It seems like there aren’t many against this, and I don’t have a low level understanding, but I wonder how much of the token realistically would be distributed to regular users vs the additional gas fee to claim it. If the distribution is feasible, as a small user, I want to say that I’d much rather see incentives go towards offsetting the gas fees in participating in governance vs executing swaps.
5 Likes
I agree a lot on this matter. Incentivising by doing multiple tasks on the same page. Oversight and cleanliness.
1 Like
I think this is far superior than liquidity mining. LP already get trading fees, if we want to subsidize them further, we should direct more trading fees to UNI buybacks. Increasing volume directly impacts LP profits as well as encouraging integration. What I’d really like to see is a swap-reward that scales up as gas fees increase to help subsidize user fees. This may also have the effect of improving liquidity during market stress.
4 Likes
Right now with regular gas price (say 55 is low, 120 is high), it’s becoming hard to afford a swap for the little guys. Coupled with eth’s price surge, gas fees are becoming a barrier for adoption for people who aren’t rich. I think this goes against what Uniswap wants to be.
It hurts the democratization narrative and people like CZ rejoice.
Swap incentivizing would certainly be a good thing while we wait for L2 solutions (lets be clear : it’s a bandaid) but I really doubt we can implement this w/o the help of the Uniswap team.
For starters, we would need to know what’s going on with L2 integration (an ETA).
Why is this so top-secret ?
If it’s in 1 month, then we wait. If it’s in 1 year, then it’s probably a good idea to create a swap incentivization program and subsidize part of the gas costs (maybe even for LPs add/remove operations) to foster volume growth.
6 Likes
So Balancer is subsidizing gas costs right now on some pairs
Check out this governance post …
3 Likes
Incentivizing gas could backfire. Yes, it will create transaction volume which should in turn attract LPs. However it’s an unprofitable, zero sum, short term way to grow. Remove the incentive and transaction volume falls back down and LPs migrate back to other platforms.
I think swapmining could make sense, in rewarding people who swap with a small amount of Uni. However the Uni earned should be on v3, and hopefully on layer 2 and locked until v3 launches. In this way, we incentivize and reward transactions and we also promote migration over to v3, since users would need to migrate to v3 to collect their rewards. Claiming the rewards would be much cheaper due to the expected much lower gas prices on l2.
1 Like
II like the idea of a reward structure. Great post.
3 Likes
I think this is worth revisiting with the launch of V3. Specifically the cost of migrating from V2 to V3 is very high and it seems reasonable to reimburse gas costs to migrations that create V3 pools.
1 Like
Perhaps, based on a snapshot of they help uni V2 LP tokens before, that way it can’t be abused.
1 Like
I tried to think of an elaborate justification as to why more UNI should be dropped to me personally, but that’s a lot of work, so could you just drop a bunch of it to me personally, kthxbye
1 Like
I believe staking uni for interest different from liquidity mining is a noble idea.