How to interpret Uniswap founder’s “charge” announcement?
Original author: Haotian (X: @tmel0211)
Related Reading
Uniswap will charge a flat fee of 0.15% for 11 tokens traded through the official frontend
Editors note: In the early morning of October 17th, Uniswap founder Hyden stated on Sustainably fund Uniswap operations. The above fees are separate from the Uniswap protocol fee switch, which is determined by a Uniswap governance vote.
As soon as the news came out, it triggered a heated discussion. What value information did this charge announcement reveal? X KOL Haotian published an article explaining the announcement by Uniswap founder hyden. Odaily compiled it as follows:
Although the content of this charge announcement by Uniswap founder Hayden is brief, it can decipher a lot of value information:
1) Uniswap’s “charging” is not to make money, but to reduce costs and increase efficiency.
Uniswap maintains front-end Apps and develops mobile Apps. This is a quasi-centralized operation idea. There is bound to be a lot of operation and maintenance service costs, especially the expansion and promotion of Uniswap Wallet. It is almost completely centralized operation, development and operation, channel operation, supervision Compliance, security risk maintenance, etc. are all directly increased costs. Implementing additional charges can effectively subsidize operation and maintenance costs and support Uniswaps faster expansion of the product matrix.
If it is just a matter of making money, it seems more effective for Uniswap to try the back-end protocol and change the code logic. Will making money come faster?
2) Uniswap protocol and Uniswap labs are two different things
Uniswap is trying to tell the majority of Uni community users through this highly controversial unilateral notice that only the Uniswap protocol is decentralized. Both web and mobile terminals are owned by Uniswap. The additional charges are probably just a centralization measure. At the beginning, it will be inevitable to implement KYC supervision strategies in these channels, because no company can develop without compliance issues. There is no vote on the 0.15 rate, it is directly announced, and the problem has been explained. The vote is only for changes in the Uniswap protocol itself. efficient.
3) Uniswap future product matrix meeting and MetaMaskCompete for superiority
As you can see, MetaMask, which has never issued coins, is very happy to explore the commercialization of products such as institution MetaMask, MetaMask Snap, and portfolio dashboard. Occasionally hinting at the issuance of tokens, the handling fees will be earned again. This web2+web3 Pua business model of making money while lying down is really the envy of Uniswap. The launch of Uniswap’s protocol and product segmentation strategy is obviously to pave the way for the commercial expansion of subsequent product matrix and strategically cover a larger and broader ecological niche.
4) Uniswap’s governance token may be isolated indefinitely
Uniswap made such a major decision. Although Uni holders protested and were puzzled, the official seemed not to care at all. The expected value empowerment of Uni tokens has been delayed, and the voting governance rights have also been stripped away. Even if voting is useful, how can the weight of the communitys vote exceed that of the official one. Alas, in a word, the tragedy of currency holders.
5) If the user does not want to accept the 0.15% rate, he can choose to call the API interface of a third-party wallet, or call other DeFi Aggregator, provided that these interface services directly use the Uniswap back-end protocol.
However, Uniswap does not necessarily worry about user loss. It seems to be good for Aggregators on the market, but it is difficult to say that all Aggregators directly call the back-end protocol.With the potential user loss and 0.15% fee income, Uniswap officials must have made an economic calculation and done a trade-off.
What’s more, if nothing else, there will be some well-designed “phishing” front-ends that claim to be able to bypass the 0.15 rate to carry out a wave of fraud. The market will eventually tell everyone that spending 0.15% more to choose Uniswap official, which is safer and more reliable, may be the best choice.
