Hi @tfns! Welcome to the PT forums. I appreciate you stepping up to share your product.
This PTIP is attempting to supercede PTIP-61 which provides single-sided liquidity to Uniswap, so I’ll explain some reasons why I prefer Uniswap.
Uniswap has Volume
Uniswap has good volume:
- On Ethereum about $1.1b daily volume in Ether, and $1b daily volume in USDC
- On Polygon about $60m in volume for each of USDC and wrapped Ether, and $40m for Matic
This is attractive because:
- These kind of volumes mean that there is lots of liquidity and swapping pairs to move in and out of positions. More liquidity means a bigger market and more efficient swapping
- Uniswap is on both Ethereum and Polygon. We can send users to one dapp for both networks.
This is in sharp contrast to Bancor, which has ~$500k in volume per day for USDC and $7.7m per day for Ether. Bancor is not yet available on Polygon.
Uniswap is (relatively) Simple
We’ve already discovered how challenging it can be working with a slow-moving treasury. Interacting with protocols can be complicated, and if there is an associated business deal that needs to be managed then there is a massive human component to it.
PTIP-54 was going to use Notional, but the challenge in actually depositing prevented us from using their system.
PTIP-45 created a liquidity-as-a-service partnership. To close out the program successfully there has been a ton of out-of-band communication with the Ondo and Fei teams. Taking on any kind of special arrangement with another protocol requires a protocol account manager of sorts, one from our community who represents our interests. Our Treasury Working Group researches protocols and programs, perhaps they could speak more to this.
Summary
I think Uniswap is a more prudent choice for liquidity provision by the treasury. This PTIP attempts to oppose that proposal, so I cannot support it.