Uniswap: Brands should not be open source or decentralized! The team is valuable when it masters and maintains consistency

“This site (120btC.coM): Uniswap founder Hayden Adams said that although Uniswap’s front and back ends are open source to ensure the decentralization of the project, brands should not be open source. He We believe that brand consistency is crucial to creating value, and the representative team needs to master the brand resources to achieve this."

Uniswap has both front and rear ends open source

Uniswap adopts Copyleft GPL licensing terms and is open source The front-end code allows anyone to fork, modify, and distribute the code base, but derivatives must also be open sourced under GPL licensing.

Forked front-end interface improves decentralization. When the Uniswap front-end fails, users can access the on-chain protocol through other fork interfaces or aggregators.

It can also accelerate industrial innovation and become a public asset in the field. For example, half of the projects in the DeFi field use Uniswap's front-end code.

Currently the GitHub code base of the Uniswap interface has been forked 4,700 times.

Brands should not be open sourced and forked

Open source for brands does not help decentralization

Although the interface and on-chain protocols have been open sourced to allow anyone to fork at will, But that’s not the case with brands. Hayden believes that brands should not be forked. Even if the front end and contract content are to be forked, Uniswap’s trademark should not be used.

Clear restrictions are listed in Uniswap’s trademark policy. For example, a forked project can say "this project is built based on the Uniswap protocol", but it cannot say "built by the Uniswap team".

Why can anyone fork the front-end interface but not the brand?

Brand forks will only mislead users

Using brand forks will not increase decentralization, but will only mislead and harm users.

Unlike immutable on-chain protocols, front-end interface forks run by different teams can be modified and therefore have different security properties. Even scammers can use this feature to do bad things.

In fact, scammers do create hundreds of fake versions of the front-end interface every week and try to mislead users, but in fact only steal users’ funds.

Although brands and logos can make these scam websites fail, on the other hand, brands and trademarks may also be used (forked) by these people. If people are scammed on a website that appears to be operated by Uniswap Labs, If you cheat, it will damage the reputation of the brand.

Therefore, the brand should not be open source or forked, and those who use the brand in violation of regulations should be punished.

Brands need to maintain consistency to be valuable

Hayden said that users do not have to like every aspect of Uniswap’s trademark policy, but the team will indeed implement it. The same will be true for basically every other project in the crypto space and other industries.

It is completely crazy to think that brands should operate completely permissionless like on-chain protocols. Brands are different from protocols and should not be decentralized.

A brand is the accumulation of user trust and habits. If the products behind the brand are constantly changing (for example, there are many forked protocols), it will cause confusion for users, which is not conducive to building trust, and will eventually Unable to accumulate brand value.

Brands need to be consistent to be valuable, so they cannot be open source or decentralized.

Users should not hesitate about the brand, otherwise it will reduce the brand value.

The above is the detailed content of Uniswap: Brands should not be open source or decentralized! The team is valuable when it masters and maintains consistency. For more information, please follow other related articles on the PHP Chinese website!