First of all, we want to congratulate the team for the work done in developing this long-awaited proposal, which we fully support!
Secondly, we have a few questions we’d like to clarify:
-
With the projected reduction of LP fees from 0.3% to 0.25%, isn’t there a risk that liquidity providers might move their funds to other DEXs offering more attractive conditions? If that happens, lower liquidity in the pools and higher IL could lead to a decrease in trading activity and volume, thereby reducing the protocol’s revenue and, consequently, the amount of UNI to be burned. Was this risk assessed? Is there room to reconsider the fee strategy if such effects are observed?
-
We’d like to better understand the rationale behind allocating the entire Protocol Fee to token burns, rather than reserving part of it for growth initiatives or revenue sharing with tokenholders. Was any financial analysis conducted to support the idea that burning 100% of fees is preferable to using a portion to strengthen growth or reward holders? Why was this total burn mechanism chosen?
-
Regarding the budget request of 20M UNI starting in January 2026, aimed at funding growth and protocol development, isn’t there a potential overlap with the $ 25.1M budget approved for the Uniswap Foundation in March this year, which already included allocations for development and growth over the next two years? Given that Uniswap Labs will now take over growth and development responsibilities, along with the transfer of staff and operations from the Foundation to Labs, will the @UniswapFoundation return to the DAO the previously approved budget?
-
What growth initiatives can you tell us about that will be carried out with the required budget? Is there a tentative roadmap you can share?
Thanks.