Would this in turn, create a positive feedback loop?
Think u misunderstood what I mean was have a governance system similiar to curve where we lock uni for long term duration for the .05% fees that way holders would benefit more also would need a voting type token for when u freeze uni to be able to vote
LP providers play an important role. UNISWAP needs to entice them.
It is good to have LP whales to stabilize price fluctuations of any given trade-able asset. The fees that UNISWAP generates from the LP of 0.25% tax and the additional 0.05% UNI token incentive was a way to entice LP to UNISWAP? Yes but perhaps a balance must be reached to avoid dumps of UNI because otherwise without the right tokenomics a loss of real value will be faced by uni as opportunity cost. It is not clear as several replies above show that a BB&B is enough to stabilize UNI value let alone provide any real increase in value. If the UNI token doesn’t do anything, and is not even enticing to LP, then it is effectively useless. This is why I propose the following, and invite discussion from the link therein: https://snapshot.page/#/uniswap/proposal/QmWL6jSeYRKzEaS37GjV96b8sFpLFnmHJG84qvek2speAM
While I understand the sentiment here, this is an unrealistic ask to make of the core team.
Given how cautious the team needs to be about governance, there is zero chance that buybacks could happen.
Instead, the better route here would to be discussing a Uniswap protocol fee, currently set to 0% but able to be switched on to $0.05% at any time. See this post under ‘Path to Sustainability’.