UniSwap UNIfication Proposal

Uniswap UNIfication Proposal

Uniswap announced some long-awaited news yesterday. Thought it was about platform revenues going to token holders as rewards but it's not really like that.

UNIfication can't just give out the cash to token holders like dividends because of some legal worries. They're using a different method. They're gonna put platform revenues into a burn mechanism to burn UNI tokens. They hope this makes the UNI price go up and rewards holders that way. The legal worry is that if fees were given out directly like dividends, regulators might see UNI as a security. The burn mechanism is a smart move to lower that risk.

The mechanism doesn't cover all platform revenues at the start. First, only for V2 pools. LP fees will go from 0.30% to 0.25%, and that 0.05% part will be the protocol fee. For V3 pools with 0.01%-0.05% fees, 1/4 of it will be protocol fee. For pools with 0.30%-1% fees, 1/6 will be protocol fee.

Also, all Unichain Sequencer fees will be protocol fees, that's after L1 data costs and the 15% cut for Optimism. The protocol fees from pools and the Sequencer will be used for the burn.

So, doesn't this proposal just commercialize Uniswap, hurt its decentralized nature, and make the protocol's future super dependent on the shady incentives of Uniswap Labs, which is only legally responsible to its shareholders?

Their main legal duty is to their shareholders, not UNI token holders. Those investors want returns they can measure in cash flow or stock value, not a return linked to a token you have to sell to get your money. My bigger worry is that Uniswap is slowly stopping being our thing, like a public good. Turning on fees and the burn mechanism is making the protocol a business. And having Labs run critical stuff like the Unichain Sequencer centrally is totally against the whole idea of decentralization.

So basically, down the road, if Labs shareholders' interests and UNI holders' interests clash, which one will Labs pick? (The law or decentralization).

It also makes the protocol's sustainability depend on one company's treasury skills, and even worse, on market conditions. What happens in the next huge bear market when the UNI price drops 80% and Labs' operations budget disappears? Is protocol development just gonna stop?

What was Uniswap's strength? It was a neutral and reliable public thing that everyone could build on freely. Turning on fees and letting one company have so much say over those fees, that just messes with its neutrality. The protocol isn't a public highway anymore; it's turning into a private toll road.

Yeah, the proposal promises sustainability, but it's at the cost of complicated incentive problems and more centralization. It's changing Uniswap from being our neutral public good into a commercial protocol that's way too dependent on one company's market performance and legal duties. This really makes you question the protocol's long-term neutrality, censorship resistance, and if its governance is even fair. I mean, if you get success by giving up on decentralization, is that even success?

Support Jesse

Jesse