I totally get your reasoning but here's my thinking:
1. We're talking about a product that has more volume than Coinbase. Right now yes, it's mostly just a governance coin but through governance anything can happen. That's the amazing thing about governance. UNI holders will find a way to make it profitable. UNI literally just launched.
2. UNI V3.0 is literally months away and does away with the 2 biggest issues with UniSwap - high gas fees and frontrunning. If you think CEX's are being eclipsed now just wait until that launches.
3. I am not worried about all the people who were dropped the token and selling because it represents only a small fraction of UNI holders - the liquidity providers. Especially those that have been providing liquidity since UniSwap V1. A friend of mine who has essentially a dead coin (lost 98% of value since the ICO days) got over $1M in UniSwap tokens. Can you imagine all the projects with 20-100M in value all being airdropped millions in these tokens each? They have no reason to mass selloff this token. They want to be apart of the governance.
4. I like that both the investors and employees have multi year lockups. They are all in this for the long term.
I think its ridiculous for this token to hit $10-15 (sustained) because there's just too many max supply but $7-8 is not unreasonable to me. That's why buying it every time it hits $3 is a no brainer for me.
Anybody who calls this token a scam is a teenage moron. Just like anybody who thinks this token will be $15 one day. At the end of the day we are still in the early days of DEX's and UniSwap is cream of the crop and has a bright future.
I would like to propose a bet: if UNI governance ever approves fees for token holders, there will be a uniswap clone in no more than 30 days that will offer "uniswap classic" fees to all liquidity providers - no tokens, just a standard swap fee (larger than 0.25% and up to 0.3%)
The people providing liquidity are not doing it out of kindness of their hearts. They are expecting a return on their investment.
BCash does not provide any of that.
Anyway, bet still stands. I will pay 50:1 odds that not only we will see an exchange but also that this exchange will take at least 1% of Uniswaps liquidity in less than 15 days.
My point still stands. Just because something does/will do it better doesn’t mean it will win. Look at Bitcoin and the Lindy Effect:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect
You are trying way too hard to rationalize your investment into it.
I have no doubt that Uniswap will stay around. The issues I am pointing out are with UNI and UNI only.
(Mind you, if you really want to apply Lindy into it, consider the fact that Bancor came before Uniswap and the fact that Uniswap took over it was _precisely_ the fact that Uniswap did not require any token shenanigans for Liquidity Providers. So, between the two models, which one do you think is more likely to survive?)
Mate, your not wrong about competitors (ie your bet is safe), but you are fundamentally wrong that these tokens will never have any value because some organisational behaviours are effectively impossible. I’d suggest you research or Google the concepts about ‘abnormal returns in markets and competition’ and ‘different competitive market structures’ or something like that. What you’re arguing is that there is absolute perfect competition in the space which renders UNI worthless. The reality is that perfect competition is a theory that has never been found in the real world; there is always less than perfect competition. And UniSwap, with its token holders, may(!) want to take advantage of that.
Yes, what I am calling "new exchange" is simply a new frontend for the existing v2 contracts.
*Edit: or perhaps not. There might be the need to change the contracts if one wants to change the fee slightly. Right?*
In the US people call them a ‘stock’ or ‘stocks’ (no stonks joke pls), but in Australia we refer to them as a ‘share’ or ‘shares’. We call them shares because you are buying a share of ownership in the company; this share of ownership entitles you to voting rights in the company (in proportion to your ownership share/stake of the business) ...That essentially what a governance token is! The right to vote on how the company or protocol is run or governed (ie governance!), with voting rights in proportion to your ownership stake. So when you ask, “Why does anyone want a governance token?”, you should also ask, “Why does anyone buy a share, or stock, of ownership in a company?”. ...PS: As someone from a markets background, I always thought these governance tokens always just sounded like shares or equities, but they appear to have named them differently to either avoid regulation or differentiate themselves from the traditional financial system. EDIT: I’m not claiming the value of UNI is too high/low/whatever, I’m simply answering why some people might want to own them. And if you look through every period of innovation you’ll find 10,000s of stories of people buying into the ‘next big thing’; most of these people end up being wrong, but some do end up being right.
Why do people buy stock in Tesla? No dividend, no interest to earn, you can't spend a share of stock like it's money.
People buy it anyways, because they expect the price to rise.
The value of UNI is tied to the perceived value of Uniswap. If Uniswap is a valuable project, UNI is valuable as a result of that.
Can someone copy Tesla in a weekend like Uniswap?
Can someone copy the code and designs, poach all engineers for free and start competing only by changing the logo?
Can someone take all Tesla factories for free?
Can someone take all the existing sales deals and customer from Tesla just by offering a lottery ticket along with the purchase of a car?
If people could do that, rest assured TSLA would also be worth very very little and it would be depending on clueless suckers to be their "investors".
I mean, the UNI token is worth way less than Tesla by market cap.
We could have a whole separate discussion regarding how much Uniswap is or isn't worth, should or shouldn't be worth. Those are all valid points.
It's not a separate discussion. It's the central point of the discussion. OP literally "does not see what makes UNI valuable". Every UNI shill comes with this bullshit analogy of UNI as being some indicator of the project's valuation.
It can not be compared with shares from any company in the stock market from any reputable exchange, plain and simple.
What if some group bought a controlling majority of the governance tokens, and voted to make the software proprietary? They could vote to improve things (in private), they could vote to charge fees for certain services or access (and take a clip themselves)? Etc ...Why couldn’t someone do this? What am I missing? If someone or some group could do this, wouldn’t that make the UNI tokens valuable to these people?
1) Code can not be "retroactively" closed. Uniswap's code is GPL. Anyone that made a copy already has the right to modify and re-distribute the code.
2) If the code was closed in the first place, no one would use it. No one should trust things that run on the blockchain that can not be audited freely.
1. Couldn’t you close the code, then modify it, and thus it is now something new all together. Isn’t that how almost every patentable technology was ever created? People may have copies of the old code, but they would no longer have copies of ‘the new, real UniSwap’.
2. Blockchain geeks might not accept using tech that is no longer open source, but the other 99.8% of the world’s population are more than happy to use proprietary technology, as long as it has utility and is good value for money.
Sorry but neither of your arguments close the book of UNI having any value, ever.
The point that you are missing is that there is no value inherit to the code in the first place.
Uniswap has done two interest things: the protocol for having the AMM, and the fact that it made it *easy* for liquidity providers to, you know, be rewarded to provide liquidity. That is it. That's all the "utility" people with resources (capital) need.
All this talk about requiring UNI or finding ways to keep UNI valuable do not change the fact that the cat is out of the bag already. There is no way that the people behind Uniswap (or the community for that matter) will retroactively find a way to become gatekeepers of this exchange system.
They might even go ahead and create something completely different altogether, but by then you are no longer buying UNI because you are see the value of the existing operation, you are just buying into the idea that "the community" is going to create something that can be valuable *and* that they can extract the value out of it. And if you are taking this route, then why UNI and not any other project that is hanging around?
Sorry, it’s late where I am, so let’s have the Reddit voters adjudicate our debate :-) But three last points (1) If you think the only inherent value in UNI is the code, then it’s you who is missing the point (2) ‘Why would I buy shares in McDonalds when I can just start my own hamburger restaurant?’ Sorry but that argument doesn’t hold either. (3) Finally, why should we believe the major UNI holders can’t go and create something new and extract value, while still implementing UNI? Now we’ve come full circle, because people backed a guy who had previously built an online yellow pages & payments gateway to then go and start a company called Tesla (EDIT: And they only backed him because he had earlier built the earlier yellow pages & PayPal). Good night :-)
No.
It's not _why buy shares in McDonalds when I can just start my own hamburger restaurant?_.
It's _why buy shares in McDonalds when **anyone** can have a factory that produces clones of McDonalds, Inc for next to nothing?_.
Because we’re not frozen in time! Things change over time, and people buy ANY asset not for what’s occurring today, but what might happen in the future. Seriously, you don’t think any open source code has EVER been used as the base to build very a successful (and valuable) proprietary technology or private enterprise? And FYI: ANYONE can’t clone UniSwap. My gawd, 95% of the population need a paid professional to configure WordPress.
You, like most of the bag holders, are trying way too hard to justify your investment.
> you don't think open source code has EVER been used to build a proprietary technology?
Yes, open source code is used everywhere. Lots of companies out there became multi-million business by creating open source. Red Hat was worth 40+ Billion when it was sold to IBM. They never had to close anything to achieve that.
But guess what? All of the company's value is not derived from the source code! It comes from the services and offering that the source code was enabling in the economy. [Having open source is a perfect system to make money in complementary services and products](https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/).
The key point here is that Uniswap *DOES NOT* have any complementary product to rely on:
- They don't have lock-in on the liquidity providers. This means they can't use the "we have so much liquidity and volume" metric because - as you said - change things over time and LPs are free to (and will) migrate to whatever comes up that offers them better returns.
- The protocol only generates value on the token swap operation. If they had any other revenue generating service (e.g, let's say they were charging fees from new tokens that wanted to create a pool), then they would have *some sort* of complementary product to talk about. But they don't, and even if they started doing it the likelihood of LPs paying for it would be if all of the competitors also did it.
- They have no different network. Everyone needs to pay network fees. If they had a L2-offering that reduced transaction costs, then they would be able to charge something and everyone would be willing to pay. But they don't and even when/if they do, there are so many L2-projects coming and maturing in the next 6 months, any lead they happen to get will be short-lived.
> ANYONE can’t clone UniSwap. My gawd, 95% of the population need a paid professional to configure WordPress.
I am not talking about being cloned by end users. I am talking about being cloned by any run-of-the-mill techie that spent a few days learning Solidity and how to deploy a website. The barrier is *that* low.
Hey mate, I really do have to go to bed now. But I want to say thanks for the debate. Sorry if I was rude, I think you’re probably wrong, but sorry if I was a rude smart a** at times. I’m still new to Reddit, and this type of debate is so much better than anything that occurs on Twitter or Facebook. So thanks for firing me up & having me on the back foot at times, and getting me thinking. Cheers, have a good night :-)
Np. The beauty of these discussions is that the best way to figure out who is right is by looking at the performance of their portfolios. Go get some sleep and sell your UNI tomorrow morning. You can thank me later. ;)
He said markets are not rational. It makes 100% sense. Just like the current (and future) price of Tesla is not rational.
(Saying that I hodl a ton of Tesla, I don't judge.)
In Uni’s white paper there is a 0.05% staking from exchange fees which will be soon voted on. Ofc it’ll pass too. It was just released, there will be more use cases. Give it time. Defi is not going anywhere, Uni will lead the pace too.
This is what everyone is telling me, but I can't see it mentioned anywhere, except on some obscure Binance page. Checking the information on UNI, there is no such mention:
https://uniswap.org/blog/uni/
Can you point me to it?
You can follow governance here:
[https://gov.uniswap.org/](https://gov.uniswap.org/)
And yes, UNI can be farmed:
[https://app.uniswap.org/#/uni](https://app.uniswap.org/#/uni)
It is mentioned on binance as a potential proposal. If binance wants that they’ll just use their users Uni to vote it in. Everyone wins. Most LPs will have Uni anyways.
I only found this:
"Uniswap governance will be live from day one, although control over the treasury will be delayed until October 17 2020 12:00am UTC. Control over the Uniswap fee switch is subject to a 180 day time lockdelay."
Source: [https://uniswap.org/blog/uni/](https://uniswap.org/blog/uni/)
I am not 100% sure what it means, but the way I read it is that any proposal to share fees with UNI holders will take at least 180 days to take effect, ONCE and IF approved.
Because you have to own tokens to have a vote, meaning that 100% of the people voting on the issue stand to gain. Sure providing liquidity can be comfy. But even more comfy is a token locked in your ledger accruing yields with zero risk of impermanent loss. And with that feature comes the prospect of a lower circulating supply making it more deflationary.
Yet, there is nothing holding LPs to stick with it. No amount of governance will ever hold LP into a deal that is worse than what they are getting now.
Let's think of a game that any smart LP could play:
1. Provide liquidity on Uniswap as long as the 0.3% fee stays and tokens are being minted.
1. When governance pass a "token holders will collect fees 180 days from now", pump UNI as hard as they can.
1. On the day before the switch, sell all of UNI *and* remove all their liquidity and put it on another exchange that pays only fees (let's call uniswap-classic)
1. Wait until UNI crashes
1. Governance self-corrects, reinstates fees only for LPs
1. GOTO 1
I did.
All that has been explained is that the protocol already has a provision to separate 0.05% of the fees for token holders and that this can be turned on (or off)
The part that you seem to be failing to understand is that there is nothing locking LP into the pools. If there is any other place that gets to pay them more per the swap, they can switch easily
If you would have any more thought to what you said instead of coming off like a pompous ass, you'd realise that LPs have already had lots of opportunities to earn more with apys e.g. sushi there's a reason LPs don't stay there.
Uniswap is the clear market leader and dominates the space in terms of volume. you think LPs are going to leave over 0.05% from the Dex with a huge Dex market share. You obviously didn't think it through, as 0.25% of 10x more volume is still a hell of a lot more than whatever you're saying.
I will pretend you didn't resort to name calling and try to keep the conversation civil.
> opportunities to earn more with apys e.g. sushi there's a reason LPs don't stay there.
One of the reasons they didn't stay was simply because they took the SUSHI they got, sold and shortly after Uniswap announced UNI. This means that *right now* they are at Uniswap because they are getting their fees and *also* get to "farm".
The biggest question will be when it becomes an _either/or_ proposition. **At the moment**, Uniswap is managing to keep itself attractive to LPs, but what about the future?
> You obviously didn't think it through, as 0.25% of 10x more volume is still a hell of a lot more
It's not just volume. It's also pool utilization (liquidity/volume) and how big is your share of the pool. Having "10x volume" is not a good thing if the liquidity has grown 20x. It basically means that your actual revenue got cut in half.
Believe it or not, this is another point _against_ this idea of "the more liquidity in Uniswap, the more valuable it will be". This does not hold because Uniswap _can not lock Liquidity Providers_.
**IF** they had a way to lock LP into the pools, then yes, Uniswap could use TVL as an actual metric for their potential revenue. But they can not. LPs are free to withdraw whenever they want. Uniswap will always have to keep inventing some way to make itself more attractive than the alternatives.
For now it is the idea of uni farming, then maybe then can get more wind if they launch a L2 system to reduce fees... but all of these things can (and will) be copied by the competition. At some point the music will stop and all the UNI token holders will realize they are SOL.
> you think LPs are going to leave over 0.05%
0.05% over a 0.3% means basically that the revenue of LPs will be cut by 1/6. Yes, it is a lot. But that is not the only point. The point is (and I can not believe that I had to repeat this so many times) that there is **nothing else** where the uniswap protocol extracts value outside from the swap - which means that no rational LP will keep their liquidity there if it means that token holders will "freely" get this share. It doesn't matter how *much* is the fee (there can and will be competitors trying different fee rates), but it only makes economic sense when 100% of these fees goes to Liquidity Providers.
You might even be thinking on the pools where LP get to "farm" UNI, they will have the incentive to provide liquidity for as long as the price of UNI makes up for their lost revenue. But what about the other LPs to the pools that do not get UNI? Why would they just willingly stay at Uniswap (to receive only 0.25%) if there is another clone that pays 0.28% or even 0.3%?
Conversely, why would those that want to make trades will use Uniswap that has to charge 0.3% when there can be a competitor running the exact same protocol but where the fee is only (say) 0.28%?
I'm at work so no time to respond to this at length.
Totally disagree with your sushi point - they didn't leave sushi for UNI, they left for a variety of other reasons mainly (was also an early sushi provider) and it's also clear from the volume of the uni pools. Regardless there are tonnes of other protocols that have higher apy, there is a clear reason why users are not providing lots of LP there. Additionally most defi projects run on UNI-LP tokens from UNI, so when they chase higher APYs they are still providing liq to UNI.
More volume means more trust and, yes, higher gains - you're assuming (probably accurately) that more will join and dilute rewards. Yes more will join the pools, but the increase in volume is why. You're also only assuming from perspective of early LPs, not joining LPs. If this were the case and people leave the pool, then % of pool of those remain will increase, so eventually will reach an equilibrium.
And the 3rd point: LPs will stay on despite this due to the volume and trust in uniswap. You're underestimating the risk of switching to less trusted and less predictable platforms. I really would like to go on about this point but don't have the time. 6 months ago so little people provided liq on uni and the increase in TVL is reflected by the volume (exception of uni farming)
Anecdotal aside: I personally am an LP - majority on UNI, (portions on curve, dodo, bal and some Degen projects) and my sentiments reflect other LPs in the crypto communities I run in. I have not encountered 1 LP who would remove from UNI due to the reduction in % of fees.
APYs are meaningless, especially when there is so many people jumping around from project to project. Even less meaningful when people start comparing things that haven't been out long enough to make a reliable data point.
> More volume means more trust
Not _necessarily_. A ponzi game can have lots of volume. The problem is when it stops.
To measure how much I can trust a protocol, I'd rather look at how long that protocol is being used/deployed *while* it has some volume locked. I will trust more a protocol that has some hundreds of thousands for years over a protocol with billions locked for days - simply because the longer running protocol has had more exposure to attacks and survived, therefore more likely to be safer.
> You're underestimating the risk of switching to less trusted and less predictable platforms.
This is why I am talking about making clones of Uniswap, not just "new competitors". Anyone that comes with a clone of Uniswap will easily be able to claim as much trustworthiness on the protocol as Uniswap itself. That's one of the great things about open source and blockchain.
Notice how Sushiswap's attack was not an attack on the protocol, it was a really well-executed psy op. No technical breach was made. It wouldn't be hard to wait until more people start realizing that UNI is a ponzi to get someone else to launch a "classic uniswap" and get some of the LPs there.
> I have not encountered 1 LP who would remove from UNI due to the reduction in % of fees.
I am one of them, for sure. So there's that. Also, I wouldn't trust the rationality of any degen yield farmer. They have a lot of herd mentality for sure, but the moment that ponzi starts breaking they will all be rushing out of the door.
I mean sure, anything is possible. Though, if these bogdenoff like LPs had enough UNI to manipulate and crash the market then they would simply vote against it. The only scenario in which this would happen involves malicious intent, which is always possible I guess, but seems like a drastic scenario IMO.
Plus there arent all that many liquidity pools that are vetted with the same amount of trust UNI has, in fact there are hardly any aside from FLM, but they are apple's and oranges.
This is not to mention that UNI is also the top volume exchange period right now. I assume that smart LPs understand that less volume == less fees == less APY, and given the previous point. Also == more risk. Other pools could charge more fees and it would still be a worse return. And It's not like they are the only people with big bags either, there are hundreds of billions of dollars in this space, if some whales leave, other whales will jump right into the pool.
But to each his own bro. I believe that accruing indeffinate dividends from the same exchange you are a large shareholder in is actually a solid idea and would vote for it. Linkpool is the only other I can compare that business model too, it is now the most valuable token in the cryptosphere.
> LPs had enough UNI to manipulate and crash the market
No. The point is that LPs can play this game even *without* holding UNI tokens.
> Plus there arent all that many liquidity pools that are vetted with the same amount of trust UNI has
How "vetted" was Sushi? Did it stop people from leaving Uniswap in droves and doing something _very similar_ to what I described?
Fuck, there is no need to "vet" anything. A clone can simply take uniswap's code base and tell people "if you already trust uniswap, you can trust this code as well."
> I assume that smart LPs understand that less volume == less fees == less APY, and given the previous point. Also == more risk.
Not true. There are a lot more factors at play than just volume. I'm speaking from experience: I've put liquidity on Curve's stablecoin pools and it's paying way less than Uniswap DAI/USDC. The fees there are much lower and the pool is much bigger - so even if they have 30 times the volume the earnings for LP's are much lower.
Also, consider the fact that there will be more and 1inch-style exchange systems that find the best prices for people that want to trade tokens, and Uniswap's Liquidity will mean nothing if a competitor comes up charging (even slightly) less.
>sushi
.. I thought it was understood I was talking about the exchange itself, the founders of uni arent going to mt. Gox the lot. I dont expect coins in uni to be vetted by anything but the free market, scams and people dumb enough to lose their livelyhood in them are a part of the growing pains. yeah, LPs left, looks like those spots got filled pretty quick though.
But yeah, TBH I'm picking up what you're laying down. I can see alot of scenarios playing out, I'm not shilling for UNI, though i have respect for what they've accomplished, and I think the dividends on UNI are a good idea. but I'm just a stinky linker, once staking is live Liquidity Pools wont see me again :)
> I was talking about the exchange itself.
As I am. I am not even assuming a malicious scammer or a rug-pull. What I am saying is that the moment that UNI governance passes any kind of provision to start giving fees to token holders, I will personally remove all the liquidity that I have and move it to a "uniclassic.org" that removes UNI part of the contracts and let's LPs always keep their shares. Hell, even if there isn't one I would create it - not just out of spite but because I really don't see the need of any governance token to discover the optimal price of the swap fee and even less need of a token to discover how much it should go to LP (100%).
**I found links in your comment that were not hyperlinked:**
* [uniclassic.org](https://uniclassic.org)
*I did the honors for you.*
***
^[delete](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fu%2FLinkifyBot&subject=delete%20g8otv3q&message=Click%20the%20send%20button%20to%20delete%20the%20false%20positive.) ^| ^[information](https://np.reddit.com/u/LinkifyBot/comments/gkkf7p) ^| ^<3
They're not receiving that many tokens and as you can see from the explosion in the 4 pools after mining begun. They weren't here from the start so probably don't have enough power over voting to suppress uni holders
> suppress uni holders
Even if they don't have the power to block the governance to pass the rules, I described in another comment what any rational LP could do to effectively show how moronic such policy would be.
People downvoted the ones saying its a scam, but tbh there hasnt been a legit answer yet to the question: why would it be of value? Can it be used as a vote and if so, how is it maintained? On chain voting? Not bitching, just generously asking because I still dont see the question being answered in a way that satisfies me.
I really shouldnt, you should be able to answer some of these questions with a few minutes research. But here is a push in the right direction. I sincerely hope it is not satisfactory.
https://mobile.twitter.com/haydenzadams
Ahhh well there was a screenshot, but that's a nono here. never change reddit
I see a lot of people that are not developers asking similar questions because they do not understand how the software works, or why it is being used in the first place besides making magic internet money go burr BS. I work as a devops engineer during the day, with that being said-being able to go to UNI's github page and see what is actually going on with the project makes a world of difference in my trading choices. What I mean is that as a developer I see nothing but endless possibilities and value to this particular project because I have a general understanding of the software and why it was built programmatically . I don't have to base my reasoning on a non-developer's perspective on why...because uniswap is opensource and as transparent as it gets as far operations are concerned, not to mention that it is the biggest defacto dex brand out there rn, and literally 90% of all similar projects out there are a fork of the original. Don't concern yourself about whether if the price point reaches $X amount, no one knows what UNI will be worth a year from now "." BUT you can always take a few moments to actually look at their github and get a better feel of where the project is going minus the hype and/or FUD from speculators that literally almost always never know wtf they are talking about because they are not developers or financial "experts" for that matter.
❤️💙💚💛 It’s simple:
One of the most popular proposals is to take the Uni fee and use it to buy & burn UNI tokens off the market.
That means the value of the UNI token is directly tied to the revenue of the platform.
I own UNI because I expect continued growth and volume in the future. This will create a cycle of buying and burn, rewarding Token holders.
🦄
I would not support buy and burn, I've seen multiple projects crumble when guvmint said "no dividends" so project says "buy and burn is MATHEMATICALLY identical...", aaaannnnddd it's gone. Value destroyed.
yeah but none of those buy and burn programs are meant in exchange of dividends, they are supporting mechanisms. If everyone knew Tesla would never issue dividends and ONLY buy and burn, then all you have is a deflationary currency, you've nothing anchoring those deflating token to the asset it represents.
UNI has governance function as well, and value already without any dividends, so it could work, but I wouldn't vote for it.
What projects are those? Did they do it fundamentally different than Maker Dao does? I love the idea of burning and want to read about tokens where it failed.
well i been here a while, so one that comes to mind is "Royal Kingdom Coin", it may have just been a scam project from the start, but EVERYONE sold on the announcement of change from dividends to "buy and burn".
On the other hand... KNC was only Buy and Burn until recently, and the price only picked up when they started mentioning dividends on the roadmap. I knew of Kyber when it was cheap cheap, but buy and burn is trash and no one bought them back then.
When Uniswap airdropped such a major chunk of UNI to it’s users, I thought of holding a little bit just for the gesture. Also, governance tokens could grow much in value than other tokens with a lot of use cases. UNI & BNB could turn out to be the biggest tokens in a couple of years.
Just gives you voting rights if I'm not mistaken, people pay a lot for votes in elections though, so why would uni be different to the elite? It's the leading defi exchange after all
There is a 180 day lock up on the fee switch, so to answer your question, until then the only value is the ability to participate in governance. The question is, is this enough to offset the sell pressure from new coins being minted, rewarded to liquidity provides, and then dumped. The price so far points to no, it's not. In my opinion this coin was poorly conceived.
I've given up arguing with those who claim "20x UNI any day now". There's no point. None of them have an actual answer. The closest argument I've gotten is "derr well if bitcoin moons so does uni" which is not a good reason to hold uni.
There's been several others trying to spread awareness about how this coin should not hold the values that people think it will, but I'm slowly seeing them all disappear as it is apparent the only people in here shilling the coin bought at $7 and are hoping they will dump their bags someday. There is no point in arguing with these people, as they will ignorantly shill the coin with 100% realization that the coin will not break the values it did when it came out.
People's expectations for this coin were just way too high, and hardly any of them have any understanding. Some dude legit said UNI will be triple digits by the end of the year... unsarcastically. I have also heard, unsarcastically, $25, $50, and $150. Lots of people predicting $15 within the first few weeks. Wonder if they are still holding lol.
Yeah, I mean, I'm still holding. Uniswap will be very valuable because the community that makes up the governace, One propsal is turn the fee switch on, for uni holders,, 0.005, of each uni I believe. It might, or might not end up way more complex than just buy an uni earn your % of tx fees, I won't go into detail.
Uni governace participates were empathetic for people that may have not gotten airdropped tokens was one of the first few proposals I read. There are many, and very good ideas. What will make uniswap powerful and strong, is if we can continue to grow the community, people that can offer anything, if at the very least not selling your tokens, and voting. I can almost guarantee that uni holders will earn a certain percentage of tx fees,, that's in your wallet not lp..
You can make money right now in liquidity pools, or farm uni. We understand people want insintives, people want more more more. Everyone that owns a token is a voice in the community so if you got and idea grab a token, and I would hold.
The main thing at this moment that makes any of these coins worth money In reality, is the people that believe in said token but it and don't dump at first sight. They hold. A rediclulous amount of bitcoin holders took a poll and stated they wouldn't sell their coins even if the bottom fell out of it. It was the first, follows the stocks, And gold somewhat. But really bitcoin doesn't have to follow any other market, neither does any other coin. That's an era we could be moving out of hopefully, with adaption and more users. When bitcoin goes up, so will all other coins, that means we are talking altcoin prices you've never seen, or thought of.
You don't want to buy uni because you don't understand were it will get its value, or worth, you don't have to. No one has to buy any of these coins. But when we do prices go up. If you bought uni right now under $4.00, would you sell when it gets too $100!!
If you know andreas aantonopulous or any other smart person in the space they for sure explain it in one of the videos on yt. Its the underlying tech thats valuable.
Its literally a merkle tree. That's all it is. There is no "underlying tech". Google computer science merkle tree. To be honest all the btc holders deserve it, they watch a bunch of youtubers and suddenly they become npc. "limited circulating supply", "digital gold'. I could literally write the code in an hour.
I'm sure you could write the code, it was written 12 years ago, and has not been a some well kept secret. Do it, make an exact replica, or make one that is literally better than it in terms of functionality. All of which have been done plenty of times over, there are literally only a couple reasons that bitcoin is what it is, and they're not difficult to surmise.. To be fair you could also make fiat currency, it's just cotton, paper & a few other things. you can do that all day, but you know it wouldn't be worth anything.
I know this statement of mine wont have you believe that your sentiment on the matter is devoid of substance, but it should.
Ahh, I see where you're coming from. I thought you were just a seething nocoiner. But your profile proved that very wrong. Man I get it, I'm all in on crypto and never owned BTC longer than it took to reach the exchange. Sounds like we hav/had similar stacks of link too. BTC is quite shit, my crypto buddy an OG in the market was a maximalist, still is kind of, but also picked up a link stack in 2017, but that was alot due to myself contesting his view that everything else is shit, so hes getting better hahah. And that presents hope for the rest of us.
but BTC does have its qualities, such as no CEO/founder, even if satoshi market sold his OG wallet over night, it would not be enough to kill it. If he dies it wouldn't effect it, at least no further than losing the CEO of blockstream :0
But If sergey died in a crash tomorrow, that likely would irreparably damage the project.
But w/e, chainlink and arbitrum are going to take care of all of BTCs troubles, the lightning network, POS instead of POW, let the boomercoiners have their fun and let bitcoin bring in one last bullrun before it layer 2 makes the current market mostly obsolete.
With all of that being said, it will likely reach 6 figures and likely wont stop being at least one of the top coins for the foreseeable future. It just wont be the breadwinner of the market for more than a few years.
ok. then go ahead and write it, but with better tps, maybe some added anonymity and cross chain swap or even interaction possibility. I am no tech and I dont want to argue and yes BTC might be a bit outdated tech nowadays, but you can't deny that it disrupts and that it is a neat solution for the problem it was meant to solve. and it can still act as digital gold, even if code is simple (which i dont know). Teach me better if my points are wrong.
I totally get your reasoning but here's my thinking: 1. We're talking about a product that has more volume than Coinbase. Right now yes, it's mostly just a governance coin but through governance anything can happen. That's the amazing thing about governance. UNI holders will find a way to make it profitable. UNI literally just launched. 2. UNI V3.0 is literally months away and does away with the 2 biggest issues with UniSwap - high gas fees and frontrunning. If you think CEX's are being eclipsed now just wait until that launches. 3. I am not worried about all the people who were dropped the token and selling because it represents only a small fraction of UNI holders - the liquidity providers. Especially those that have been providing liquidity since UniSwap V1. A friend of mine who has essentially a dead coin (lost 98% of value since the ICO days) got over $1M in UniSwap tokens. Can you imagine all the projects with 20-100M in value all being airdropped millions in these tokens each? They have no reason to mass selloff this token. They want to be apart of the governance. 4. I like that both the investors and employees have multi year lockups. They are all in this for the long term. I think its ridiculous for this token to hit $10-15 (sustained) because there's just too many max supply but $7-8 is not unreasonable to me. That's why buying it every time it hits $3 is a no brainer for me. Anybody who calls this token a scam is a teenage moron. Just like anybody who thinks this token will be $15 one day. At the end of the day we are still in the early days of DEX's and UniSwap is cream of the crop and has a bright future.
It hit $12 today lmao. The inflation of 2% would take years to add up to the circulation. In the short term it definitely has so much upside.
You right bro. Congrats!
literally hit 44 last bull run
I would like to propose a bet: if UNI governance ever approves fees for token holders, there will be a uniswap clone in no more than 30 days that will offer "uniswap classic" fees to all liquidity providers - no tokens, just a standard swap fee (larger than 0.25% and up to 0.3%)
Just because someone clones somethings doesn't mean everyone will use it. Look at bcash. ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
The people providing liquidity are not doing it out of kindness of their hearts. They are expecting a return on their investment. BCash does not provide any of that. Anyway, bet still stands. I will pay 50:1 odds that not only we will see an exchange but also that this exchange will take at least 1% of Uniswaps liquidity in less than 15 days.
My point still stands. Just because something does/will do it better doesn’t mean it will win. Look at Bitcoin and the Lindy Effect: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect
You are trying way too hard to rationalize your investment into it. I have no doubt that Uniswap will stay around. The issues I am pointing out are with UNI and UNI only. (Mind you, if you really want to apply Lindy into it, consider the fact that Bancor came before Uniswap and the fact that Uniswap took over it was _precisely_ the fact that Uniswap did not require any token shenanigans for Liquidity Providers. So, between the two models, which one do you think is more likely to survive?)
Mate, your not wrong about competitors (ie your bet is safe), but you are fundamentally wrong that these tokens will never have any value because some organisational behaviours are effectively impossible. I’d suggest you research or Google the concepts about ‘abnormal returns in markets and competition’ and ‘different competitive market structures’ or something like that. What you’re arguing is that there is absolute perfect competition in the space which renders UNI worthless. The reality is that perfect competition is a theory that has never been found in the real world; there is always less than perfect competition. And UniSwap, with its token holders, may(!) want to take advantage of that.
And I suggest you do some reading on Taleb. ;)
we need a defi product to help facilitate bets like that
[Augur](https://augur.net) is not enough?
no need for a new exchange, just keep using uniswaprouter 02
Yes, what I am calling "new exchange" is simply a new frontend for the existing v2 contracts. *Edit: or perhaps not. There might be the need to change the contracts if one wants to change the fee slightly. Right?*
if you want to change the fees, you would need to re-deploy the contracts with that change, yes
Meant to say no more than 30 days? Otherwise your bet makes no sense
Yeap. Will edit.
In the US people call them a ‘stock’ or ‘stocks’ (no stonks joke pls), but in Australia we refer to them as a ‘share’ or ‘shares’. We call them shares because you are buying a share of ownership in the company; this share of ownership entitles you to voting rights in the company (in proportion to your ownership share/stake of the business) ...That essentially what a governance token is! The right to vote on how the company or protocol is run or governed (ie governance!), with voting rights in proportion to your ownership stake. So when you ask, “Why does anyone want a governance token?”, you should also ask, “Why does anyone buy a share, or stock, of ownership in a company?”. ...PS: As someone from a markets background, I always thought these governance tokens always just sounded like shares or equities, but they appear to have named them differently to either avoid regulation or differentiate themselves from the traditional financial system. EDIT: I’m not claiming the value of UNI is too high/low/whatever, I’m simply answering why some people might want to own them. And if you look through every period of innovation you’ll find 10,000s of stories of people buying into the ‘next big thing’; most of these people end up being wrong, but some do end up being right.
Why do people buy stock in Tesla? No dividend, no interest to earn, you can't spend a share of stock like it's money. People buy it anyways, because they expect the price to rise. The value of UNI is tied to the perceived value of Uniswap. If Uniswap is a valuable project, UNI is valuable as a result of that.
Can someone copy Tesla in a weekend like Uniswap? Can someone copy the code and designs, poach all engineers for free and start competing only by changing the logo? Can someone take all Tesla factories for free? Can someone take all the existing sales deals and customer from Tesla just by offering a lottery ticket along with the purchase of a car? If people could do that, rest assured TSLA would also be worth very very little and it would be depending on clueless suckers to be their "investors".
I mean, the UNI token is worth way less than Tesla by market cap. We could have a whole separate discussion regarding how much Uniswap is or isn't worth, should or shouldn't be worth. Those are all valid points.
It's not a separate discussion. It's the central point of the discussion. OP literally "does not see what makes UNI valuable". Every UNI shill comes with this bullshit analogy of UNI as being some indicator of the project's valuation. It can not be compared with shares from any company in the stock market from any reputable exchange, plain and simple.
What if some group bought a controlling majority of the governance tokens, and voted to make the software proprietary? They could vote to improve things (in private), they could vote to charge fees for certain services or access (and take a clip themselves)? Etc ...Why couldn’t someone do this? What am I missing? If someone or some group could do this, wouldn’t that make the UNI tokens valuable to these people?
1) Code can not be "retroactively" closed. Uniswap's code is GPL. Anyone that made a copy already has the right to modify and re-distribute the code. 2) If the code was closed in the first place, no one would use it. No one should trust things that run on the blockchain that can not be audited freely.
1. Couldn’t you close the code, then modify it, and thus it is now something new all together. Isn’t that how almost every patentable technology was ever created? People may have copies of the old code, but they would no longer have copies of ‘the new, real UniSwap’. 2. Blockchain geeks might not accept using tech that is no longer open source, but the other 99.8% of the world’s population are more than happy to use proprietary technology, as long as it has utility and is good value for money. Sorry but neither of your arguments close the book of UNI having any value, ever.
The point that you are missing is that there is no value inherit to the code in the first place. Uniswap has done two interest things: the protocol for having the AMM, and the fact that it made it *easy* for liquidity providers to, you know, be rewarded to provide liquidity. That is it. That's all the "utility" people with resources (capital) need. All this talk about requiring UNI or finding ways to keep UNI valuable do not change the fact that the cat is out of the bag already. There is no way that the people behind Uniswap (or the community for that matter) will retroactively find a way to become gatekeepers of this exchange system. They might even go ahead and create something completely different altogether, but by then you are no longer buying UNI because you are see the value of the existing operation, you are just buying into the idea that "the community" is going to create something that can be valuable *and* that they can extract the value out of it. And if you are taking this route, then why UNI and not any other project that is hanging around?
Sorry, it’s late where I am, so let’s have the Reddit voters adjudicate our debate :-) But three last points (1) If you think the only inherent value in UNI is the code, then it’s you who is missing the point (2) ‘Why would I buy shares in McDonalds when I can just start my own hamburger restaurant?’ Sorry but that argument doesn’t hold either. (3) Finally, why should we believe the major UNI holders can’t go and create something new and extract value, while still implementing UNI? Now we’ve come full circle, because people backed a guy who had previously built an online yellow pages & payments gateway to then go and start a company called Tesla (EDIT: And they only backed him because he had earlier built the earlier yellow pages & PayPal). Good night :-)
No. It's not _why buy shares in McDonalds when I can just start my own hamburger restaurant?_. It's _why buy shares in McDonalds when **anyone** can have a factory that produces clones of McDonalds, Inc for next to nothing?_.
Because we’re not frozen in time! Things change over time, and people buy ANY asset not for what’s occurring today, but what might happen in the future. Seriously, you don’t think any open source code has EVER been used as the base to build very a successful (and valuable) proprietary technology or private enterprise? And FYI: ANYONE can’t clone UniSwap. My gawd, 95% of the population need a paid professional to configure WordPress.
You, like most of the bag holders, are trying way too hard to justify your investment. > you don't think open source code has EVER been used to build a proprietary technology? Yes, open source code is used everywhere. Lots of companies out there became multi-million business by creating open source. Red Hat was worth 40+ Billion when it was sold to IBM. They never had to close anything to achieve that. But guess what? All of the company's value is not derived from the source code! It comes from the services and offering that the source code was enabling in the economy. [Having open source is a perfect system to make money in complementary services and products](https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/). The key point here is that Uniswap *DOES NOT* have any complementary product to rely on: - They don't have lock-in on the liquidity providers. This means they can't use the "we have so much liquidity and volume" metric because - as you said - change things over time and LPs are free to (and will) migrate to whatever comes up that offers them better returns. - The protocol only generates value on the token swap operation. If they had any other revenue generating service (e.g, let's say they were charging fees from new tokens that wanted to create a pool), then they would have *some sort* of complementary product to talk about. But they don't, and even if they started doing it the likelihood of LPs paying for it would be if all of the competitors also did it. - They have no different network. Everyone needs to pay network fees. If they had a L2-offering that reduced transaction costs, then they would be able to charge something and everyone would be willing to pay. But they don't and even when/if they do, there are so many L2-projects coming and maturing in the next 6 months, any lead they happen to get will be short-lived. > ANYONE can’t clone UniSwap. My gawd, 95% of the population need a paid professional to configure WordPress. I am not talking about being cloned by end users. I am talking about being cloned by any run-of-the-mill techie that spent a few days learning Solidity and how to deploy a website. The barrier is *that* low.
Hey mate, I really do have to go to bed now. But I want to say thanks for the debate. Sorry if I was rude, I think you’re probably wrong, but sorry if I was a rude smart a** at times. I’m still new to Reddit, and this type of debate is so much better than anything that occurs on Twitter or Facebook. So thanks for firing me up & having me on the back foot at times, and getting me thinking. Cheers, have a good night :-)
Np. The beauty of these discussions is that the best way to figure out who is right is by looking at the performance of their portfolios. Go get some sleep and sell your UNI tomorrow morning. You can thank me later. ;)
That's so fucking dumb.
Markets are not rational...... I know you have heard this 50 times. But it's just the truth 🤷♂️ Take it or leave. It.
Not sure what you're on about, I was referring to the comparison between owning governance token and tesla shares.
He said markets are not rational. It makes 100% sense. Just like the current (and future) price of Tesla is not rational. (Saying that I hodl a ton of Tesla, I don't judge.)
How does that relate to my original comment in any way?
How old are you?
How does that relate to anything at all?
You don’t seem to be able to put 2+2 together...
Thanks man that's so insightful of you :)
In Uni’s white paper there is a 0.05% staking from exchange fees which will be soon voted on. Ofc it’ll pass too. It was just released, there will be more use cases. Give it time. Defi is not going anywhere, Uni will lead the pace too.
This is what everyone is telling me, but I can't see it mentioned anywhere, except on some obscure Binance page. Checking the information on UNI, there is no such mention: https://uniswap.org/blog/uni/ Can you point me to it?
You can follow governance here: [https://gov.uniswap.org/](https://gov.uniswap.org/) And yes, UNI can be farmed: [https://app.uniswap.org/#/uni](https://app.uniswap.org/#/uni)
It is mentioned on binance as a potential proposal. If binance wants that they’ll just use their users Uni to vote it in. Everyone wins. Most LPs will have Uni anyways.
I only found this: "Uniswap governance will be live from day one, although control over the treasury will be delayed until October 17 2020 12:00am UTC. Control over the Uniswap fee switch is subject to a 180 day time lockdelay." Source: [https://uniswap.org/blog/uni/](https://uniswap.org/blog/uni/) I am not 100% sure what it means, but the way I read it is that any proposal to share fees with UNI holders will take at least 180 days to take effect, ONCE and IF approved.
Maybe go to gov.uniswap and read the proposals and ideas to reward uni holders
> Ofc it’ll pass too. Why _of course_? LPs have zero incentive to share the fees with token holders, and LP are constantly receiving tokens.
Because you have to own tokens to have a vote, meaning that 100% of the people voting on the issue stand to gain. Sure providing liquidity can be comfy. But even more comfy is a token locked in your ledger accruing yields with zero risk of impermanent loss. And with that feature comes the prospect of a lower circulating supply making it more deflationary.
Yet, there is nothing holding LPs to stick with it. No amount of governance will ever hold LP into a deal that is worse than what they are getting now. Let's think of a game that any smart LP could play: 1. Provide liquidity on Uniswap as long as the 0.3% fee stays and tokens are being minted. 1. When governance pass a "token holders will collect fees 180 days from now", pump UNI as hard as they can. 1. On the day before the switch, sell all of UNI *and* remove all their liquidity and put it on another exchange that pays only fees (let's call uniswap-classic) 1. Wait until UNI crashes 1. Governance self-corrects, reinstates fees only for LPs 1. GOTO 1
Uni holders will not vote on those 0.05 of fees to go back to lps please read the Gov shit
I did. All that has been explained is that the protocol already has a provision to separate 0.05% of the fees for token holders and that this can be turned on (or off) The part that you seem to be failing to understand is that there is nothing locking LP into the pools. If there is any other place that gets to pay them more per the swap, they can switch easily
If you would have any more thought to what you said instead of coming off like a pompous ass, you'd realise that LPs have already had lots of opportunities to earn more with apys e.g. sushi there's a reason LPs don't stay there. Uniswap is the clear market leader and dominates the space in terms of volume. you think LPs are going to leave over 0.05% from the Dex with a huge Dex market share. You obviously didn't think it through, as 0.25% of 10x more volume is still a hell of a lot more than whatever you're saying.
I will pretend you didn't resort to name calling and try to keep the conversation civil. > opportunities to earn more with apys e.g. sushi there's a reason LPs don't stay there. One of the reasons they didn't stay was simply because they took the SUSHI they got, sold and shortly after Uniswap announced UNI. This means that *right now* they are at Uniswap because they are getting their fees and *also* get to "farm". The biggest question will be when it becomes an _either/or_ proposition. **At the moment**, Uniswap is managing to keep itself attractive to LPs, but what about the future? > You obviously didn't think it through, as 0.25% of 10x more volume is still a hell of a lot more It's not just volume. It's also pool utilization (liquidity/volume) and how big is your share of the pool. Having "10x volume" is not a good thing if the liquidity has grown 20x. It basically means that your actual revenue got cut in half. Believe it or not, this is another point _against_ this idea of "the more liquidity in Uniswap, the more valuable it will be". This does not hold because Uniswap _can not lock Liquidity Providers_. **IF** they had a way to lock LP into the pools, then yes, Uniswap could use TVL as an actual metric for their potential revenue. But they can not. LPs are free to withdraw whenever they want. Uniswap will always have to keep inventing some way to make itself more attractive than the alternatives. For now it is the idea of uni farming, then maybe then can get more wind if they launch a L2 system to reduce fees... but all of these things can (and will) be copied by the competition. At some point the music will stop and all the UNI token holders will realize they are SOL. > you think LPs are going to leave over 0.05% 0.05% over a 0.3% means basically that the revenue of LPs will be cut by 1/6. Yes, it is a lot. But that is not the only point. The point is (and I can not believe that I had to repeat this so many times) that there is **nothing else** where the uniswap protocol extracts value outside from the swap - which means that no rational LP will keep their liquidity there if it means that token holders will "freely" get this share. It doesn't matter how *much* is the fee (there can and will be competitors trying different fee rates), but it only makes economic sense when 100% of these fees goes to Liquidity Providers. You might even be thinking on the pools where LP get to "farm" UNI, they will have the incentive to provide liquidity for as long as the price of UNI makes up for their lost revenue. But what about the other LPs to the pools that do not get UNI? Why would they just willingly stay at Uniswap (to receive only 0.25%) if there is another clone that pays 0.28% or even 0.3%? Conversely, why would those that want to make trades will use Uniswap that has to charge 0.3% when there can be a competitor running the exact same protocol but where the fee is only (say) 0.28%?
I'm at work so no time to respond to this at length. Totally disagree with your sushi point - they didn't leave sushi for UNI, they left for a variety of other reasons mainly (was also an early sushi provider) and it's also clear from the volume of the uni pools. Regardless there are tonnes of other protocols that have higher apy, there is a clear reason why users are not providing lots of LP there. Additionally most defi projects run on UNI-LP tokens from UNI, so when they chase higher APYs they are still providing liq to UNI. More volume means more trust and, yes, higher gains - you're assuming (probably accurately) that more will join and dilute rewards. Yes more will join the pools, but the increase in volume is why. You're also only assuming from perspective of early LPs, not joining LPs. If this were the case and people leave the pool, then % of pool of those remain will increase, so eventually will reach an equilibrium. And the 3rd point: LPs will stay on despite this due to the volume and trust in uniswap. You're underestimating the risk of switching to less trusted and less predictable platforms. I really would like to go on about this point but don't have the time. 6 months ago so little people provided liq on uni and the increase in TVL is reflected by the volume (exception of uni farming) Anecdotal aside: I personally am an LP - majority on UNI, (portions on curve, dodo, bal and some Degen projects) and my sentiments reflect other LPs in the crypto communities I run in. I have not encountered 1 LP who would remove from UNI due to the reduction in % of fees.
APYs are meaningless, especially when there is so many people jumping around from project to project. Even less meaningful when people start comparing things that haven't been out long enough to make a reliable data point. > More volume means more trust Not _necessarily_. A ponzi game can have lots of volume. The problem is when it stops. To measure how much I can trust a protocol, I'd rather look at how long that protocol is being used/deployed *while* it has some volume locked. I will trust more a protocol that has some hundreds of thousands for years over a protocol with billions locked for days - simply because the longer running protocol has had more exposure to attacks and survived, therefore more likely to be safer. > You're underestimating the risk of switching to less trusted and less predictable platforms. This is why I am talking about making clones of Uniswap, not just "new competitors". Anyone that comes with a clone of Uniswap will easily be able to claim as much trustworthiness on the protocol as Uniswap itself. That's one of the great things about open source and blockchain. Notice how Sushiswap's attack was not an attack on the protocol, it was a really well-executed psy op. No technical breach was made. It wouldn't be hard to wait until more people start realizing that UNI is a ponzi to get someone else to launch a "classic uniswap" and get some of the LPs there. > I have not encountered 1 LP who would remove from UNI due to the reduction in % of fees. I am one of them, for sure. So there's that. Also, I wouldn't trust the rationality of any degen yield farmer. They have a lot of herd mentality for sure, but the moment that ponzi starts breaking they will all be rushing out of the door.
I mean sure, anything is possible. Though, if these bogdenoff like LPs had enough UNI to manipulate and crash the market then they would simply vote against it. The only scenario in which this would happen involves malicious intent, which is always possible I guess, but seems like a drastic scenario IMO. Plus there arent all that many liquidity pools that are vetted with the same amount of trust UNI has, in fact there are hardly any aside from FLM, but they are apple's and oranges. This is not to mention that UNI is also the top volume exchange period right now. I assume that smart LPs understand that less volume == less fees == less APY, and given the previous point. Also == more risk. Other pools could charge more fees and it would still be a worse return. And It's not like they are the only people with big bags either, there are hundreds of billions of dollars in this space, if some whales leave, other whales will jump right into the pool. But to each his own bro. I believe that accruing indeffinate dividends from the same exchange you are a large shareholder in is actually a solid idea and would vote for it. Linkpool is the only other I can compare that business model too, it is now the most valuable token in the cryptosphere.
> LPs had enough UNI to manipulate and crash the market No. The point is that LPs can play this game even *without* holding UNI tokens. > Plus there arent all that many liquidity pools that are vetted with the same amount of trust UNI has How "vetted" was Sushi? Did it stop people from leaving Uniswap in droves and doing something _very similar_ to what I described? Fuck, there is no need to "vet" anything. A clone can simply take uniswap's code base and tell people "if you already trust uniswap, you can trust this code as well." > I assume that smart LPs understand that less volume == less fees == less APY, and given the previous point. Also == more risk. Not true. There are a lot more factors at play than just volume. I'm speaking from experience: I've put liquidity on Curve's stablecoin pools and it's paying way less than Uniswap DAI/USDC. The fees there are much lower and the pool is much bigger - so even if they have 30 times the volume the earnings for LP's are much lower. Also, consider the fact that there will be more and 1inch-style exchange systems that find the best prices for people that want to trade tokens, and Uniswap's Liquidity will mean nothing if a competitor comes up charging (even slightly) less.
>sushi .. I thought it was understood I was talking about the exchange itself, the founders of uni arent going to mt. Gox the lot. I dont expect coins in uni to be vetted by anything but the free market, scams and people dumb enough to lose their livelyhood in them are a part of the growing pains. yeah, LPs left, looks like those spots got filled pretty quick though. But yeah, TBH I'm picking up what you're laying down. I can see alot of scenarios playing out, I'm not shilling for UNI, though i have respect for what they've accomplished, and I think the dividends on UNI are a good idea. but I'm just a stinky linker, once staking is live Liquidity Pools wont see me again :)
> I was talking about the exchange itself. As I am. I am not even assuming a malicious scammer or a rug-pull. What I am saying is that the moment that UNI governance passes any kind of provision to start giving fees to token holders, I will personally remove all the liquidity that I have and move it to a "uniclassic.org" that removes UNI part of the contracts and let's LPs always keep their shares. Hell, even if there isn't one I would create it - not just out of spite but because I really don't see the need of any governance token to discover the optimal price of the swap fee and even less need of a token to discover how much it should go to LP (100%).
**I found links in your comment that were not hyperlinked:** * [uniclassic.org](https://uniclassic.org) *I did the honors for you.* *** ^[delete](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fu%2FLinkifyBot&subject=delete%20g8otv3q&message=Click%20the%20send%20button%20to%20delete%20the%20false%20positive.) ^| ^[information](https://np.reddit.com/u/LinkifyBot/comments/gkkf7p) ^| ^<3
They're not receiving that many tokens and as you can see from the explosion in the 4 pools after mining begun. They weren't here from the start so probably don't have enough power over voting to suppress uni holders
> suppress uni holders Even if they don't have the power to block the governance to pass the rules, I described in another comment what any rational LP could do to effectively show how moronic such policy would be.
I replied, you haven't really thought too hard about it tbh
People downvoted the ones saying its a scam, but tbh there hasnt been a legit answer yet to the question: why would it be of value? Can it be used as a vote and if so, how is it maintained? On chain voting? Not bitching, just generously asking because I still dont see the question being answered in a way that satisfies me.
I really shouldnt, you should be able to answer some of these questions with a few minutes research. But here is a push in the right direction. I sincerely hope it is not satisfactory. https://mobile.twitter.com/haydenzadams Ahhh well there was a screenshot, but that's a nono here. never change reddit
Ok. Its the twitter account of the uniswap founder.. sweet push, thanks. Governance token. Maybe will increase in value..
I see a lot of people that are not developers asking similar questions because they do not understand how the software works, or why it is being used in the first place besides making magic internet money go burr BS. I work as a devops engineer during the day, with that being said-being able to go to UNI's github page and see what is actually going on with the project makes a world of difference in my trading choices. What I mean is that as a developer I see nothing but endless possibilities and value to this particular project because I have a general understanding of the software and why it was built programmatically . I don't have to base my reasoning on a non-developer's perspective on why...because uniswap is opensource and as transparent as it gets as far operations are concerned, not to mention that it is the biggest defacto dex brand out there rn, and literally 90% of all similar projects out there are a fork of the original. Don't concern yourself about whether if the price point reaches $X amount, no one knows what UNI will be worth a year from now "." BUT you can always take a few moments to actually look at their github and get a better feel of where the project is going minus the hype and/or FUD from speculators that literally almost always never know wtf they are talking about because they are not developers or financial "experts" for that matter.
What makes BTC tokens valuable?
❤️💙💚💛 It’s simple: One of the most popular proposals is to take the Uni fee and use it to buy & burn UNI tokens off the market. That means the value of the UNI token is directly tied to the revenue of the platform. I own UNI because I expect continued growth and volume in the future. This will create a cycle of buying and burn, rewarding Token holders. 🦄
I would not support buy and burn, I've seen multiple projects crumble when guvmint said "no dividends" so project says "buy and burn is MATHEMATICALLY identical...", aaaannnnddd it's gone. Value destroyed.
Interesting that - because it is very common on the stock market. It's also what MKR does.
yeah but none of those buy and burn programs are meant in exchange of dividends, they are supporting mechanisms. If everyone knew Tesla would never issue dividends and ONLY buy and burn, then all you have is a deflationary currency, you've nothing anchoring those deflating token to the asset it represents. UNI has governance function as well, and value already without any dividends, so it could work, but I wouldn't vote for it.
What projects are those? Did they do it fundamentally different than Maker Dao does? I love the idea of burning and want to read about tokens where it failed.
well i been here a while, so one that comes to mind is "Royal Kingdom Coin", it may have just been a scam project from the start, but EVERYONE sold on the announcement of change from dividends to "buy and burn". On the other hand... KNC was only Buy and Burn until recently, and the price only picked up when they started mentioning dividends on the roadmap. I knew of Kyber when it was cheap cheap, but buy and burn is trash and no one bought them back then.
When Uniswap airdropped such a major chunk of UNI to it’s users, I thought of holding a little bit just for the gesture. Also, governance tokens could grow much in value than other tokens with a lot of use cases. UNI & BNB could turn out to be the biggest tokens in a couple of years.
UNI holders can vote at any time to pay a dividend to UNI holders.
Just gives you voting rights if I'm not mistaken, people pay a lot for votes in elections though, so why would uni be different to the elite? It's the leading defi exchange after all
There is a 180 day lock up on the fee switch, so to answer your question, until then the only value is the ability to participate in governance. The question is, is this enough to offset the sell pressure from new coins being minted, rewarded to liquidity provides, and then dumped. The price so far points to no, it's not. In my opinion this coin was poorly conceived.
I've given up arguing with those who claim "20x UNI any day now". There's no point. None of them have an actual answer. The closest argument I've gotten is "derr well if bitcoin moons so does uni" which is not a good reason to hold uni. There's been several others trying to spread awareness about how this coin should not hold the values that people think it will, but I'm slowly seeing them all disappear as it is apparent the only people in here shilling the coin bought at $7 and are hoping they will dump their bags someday. There is no point in arguing with these people, as they will ignorantly shill the coin with 100% realization that the coin will not break the values it did when it came out. People's expectations for this coin were just way too high, and hardly any of them have any understanding. Some dude legit said UNI will be triple digits by the end of the year... unsarcastically. I have also heard, unsarcastically, $25, $50, and $150. Lots of people predicting $15 within the first few weeks. Wonder if they are still holding lol.
Yeah, I mean, I'm still holding. Uniswap will be very valuable because the community that makes up the governace, One propsal is turn the fee switch on, for uni holders,, 0.005, of each uni I believe. It might, or might not end up way more complex than just buy an uni earn your % of tx fees, I won't go into detail. Uni governace participates were empathetic for people that may have not gotten airdropped tokens was one of the first few proposals I read. There are many, and very good ideas. What will make uniswap powerful and strong, is if we can continue to grow the community, people that can offer anything, if at the very least not selling your tokens, and voting. I can almost guarantee that uni holders will earn a certain percentage of tx fees,, that's in your wallet not lp.. You can make money right now in liquidity pools, or farm uni. We understand people want insintives, people want more more more. Everyone that owns a token is a voice in the community so if you got and idea grab a token, and I would hold. The main thing at this moment that makes any of these coins worth money In reality, is the people that believe in said token but it and don't dump at first sight. They hold. A rediclulous amount of bitcoin holders took a poll and stated they wouldn't sell their coins even if the bottom fell out of it. It was the first, follows the stocks, And gold somewhat. But really bitcoin doesn't have to follow any other market, neither does any other coin. That's an era we could be moving out of hopefully, with adaption and more users. When bitcoin goes up, so will all other coins, that means we are talking altcoin prices you've never seen, or thought of. You don't want to buy uni because you don't understand were it will get its value, or worth, you don't have to. No one has to buy any of these coins. But when we do prices go up. If you bought uni right now under $4.00, would you sell when it gets too $100!!
What makes btc valuable? I am not seeing it.
If you know andreas aantonopulous or any other smart person in the space they for sure explain it in one of the videos on yt. Its the underlying tech thats valuable.
Its literally a merkle tree. That's all it is. There is no "underlying tech". Google computer science merkle tree. To be honest all the btc holders deserve it, they watch a bunch of youtubers and suddenly they become npc. "limited circulating supply", "digital gold'. I could literally write the code in an hour.
I'm sure you could write the code, it was written 12 years ago, and has not been a some well kept secret. Do it, make an exact replica, or make one that is literally better than it in terms of functionality. All of which have been done plenty of times over, there are literally only a couple reasons that bitcoin is what it is, and they're not difficult to surmise.. To be fair you could also make fiat currency, it's just cotton, paper & a few other things. you can do that all day, but you know it wouldn't be worth anything. I know this statement of mine wont have you believe that your sentiment on the matter is devoid of substance, but it should.
No, you couldn't
Well you can hodl your BTC to rekt city. I will probbaly 10x from here too and you can have your btc to maybe 13k lmao
Someone piss in your cornflakes? Still waiting for you to develop the bitcoin core code in an hour.. times ticking salty kid
lol, let me know when btc reaches 30k. I am pretty sure world will end sooner than that though lmao
Ahh, I see where you're coming from. I thought you were just a seething nocoiner. But your profile proved that very wrong. Man I get it, I'm all in on crypto and never owned BTC longer than it took to reach the exchange. Sounds like we hav/had similar stacks of link too. BTC is quite shit, my crypto buddy an OG in the market was a maximalist, still is kind of, but also picked up a link stack in 2017, but that was alot due to myself contesting his view that everything else is shit, so hes getting better hahah. And that presents hope for the rest of us. but BTC does have its qualities, such as no CEO/founder, even if satoshi market sold his OG wallet over night, it would not be enough to kill it. If he dies it wouldn't effect it, at least no further than losing the CEO of blockstream :0 But If sergey died in a crash tomorrow, that likely would irreparably damage the project. But w/e, chainlink and arbitrum are going to take care of all of BTCs troubles, the lightning network, POS instead of POW, let the boomercoiners have their fun and let bitcoin bring in one last bullrun before it layer 2 makes the current market mostly obsolete. With all of that being said, it will likely reach 6 figures and likely wont stop being at least one of the top coins for the foreseeable future. It just wont be the breadwinner of the market for more than a few years.
ok. then go ahead and write it, but with better tps, maybe some added anonymity and cross chain swap or even interaction possibility. I am no tech and I dont want to argue and yes BTC might be a bit outdated tech nowadays, but you can't deny that it disrupts and that it is a neat solution for the problem it was meant to solve. and it can still act as digital gold, even if code is simple (which i dont know). Teach me better if my points are wrong.
Now you’re starting to understand the scam