Great to see discussion resurected around this topic. Looks like a few things are still needed to figure out:
8/ It’s worth considering a fee to use Uniswap oracles.
While this would require some protocol changes, this could be implemented as a flat fee in ETH per call or a registration of a project’s contract on an array of approved oracle callers.
What would the complexity be of this type of protocol change, and does it require extensive testing/auditing?
Also need to figure what defines Uniswap as a “keeper of oracles” per the tweet thread:
(1) act as a “liquidity provider of last resort” By “liquidity provider of last resort,” I mean the DAO could create an automated strategy or appoint an LP manager to provide passive liquidity to pools that are important oracles and running low on liquidity.
(2) provide liquidity incentives to pools that are high value as price oracles
(3) provide data and research regarding oracle performance
(4) provide better documentation for best practices around oracle usage
It looks a “Keeper of Oracles” would function well if it did all four of these tasks. One of the best way’s for user’s to learn about Oracles is to actually use it for projects, and to have documention surrounding the process of usage.
I wonder if Point (1) and (2) could be related somehow. Such as providing longer period vested incentives, that are locked up as insurance incase point (1) happens during x amount of time. i.e. Incentive long period lock up, that pays out if oracle is successful, but accured potential payout is slashed if failing.
The latency of large and short time frames of the oracle could partically be mitigated by healthy liquidity depth around spot, so perhaps an active liquidity manager could be involved in this strategy.
Great to see this proposal have some fresh eyes and perspective from Alex Kroeger. Helps me see the potential.