transfer tokens (if feasible)
- Built-in liquidity locking until a specific timestamp
This approach would enable v4 to replace most v2 use cases. My preference is for the DAO to concentrate its efforts on this aspect.
@WintermuteGovernance not sure what you mean by creating stability, can you give an example?