[HN Gopher] Uniswap v3
___________________________________________________________________
Uniswap v3
Author : dylkil
Score : 142 points
Date : 2021-03-23 17:58 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (uniswap.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (uniswap.org)
| lupire wrote:
| Lots of undefined acronyms in there.
| gruez wrote:
| >Capital efficiency paves the way for low-slippage trade
| execution that can surpass both centralized exchanges and
| stablecoin-focused AMMs
|
| I'm skeptical of this. There was a story a few days ago[1]
| pointing out that AMM like these are vulnerable to getting front-
| runned, since there's a gap between when you broadcast your
| transaction and when it gets confirmed by the network. Other
| traders (especially with cooperation with miners) can exploit
| this to front-run your trades. Is this fixed in V3?
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26514624
| atarian wrote:
| I skimmed through the article and don't even have the faintest
| idea what this is about.
| exdsq wrote:
| I work in the blockchain space and still don't know most of
| these DeFi terms, it's a whole world of its own.
| seibelj wrote:
| Uniswap is one of the most useful and interesting projects in
| blockchain. Interested to hear why blockchain skeptics on HN
| think this project is totally worthless (as they claim everything
| in crypto is) given how much they have accomplished and how much
| value is traded on Uniswap every day.
|
| Huge proof and validation that blockchain / crypto is developing
| into something extremely useful.
|
| Here is a top-thread on HN from 7 months ago (before latest bull
| run) about how Blockchain is totally worthless, and my responses.
| Look at the hate! HN is absurd
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24182334
| exdsq wrote:
| I'm going to play devils advocate here, but I don't think the
| value traded on Uniswap really proves blockchain or crypto is
| 'useful'. We need use cases outside of DeFi to have any chance
| of getting HN to accept blockchain isn't a waste of time.
| arberx wrote:
| ENS and NFTs are what come to mind.
| chrisco255 wrote:
| Finance is a multi hundred trillion dollar industry. Whether
| you like it or not, money makes the world go 'round. If all
| blockchain ever did was disrupt traditional finance (as it is
| currently doing), it would have firmly established itself as
| a useful technology.
|
| Software is eating the world. DeFi is eating traditional
| finance.
| wmf wrote:
| There has been amazing technical progress in DEXex/AMMs but
| ultimately they're used for 100% gambling.
| arberx wrote:
| While that might be the case currently, the capital efficency
| of DeFi is miles ahead of any traditional system.
| phyalow wrote:
| Not totally true, one can use them to yield farm. (*which I
| concede is gambling on credit risk, but only tangently)
| chrisco255 wrote:
| From a cynical perspective that's true of any market.
| arthurcolle wrote:
| Where is @JumpCrisscross to give us the ex-money wizard take on
| these new financial innovations :)
| tinkerrr wrote:
| Some highlights that stood out:
|
| - Range positioning for your capital. In the sweet spot, there is
| higher fee returns but higher impermanent loss (IL).
|
| - Range orders are possible. If the price goes out of range, it
| is effectively a limit order (but you need to remove liquidity
| before price comes back within range)
|
| - LP tokens will be NFTs instead of ERC20s. This will likely
| affect the way liquidity mining is done currently, or they'll
| move to Sushi/remain on Uni v2.
|
| - Moving to optimism L2 in the future. This would lower gas for
| all DApps on Ethereum.
|
| - More fee options for LPs
|
| - Hint of protocol fees for UNI holders
|
| - Business source license perhaps to disincentivize copies like
| Sushi
|
| Overall, this seems like a fairly substantial change. It will
| probably take time for the ecosystem around this to mature.
| Excited for the long-term implications of this update.
| capableweb wrote:
| Overall, good summary. Small nitpick:
|
| - "This would lower gas for all DApps on Ethereum" not really,
| the same amount of gas will still be used by other
| applications. However, the average gas _price_ will probably go
| down, as current Uniswap usage raises the gas price as people
| try to get their transactions executed faster.
| xiphias2 wrote:
| > It will probably take time for the ecosystem around this to
| mature
|
| If the liquidity improvements are really significant in
| practice, I guess the whole transition will happen very fast
| ccamrobertson wrote:
| The use of the BSL 1.1 for Uniswap Core is one of the most
| interesting parts of this announcement. It will certainly slow
| wholesale cloning of their smart contracts.
| rodiger wrote:
| Wonder how that will be enforced given the decentralized nature
| of these contracts.
| yokem55 wrote:
| Well, the folks putting out the unlicensed clone would have
| to be anonymous to keep from being sued for copyright
| infringement. But if you are anonymous in the defi space,
| users are a lot less likely to trust your product.
| chrisco255 wrote:
| Not that much less. SushiSwap is run by mostly anons and it
| is the #2 AMM.
| gruez wrote:
| >But if you are anonymous in the defi space, users are a
| lot less likely to trust your product.
|
| Isn't the whole point of difi that you don't have to trust
| them?
| dcolkitt wrote:
| The smart contracts live entirely on the blockchain, and
| therefore cannot be shut down absent shutting down or hard
| forking the entire Ethereum network.
|
| However 99% of Defi users interact with these smart contracts
| through web-based front ends that are centrally hosted like
| any other site.
|
| In the case of a copyright violation, Uniswap LLC could get
| an injunction against any web front end that interacts with
| the forked DeX.
| arberx wrote:
| You can host on IPFS and there would be no way to stop the
| service. Just the routing to it perhaps. But you can go a
| step further and use a ENS domain and point it to your IPFS
| site. Truly permisionless and decentralized.
| gruez wrote:
| >In the case of a copyright violation, Uniswap LLC could
| get an injunction against any web front end that interacts
| with the forked DeX.
|
| How big of a problem is this? As we seen with piracy sites
| these court ordered blocks aren't exactly effective.
| capableweb wrote:
| > wholesale cloning of their smart contracts
|
| Maybe stop cloning by US entities, if Uniswap is a US company,
| but it won't stop many other entities to clone it if the
| contracts have their source available.
| ccamrobertson wrote:
| True, it's up to Uniswap to enforce if cloned and the local
| venue's respect of software licenses. But an intentional
| clone that's clearly copying the code and under threat of
| litigation likely won't be appealing for a lot of exchanges
| to list.
| capableweb wrote:
| > clearly copying the code and under threat of litigation
|
| Half of the ecosystem wouldn't exist if people were scared
| of litigation and/or not copying code/ideas from others.
| ccamrobertson wrote:
| Most of the ecosystem has been open source thus far.
| seibelj wrote:
| Almost everything in crypto is MIT licensed. This is an
| interesting experiment in licensing.
| verdverm wrote:
| So is this effectively a company that relies on a
| permissionless platform adopting a permissioned license?
|
| I thought permissionless was the ethos in the blockchain
| ecosystem
| ccamrobertson wrote:
| Right, it's a very strong stand to take in the space. I
| suspect most Uniswap users won't care, the code is still
| fully auditable under the BSL.
|
| Given the entire Sushi saga, I'm wouldn't be surprised if
| there was pressure from big UNI holders (read: VCs) for a
| move like this, but I'm curious to see if there is any
| community fallout.
| verdverm wrote:
| Agreed, do the core developers leave the project is the big
| one I was thinking about. This has happened (for other
| reasons) to other projects and it effectively makes them
| dead or dying
| tfang17 wrote:
| Uniswap is the biggest current threat to Coinbase.
|
| Uniswap was trading more than Coinbase Pro during certain periods
| of 2020.
| wmf wrote:
| Money has to enter and exit the system somewhere.
| argvargc wrote:
| Likely in this order:
|
| Entering:
|
| 1) Power companies
|
| Entering & exiting:
|
| 2) Off-market large trades (sometimes brokered through retail
| OTC trading desks)
|
| 3) Retail outlets such as Coinbase
| EduardoBautista wrote:
| Exactly. As long as people have the need to pay in regular
| currencies, decentralized exchanges aren't an alternative to
| Coinbase, Kraken, etc.
| markkat wrote:
| For now.
| blhack wrote:
| Honestly this is something that somebody like fidelity/other
| banks are going to solve and push coinbase out.
|
| A friend is going through the following scenario (and reached
| out to me for help): they have over half a million dollars
| sitting in a coinbase account, but coinbase has lost the link
| between their coinbase account and their bank account.
|
| What this means is that they can't get their _substantial_
| amount of money off of coinbase and into their bank.
|
| In some banks, if you have that amount of money, you have a
| 24/7 number you can call where somebody will greet you by
| name and solve whatever problem you have immediately.
|
| On coinbase: post on reddit, annoy them on twitter, and try
| to navigate their knowledge base until you get an answer.
|
| Completely terrifying IMO.
|
| Here's my actual prediction: something that I think still
| includes coinbase in the process:
|
| Coinbase just becomes coinbase custody. My bank account now
| has a "cryptocurrencies" tab, with deposit and withdraw
| addresses. This all happened with debit cards, and it's going
| to happen with cryptos now as well. I'm still bullish on
| coinbase, but coinbase becomes visa. I never interact with
| them directly.
| arberx wrote:
| Yeah with DEXs and more traditional banks starting to offer
| crypto on/off ramps don't see coinbase being that essential
| anymore.
| chrisco255 wrote:
| Most of these banks are going to be using 3rd party
| custody services from organizations with expertise in
| managing crypto assets. Coinbase happens to be one of the
| most experienced and reputable in this space. It's likely
| 3rd parties will white label Coinbase Custody rather than
| build their own crypto department.
| boring_twenties wrote:
| Can't they just link a different, or the same bank account
| to Coinbase through the UI instead of waiting for support
| to respond?
|
| Alternatively, open an account at a different exchange
| (e.g. Kraken or Bittrex), then transfer the crypto and
| sell/withdraw fiat from there?
|
| Obviously not defending Coinbase's absurdly bad customer
| service, just trying to offer a potentially quicker
| solution.
| blhack wrote:
| They tried. When you add another account, it never
| becomes an option to actually withdraw the money. So you
| go to withdraw, and there are no options there. Click
| "add bank account" again, and it will appear to add it,
| but never become an option for withdrawals. Eventually,
| the message of "you have exceeded the number of times you
| can try to add a bank account. Please try again in 24
| hours" appeared.
|
| Seriously this has flabbergasted me and I don't know that
| I can continue recommending coinbase to people after
| seeing this. It is an unbelievable kafkaesque nightmare
| where you have half a million f*cking dollars that you
| are trying to withdraw from an institution that purports
| to be a type of bank...and the robot just can't do it.
| It's not that you're trying to do something weird, but
| there is just some bug preventing you from withdrawing
| _your own_ money, with no real way to actually even
| report the bug.
|
| It legitimately feels like a type of cyberpunk nightmare.
| You can see the money, it's yours, but you can't have it,
| and there isn't even a person you can talk to to help
| you. Don't worry, funds are safe. They're yours. You just
| can't have them. Oh and also btw: you owe taxes on them
| lol. Good luck!
| boring_twenties wrote:
| Wow, that's just bizarre.
|
| There's still my second option though, open a Kraken
| account and transfer the crypto there.
|
| Do your own research as always, but Kraken has been
| around since 2011 and has a solid reputation -- I've
| never heard of anyone losing their funds.
|
| It's not as slick as Coinbase, and used to have a well-
| deserved reputation for somewhat frequent outages (rare
| nowadays). Additionally you'll have to pay for a wire
| transfer to withdraw fiat ($5 to Kraken, plus whatever to
| the receiving bank). Presumably, in this case none of
| these would be a serious concern. In the plus column,
| their customer support is quick to respond and actually
| helpful, unfortunately a rarity in the crypto world.
| chrisco255 wrote:
| Why not just withdraw to an Ethereum wallet and either
| leave it there (in stable coins or whatever) or again, as
| OP suggested take the route: Coinbase -> ETH Wallet ->
| Other exchange?
|
| Max fees would be like $50 for such a transaction.
| shanusmagnus wrote:
| What is even more insane than the insanity you describe is
| that it's not an oversight, Coinbase has actually made that
| their quasi-official policy: support is provided when you
| irritate them sufficiently through social channels in their
| ambient awareness They have literally externalized the
| support channel of your friend getting her half a million
| dollars to fucking Reddit. [Insert gif of house on fire +
| "This is fine" dog.]
| m3kw9 wrote:
| Is that risk found in their S-1?
| tinkerrr wrote:
| It is, which is how you know it is not a real risk.
| chizhik-pyzhik wrote:
| For those who aren't familiar, this post is referring to a
| decentralised trading system running on the Ethereum blockchain.
|
| The acronym "LP" refers to Liquidity Provider, which is anyone
| who locks up liquidity for two different assets to facilitate a
| trade.
| dcolkitt wrote:
| I predict this winds up as a giant gift to the arbitrage bots.
|
| Right now, the only real way to front run is to take liquidity
| ahead of a large order. Since swapping costs fees, this restricts
| front running to trades larger than 0.3% of the liquidity in the
| pair.
|
| In V3, it will now be possible for liquidity providers to "jump
| the queue", by adding liquidity in a narrow range. If an
| arbitrage bot is monitoring the pending block, it'll be able to
| predict exactly how much the price will move on the next block.
| It can then add liquidity at exactly that range, collect the lion
| shares of the LP rewards, then instantly remove the liquidity at
| the end of the block. The only remaining hurdle is the gas cost
| to add->remove liquidity (which on L2 will be virtually zero).
|
| I really hope they beta test this, because it could potentially
| be disastrous. Right now, front running really only costs money
| from large traders. Liquidity providers actually benefit from
| collecting fees on the extra swaps. But this has the potential to
| destroy the incentives to LPs, and drain all the liquidity out of
| the market.
| xiphias2 wrote:
| Can't these narrow ranges be misused by miners who can decide
| which transactions they want to put in the next block? I think
| it would make sense for them to start looking at the contracts
| themselves, not just the gas fees, and take part of providing
| liquidity. Even ordering the transactions matter a lot, as they
| could find arbitrage opportunities.
| arberx wrote:
| Yes, but this is solved by PoS.
|
| Also, there's https://libsubmarine.org/
| gruez wrote:
| >Yes, but this is solved by PoS.
|
| How so? Now rather than colluding with miners and/or mining
| pools they'll collude with stakers and/or staking pools.
| Tenoke wrote:
| Is it really draining the liquidity or switching it to flash
| liquidity instead?
|
| That would make the estimates worse though.
| threwaway4392 wrote:
| Can't crypto kill front running entirely?
|
| Alice, wanting to transact, writes down two opposing orders,
| say buy 1 share of A for $10 and sell 1 share of A $10, plus a
| signed secret stating which order it actually is.
|
| Other players subscribe to one of the two opposite orders.
|
| Next thing (whatever that means in these blockchains, but after
| other players have subscribed to one of the two opposite
| orders), Alice reveals the secret using her private key. This
| reveals which order it was (buy or sell). Alice then makes a
| deal automatically with whoever subscribed to that order. The
| other opposite order is cancelled.
| dcolkitt wrote:
| This has been proposed quite a few times, but the problem
| comes down to that it requires letting a single participant
| "lock down" the entire liquidity pair.
|
| For the above scheme to work, Alice's reveal would have to
| occur at a later block than her initial commit. Otherwise an
| arbitrage bot could simply peek at the reveal before the
| commit is mined. Also Alice's commit has to lock the chain
| until its reveal. Otherwise when her reveal is propagated on
| the P2P network, the arbitrage bot could jump the queue in
| front of her commit and still exploit her.
|
| You're now talking about the market freezing for 12-seconds
| (the block time) on every single trade. That's completely
| infeasible for any sort of liquid pair like ETH/USDT. Not to
| mention a single malicious player could DDoS the entire
| market. Or use it as a free option during periods of high
| volatility: lock the market then "reveal" in whatever
| direction the centralized exchanges moved in the lock-up
| period.
|
| Maybe you could only lock "big trades", but that in itself
| reveals a lot of information. You don't necessarily know the
| direction, but you can likely infer it with high certainty.
| For example if Alice doesn't own much of a token, then it's
| nearly certain she's buying not selling.
| Kinrany wrote:
| Bots can probably still front run arbitrage opportunities
| where it's clear which transaction is the correct one, but
| the same can probably be done by encrypting the whole
| transaction and only specifying the wallets involved.
| pshc wrote:
| Would it help if Uniswap implemented a cooldown on
| adding/removing liquidity?
| waterside81 wrote:
| What do you mean by "take liquidity ahead of a large order" and
| "adding liquidity in a narrow range"?
| chrisco255 wrote:
| When a user creates a swap transaction on Uniswap, it goes
| into the ETH transaction queue (prioritized by gas amount).
| If a bot notices that a user has a large swap (say swapping
| $1.5M USDC for 1K ETH), a bot could theoretically 'front-run'
| the order (by paying a higher gas fee than the original swap)
| and inject say, $10M of liquidity into the expected price-
| band of movement caused by the trade. They could then pocket
| a portion of the transaction fees (whatever their fraction of
| the 0.3% trade fee that Uniswap charges is), and then
| immediately pull the liquidity out of the LP to then wait for
| another front-running opportunity.
|
| This doesn't harm the person doing the swap, per se. It harms
| the Liquidity Providers that hold their capital in the pool
| for longer term.
| flixic wrote:
| Moving to Optimism L2 will remove miner advantage.
|
| Edit: of course, Optimism "Chain Organizers" can front-run, but
| if they will be run by Uniswap themselves, then they have no
| incentive to ruin their own product.
| [deleted]
| dcolkitt wrote:
| This is a misunderstanding. You don't need to be a miner to
| front-run transactions. You simply need to run a full node,
| with visibility into the P2P network.
|
| It's true that miners always have "right of first refusal",
| in that whoever mines the block can choose to prioritize his
| own transactions over anyone else. But if miners don't
| exercise that option, then any third party can front-run the
| target by outbidding them. Getting rid of miners, does not in
| anyway remove the issue of front-running. Currently, less
| than 5% of front-running activity is performed by miners.
|
| As long as transactions are propagated over a P2P network,
| then front running is still possible. So Optimism only fixes
| this problem, if Uniswap LLC is hosting the entire side chain
| and participants are directly submitting their transactions
| to Uniswap's servers instead of the block chain. However if
| that's the case, then they almost certainly will be legally
| obligated to perform KYC/AML on all clients, at which point
| they are essentially a centralized exchange.
|
| For reference, even Binance Smart Chain, which is heavily
| criticized for being a centralized exchange in disguise, does
| not take this approach. Centralize validators are used, but
| the network itself is still P2P instead of centrally hosted.
| flixic wrote:
| There's a lot of semi-incorrect information here.
|
| With Optimism, there can be multiple L2 chains, by
| different "Chain Organizers". When you submit a
| transaction, you get a receipt from Organizer, a
| cryptographic promise that it will be included in future
| rollup.
|
| It means only Organizers can attempt to front-run, by
| adding a transaction before giving out your receipt. And
| users can always choose to use different Organizers, those
| that don't front-run. Since Organizers gain a small amount
| of fees, it doesn't make sense to be a bad, front-running
| Organizer.
| phyalow wrote:
| I spent quite a lot of time developing
| Uniswap/Sushiswap/other dex arbitrage (back/front/sandwich)
| tools and bots over the last 6 months.
|
| When you say you simply need to run a full node, thats
| incorrect. It is a prerequisite yes, but much less than
| half the battle. You also need now to ensure correct order
| placement (on any opportunity there are upwards of 5-15
| competing bots), a friendly relay network/mining pools,
| efficiently node peering (e.g. 2-400 peers per node,
| managed on a custom routing table), a network of nodes to
| broadcast/listen for mem pool messages across the entire
| network instantaneously without waiting for P2P propagation
| (1-2 hops may introduce enough latency to lose out on the
| arb) (& some nodes are malicious - who fail to propagate
| arb'ble tx's), patched/custom GETH instances running on
| nodes (I am not at liberty to reveal what optimizations
| make one competitive). And then above all of that you need
| to be able to absorb, identify profitable transactions and
| then compute/simulate optimal transaction parameters in a
| very constrained amount of time.
|
| So its not at all simple, in fact I have wound down most of
| my operations as the costs vs. rewards are extremely
| marginal now vs. what they were mid last year.
| EGreg wrote:
| Is a token going to have to choose between listing on Uniswap 3
| and Uniswap 2? Is there any advantage for LP to list on Uniswap 2
| in terms of being "first" on a platform, as there is for building
| on iOS or Facebook or soemthing?
| Acrobatic_Road wrote:
| >Is a token going to have to choose between listing on Uniswap
| 3 and Uniswap 2?
|
| No. There be separate liquidity pools.
|
| >Is there any advantage for LP to list on Uniswap 2 in terms of
| being "first" on a platform
|
| There is no inherent advantage to being first. As soon as
| volume picks up, the other liquidity providers pile on and get
| their cut of it.
| squaredpants wrote:
| Still think pangolin on the avalanche network is a much better
| dapp than uniswap can ever be in PoW ethereum.
| companyhen wrote:
| https://polkaswap.io my friend, launches end of March :)
| EGreg wrote:
| Links please
| arberx wrote:
| Pangolin is basically a uni fork, on a different network.
|
| Uni v3 on L2 solves some of the gas issues seen on L1.
| russdpale wrote:
| yawn- tell me when the fees are cheap.
| cdiddy2 wrote:
| they are launching it on optimistic ethereum too. will be cheap
| fees there
| phyalow wrote:
| RTFA, May.
| teryyy wrote:
| Can someone ELI5 how this compares w/ SushiSwap?
| cdiddy2 wrote:
| At the moment SushiSwap has virtually none of the features
| listed in Uni V3. Sushi is coming out with its own new features
| that will differ from this named BentoBox and others. Both Uni
| and Sushi are innovating in their own ways which is great to
| see
| capableweb wrote:
| There's a large difference, at least compared to Uniswap V3.
| Read the features to see what the new version has that
| SushiSwap doesn't.
|
| For the record, SushiSwap is a fork of Uniswap, so the initial
| features of SushiSwap was all that Uniswap had.
|
| By now, they mainly differ in that SushiSwaps governance seems
| to still go forward while Uniswap has been stuck since the
| requirement for doing proposals is too high.
| dylkil wrote:
| All new features compared to SushiSwap.
|
| Interesting to note the updated license for v3, in an attempt
| to prevent another SushiSwap
|
| 'Uniswap v3 Core will launch under the Business Source License
| 1.1--effectively a time-delayed GPL-2.0-or-later license. The
| license limits use of the v3 source code in a commercial or
| production setting for up to two years, at which point it will
| convert to a GPL license into perpetuity'
| splix wrote:
| Since the SushiSwap was anonymous fork of Uniswap, I'm
| wondering how they plan to prevent an another anonymous fork
| just by using a different license?
| VectorLock wrote:
| Through the only avenue that licenses matter - litigation.
| chizhik-pyzhik wrote:
| Honestly they probably can't prevent forks. It's more of a
| discouragement, since as a forker you'd be subject to being
| sued if they can figure out who you are.
| chrisco255 wrote:
| So basically this will prevent American citizens from
| forking, but international folks will have free reign to
| fork as they wish.
| Acrobatic_Road wrote:
| One of the big selling points of the original uniswap was
| that everything was open source as opposed to bancor. I am
| disappointed by this.
| xiphias2 wrote:
| What's really interesting to me is that all these advancements
| could have been made by a centralized service for stock trading
| as well if the debt based system and T+3 days margin calls
| wouldn't be a requirement.
|
| DTCC owns most US stocks, so I don't see why they wouldn't be
| able to launch uniswap style contracts to allow better use of
| liquidity instead of just having simple limit order contracts.
| gruez wrote:
| >What's really interesting to me is that all these advancements
| could have been made by a centralized service for stock trading
| as well
|
| uhh, what? The two features that were introduced were
| "Concentrated liquidity" and "Multiple fee tiers". I'm not sure
| how either of them are applicable to centralized exchanges.
|
| >and T+3 days margin calls wouldn't be a requirement.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26007414
| xiphias2 wrote:
| Concentrated liquidity is needed because of the huge cash
| requirement right now (as the link that you provide writes
| about it). Having guaranteed execution with real time
| clearing, real cash and smarter contracts is a sounder system
| than stupid contracts and margin trading with slow clearing.
| gruez wrote:
| >Concentrated liquidity is needed because of the huge cash
| requirement right now (as the link that you provide writes
| about it).
|
| Not really? The link says having T+0 settlement would make
| liquidity _worse_ because market makers can only trade with
| whatever cash they have on hand.
| xiphias2 wrote:
| We agree.
| marsrover wrote:
| Very excited to see the move to L2. With the amount of
| transactions Uniswap produces, this will cut down on Ethereum
| fees by a good bit.
| dcolkitt wrote:
| L2 really has nothing to do with Uniswap V2 vs. V3. As long as
| the L2 protocol is byte code compatible with the EVM, any
| contract that runs on main net can be ported to L2.
| marsrover wrote:
| It kinda does since there was no plan to move to L2 during
| Uniswap V2.
| chrisco255 wrote:
| Presumably Sushi or some other fork will take this route if
| Uni doesn't.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-03-23 23:02 UTC)