Starting to charge fees, what does the industry think about the future of Uniswap?

Original Title: 《People's Views on Uniswap Swap Fee》

Original Author: msfew

Compiled by: Kate, Marsbit

Background

Uniswap Labs has started charging a fixed fee of 0.15% on a limited number of token pairs to sustainably fund the operations of Uniswap.

This is separate from the Uniswap protocol fee conversion, which is determined by Uniswap governance votes (proposals, working groups, temperature checks, signal polling, temporary trials).

Hayden said, "Users have countless ways to use it, through aggregators, other user interfaces, or directly interacting with smart contracts. In my opinion, our interface is still the best."

There are many different views on this event. I will gather others' thoughts from different perspectives and then express my own.

Views on Governance and Decentralization

At the governance level, most discussions focus on the fact that Uniswap has a set of governance tools to make changes to the protocol, while the uniqueness of this event lies in it being a change to the front end, thus bypassing the governance process.

$UNI is Useless

@fishkiller pointed out that governance tokens are still somewhat useless.

@tmel0211 summarized that Uniswap's governance token may be indefinitely isolated.

@twobitidiot stated, "Uniswap proposals are terrible, benefiting venture capitalists and insiders rather than holders."

@FreddieRaynolds said, "They turned on the wrong fee switch. 0.15% goes to the equity holders of Uniswap Labs, not to $UNI token holders."

@spreekaway suggested that when $UNI holders receive fees, the Uniswap Foundation (UF) will dump on them.

@0xSisyphus believes, "All Uniswap needs to do is direct the meager revenue stream to the token, and everything will be fine," and we "can safely assume that everyone working at Uniswap has now sold all their tokens."

It's Okay Not to Go Through Governance

@defignas clarified that governance is for smart contracts (protocols), not for everything under the Uniswap brand.

@devinawalsh from the Uniswap Foundation believes that the Uniswap Foundation is becoming more decentralized through open source and the ecosystem.

Not Going Through Governance is Bad

@0xmillie_eth mocked, "This is not a proposal, this is a decree, effective immediately," "Haha, fees start tomorrow."

@AntonioMJuliano from dYdX said, "Some OG major DeFi players (Uniswap, 0x) were more decentralized at first, but are now becoming relatively more centralized."

Views on Forks and Front Ends

Uniswap Interface Will Still Be Used

@cronokirby believes people will still use the Uniswap interface, "just because they are a bit lazy and will pay."

@mudit_gupta asked, "Sir, do you know how many people use fox wallet swap?" and implied that the Uniswap interface will still be used like the "expensive" Metamask Swap.

@0xdoug said the Uniswap interface is high quality, reliable, and worth the cost.

Forks Will Be Different

@chainyoda said, "You can just fork the front end and cut the fees in half," without forking the contracts.

@hasufl was confused about "why several Uniswap competitors claim they don't charge fees," which shows the fierce competition between "forks."

@rsarrow said, "You will choose your front end like you choose a charity to donate to."

@0xmons proposed another form of fork, "fork the unified front end and charge fees, only this time the fees go to the token holders."

Strategic Perspectives

At first glance, charging fees on Uniswap seems to reduce its usage, but fundamentally, this may not be a bad thing for Uniswap as a whole.

Continuing to Dominate

@shier_nftscan believes this puts Uniswap in an ideal scenario: Uniswap maintains its first position in DEXs, while third-party applications gain traffic by accessing Uniswap on consumer products and earn service fees.

@tmel0211 predicts that "the launch of Uniswap's protocol and product segmentation strategy is clearly aimed at paving the way for the commercialization and expansion of subsequent product matrices, strategically covering a larger and broader ecological niche."

Uniswap Brings Different Models

@0xTaker stated that Uniswap Labs does not own liquidity, and interface fees will come from branding and user experience.

@keoneHD stated that this event shows "the front end is valuable and worth the effort for a better user experience."

@tmel0211 summarized, "Uniswap is trying to tell the Uni community that only the Uniswap protocol is decentralized, and the network and mobile devices belong to Uniswap."

@jolestar brainstormed and discussed the reference fields retained in the protocol and filled by the front end. Ultimately, the protocol shares profits with the front end.

@0xkydo believes this is "a key step forward for DeFi… establishing an open financial system that operates in a permissionless and non-custodial manner."

@KamesGeraght thinks "fees will be for governance rather than execution," after v4 Hooks exponentially increase complexity.

@smsunarto stated, "This represents a holistic shift from this application/service + protocol company."

Trolls

I should start charging a 0.15% fee on every transaction through Geth…

The Uniswap team can't even be trusted to do a fee conversion, but MakerDAO (with the same VC backers) can be trusted with $3.5 billion in RWA, which isn't really bound to DAI holders?

The right thing to do is to create a Uniswap hook that charges them 10 times the deposit fee

This is the best interface look, worth a 0.15% fee (with a very minimalist image of the Uniswap interface)

My Predictions

Everyone's views are comprehensive. I will summarize and make some predictions, which do not constitute investment advice:

• The Uniswap interface will still dominate, with only a small proportion of users remaining.

• With the launch of Uniswap v4, Uniswap X, and Uniswap Mobile, Uniswap will develop faster.

• More forks will be released, but new forks have no chance (IPFS already exists).

• Fee conversion proposals will be launched but will not pass.