I will support this proposal.
Let me first share my personal opinion on fee switches. The ideal solution would be for the protocol to remain a public good, a fee-less DeFi base layer. I’m finally able to say this clearly, without risking that I appear to be siding with the “bad guys” and being against any decisions. (Also to be clear, as delegate I’m representing UNI holder interests, not my personal opinion - at least not just it.) That ideal solution is of course now not possible, due to many reasons. It probably stopped being a good option the moment the UNI token was created.
Having said that, this proposal is great. A couple of highlights:
-
A 20M UNI budget for protocol development and growth. This is obviously a significant amount but directly depends on the UNI price, so indirectly on the protocol’s performance. And if we want to spend treasury funds on development and growth at all, Uniswap Labs is by far the most deserving candidate!
-
Protocol Fee Discount Auction. I’ve been arguing many times that any fee switch needs to consider LPs and compensate them somehow. This is it. At worst, it’s a nice gesture that should be appreciated. At best, the Labs researchers have found a solution to the LP retention problem. It remains to be seen how efficient this mechanism is, as the theory only shows a ~5% reduction in arbitrage loss. However, if it works sufficiently well, it will be another example in which Uniswap produces a “good enough” solution that actually works within the realistic implementation constraints.
Looking forward to better understanding the upcoming relations between equity and token holders , as well as the role of community hook builders in a world where the Labs drive protocol development & growth.