Author: Haotian

Original link: 

https://twitter.com/tmel0211/status/1714142033919824297?s=19

1) Uniswap’s “fees” are not for profit, but for cost reduction and efficiency improvement. Uniswap maintains a frontend app and develops a mobile app, which inherently involves a centralized operating approach. This inevitably incurs significant operational service costs, especially when expanding and promoting the Uniswap Wallet, which is essentially a centralized operation. Costs associated with development, operations, channel marketing, regulatory compliance, and security risk maintenance all add up. Implementing additional fees can effectively offset operational costs and support the rapid expansion of Uniswap’s product matrix. If it was just about profit, modifying the backend protocol’s code logic would seem more effective and profitable, wouldn’t it?

2) Uniswap protocol and Uniswap labs are two different entities.

Uniswap aims to communicate to the broader Uni community through this highly controversial unilateral “notification” that only the Uniswap protocol is decentralized, while the web and mobile endpoints belong to the Uniswap company. Additional fees are probably just the beginning of “centralized” measures. Implementing KYC regulatory strategies on these channels is inevitable, as no company can escape compliance issues. The 0.15% fee was announced without voting, which speaks volumes. Votes only apply to changes in the Uniswap protocol itself.

3) Uniswap’s future product matrix will compete with MetaMask.

As we’ve seen, MetaMask, which hasn’t issued its own token, has enthusiastically explored commercialization with the institution MetaMask, MetaMask Snap, and the portfolio dashboard. The occasional hint of a token release has filled their coffers with fees. This web2+web3 Pua business model of earning passively and actively has Uniswap company green with envy. Uniswap’s protocol and product separation strategy is clearly paving the way for the commercial expansion of its product matrix, aiming to cover a broader ecosystem strategically.

4) Uniswap’s governance token may be isolated indefinitely.

Uniswap’s significant decision has been met with confusion and protest from Uni holders, but the official stance seems to be indifferent. The long-awaited empowerment of the Uni token’s value has yet to materialize, and instead, the right to vote and governance has been stripped away. Even if voting mattered, how could the community’s voting weight ever surpass the “official” stance? In short, a tragedy for token holders.

5) If users don’t want to accept this 0.15% fee, they can opt for third-party wallet API integration or use other DeFi Aggregators, as long as these services directly interface with the Uniswap backend protocol. However, Uniswap may not necessarily be concerned about user attrition. While this might seem like a boon for market Aggregators, it’s hard to say that all Aggregators directly use the backend protocol. Uniswap officials must have weighed the potential user loss against the benefits of the 0.15% fee and made a trade-off.

Moreover, it’s expected that some “phishing” frontends claiming to bypass the 0.15% fee will emerge to scam people. The market will ultimately show that paying an extra 0.15% to choose the official Uniswap might be the safest and most reliable option.

Follow us
Twitter: https://twitter.com/WuBlockchain
Telegram: https://t.me/wublockchainenglish