Move Uniswap LP Pool to Sushiswap or 1inch

I think we should move the pool to 1inch or Sushiswap, whichever will give better rewards to stakers. It’s a great way to increase liquidity and the apy for existing stakers.

Uniswap doesn’t offer anything of value

Thoughts?

1 Like

I like it and would prefer Sushiswap, but would be fine with either.

I know in the discord @Marh started a channel and was looking into getting it moved to Sushiswap and sent an Onsen application for us on March 10.

As of March 14, I don’t think he heard back. We probably need some additional input to see if there is anything else we can do to help move it forward.

I would suggestion adding Sushi, rather than moving Uni. We can wait to hear from them about their OnSen program

1 Like

The decision to withhold the vested sushi from early big users/LP’s really rubs me the wrong way. Sushi went back on a lot of promises, and that is not a good sign imo. Right now they are essentially blackmailing all the protocols into submitting a new extended vesting proposal that sushi approves, to then maybe give them the vested rewards.

Really makes me wonder if any rewards promised now will actually be paid out.

yeah, I feel that and agree. I guess I just think SushiSwap has better long term potential, but as I said, don’t know if I feel that strongly either way. Given the Uni V3 announcement, It does seem like there may be some differences in that LP tokens will be handled, so either way, I think we should at least explore a different option.

I agree as well, but it’s STILL better than no rewards. So I guess we all agree the order of preference should be

  1. 1inch
  2. Sushi
  3. Uniswap

Not much we can do until Marh hears back from 1inch?

I also propose considering Bancor. Bancor has said that they are putting finishing touches on what they call “Origin Pools” in order to capture low-cap bootstrapping gems that usually only go to Uni and Sushi. From how they describe it in their March progress blogpost, the interface will seem like Uni or Sushi where the LP will just provide ETH-TKN, but behind the scenes they will change this to ETH-BNT & TKN-BNT. They will automatically mint BNT to provide liquidity, and the LP’s have Impermanent Loss Protection on their ETH. There will not be IL Protection on the TKN however. Even so, IL can cause a loss of a lot of money. If a LP provides for 100 days then you get full IL protection, (they add 1% protection per day, paid for my Bancor protocol fees).

All this being said… truthfully I am not sure whether this matters though when looking at long-term. If USF token does better in long run(gains more relative to ETH). Then the IL would really be felt on the USF token side, not on the ETH portion. Therefore the ETH IL Protection doesn’t bring benefit.

IF however USF could qualify to receive IL Protection then that would GREATLY benefit LP in the long-run. I expect USF to gain a lot in the long run so IL is a real threat to LP’s. It would take strong incentives to keep LP’s from pulling their Liquidity when USF starts to get more notice. (at least I believe that to be true because I MYSELF would not want to be providing liquidity on a token that is mooning. I am also a shrimp though so I hardly make a difference lol).
Also, I think there is a chance Uniswap V3 will have a liquidity mining program to incentivize people to move to V3, but that is still over a month away. Bancor has also mentioned that they have made progress on their L2 version, no ETA on that released though.

I second this. Adding rather than removing is a better way of increasing liquidity.

The incentives can then be split between all the LPs (UNI, SUSHI, 1INCH…)

I don’t agree with the preference. In my opinion, UNI should continue as is and then incentivise new LPs such as SUSHI and 1INCH

1 Like