Talk:Uniswap

Hayden Adams was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 20 December 2024 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Uniswap. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS

The article Uniswap, along with other pages relating to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:

Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.

Remedy instructions and exemptions

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any restrictions (excluding 1RR/reverting violations) and other conduct issues should be reported to the administrators' incidents noticeboard. Violations of revert restrictions should be reported to the administrators' edit warring noticeboard.
Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.

With respect to any reverting restrictions:

Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism.
Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

This article was nominated for deletion on 29 November 2020. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because Uniswap is one of the largest cryptocurrency exchanges overall by volume, and the largest decentralized exchange. Many exchanges have dedicated articles. See Binance, Coinbase, OKEx, etc. It is also notable as it is the involved in decentralized finance and has been the subject of many WP:RS. HocusPocus00 (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with HocusPocus00 on significance. In addition, although the way the article is setup in its current form doesn't make it clear, the criteria for speedy deletion given by Hatchens does not apply (WP:A7): "...it does not apply to articles about products ..." Uniswap the organization is not the significant subject matter of interest, rather the Uniswap protocol and decentralized exchange (i.e. Uniswap the product) is the main focus. I will try and make some edits to better reflect that before removing the speedy deletion tag. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 09:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden Lemon, Thank you for the contribution and support. But, I guess the entity is not notable enough. Instead of speedy deletion, an AfD discussion would be an appropriate one. Let others chip in. - Hatchens (talk) 12:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden Lemon Thanks. I agree. HocusPocus00 (talk) 15:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hatchens and @HocusPocus00: No problem, I think AfD would be reasonable to get more discussion as more sources are needed currently. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 19:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Updated some of the wording and added another cite. HocusPocus00 (talk) 18:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rankings

We have already discussed rankings of cryptocurrencies here Talk:Cryptocurrency#Biased_list_of_altcoins, there is no need for this article to have the #4 ranking in the lede. This is getting out of hand. @David Gerard: take a look. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate on what you mean, User:Jtbobwaysf? This article is about the Decentralized exchange named Uniswap, not a cryptocurrency. The #4 ranking is for the size of the exchange by daily volume and is cited by a source. Why would that not be something to include here? I don’t see how the linked discussion is relevant to this article. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 00:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also Talk:Vitalik_Buterin#LEDE_promote; and User_talk:HocusPocus00#Cryptocurrency/blockchain_standard_notice. I'm not going to rehash all my arguments here and why User:Jtbobwaysf's proposal is wrong in so many ways. HocusPocus00 (talk) 09:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hidden Lemon: we don't need present rankings. Who would monitor this when it changes (certainly not if it changes). Not practical. As you can see from HocusPocus00's wiki link to the other discussion there is opposition to adding present rankings regardless if is market cap or the 34th ranked dex. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Jtbobwaysf, do you really feel that it would be wrong and/or biased to mention that Uniswap is the #1 largest DEX in the intro? Additionally, your argument on the “practicality” of including that information is quite weak. The commonly used WP:As of method easily addresses that concern and I can append that template to the statement right now. Generally though, it seems you are trying to take the specific, non-binding, individual editorial opinions of some out of their original context and apply it to a broader swath of semi-related instances within the subject of crypto as if it were established policy. Speaking practically here, the inclusion/non-inclusion of verifiable and neutral statements regarding notability, more often than not, should be decided on a case-by-case basis. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 19:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jtbobwaysf: Your argument has no basis in Wikipedia policy. This is like arguing 'Who is going to monitor the Donald Trump article and update it when he is not the current President of the United States? Wikipedia of course covers current events. When the information changes, editors edit based on RS's. HocusPocus00 (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Bloomberg is citing Messari crypto, not sure if this is kosher. But the content is interesting. I was confused and thought it was the #4 DEX, now seeing it is the #4 exchange. Not sure if it belongs in the lede, but I don't have any big objection after reading above. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glad the confusion was cleared up. Regarding the attribution of Messari instead of Bloomberg, is there any style guidelines on how to handle attributing a statement that itself attributes to someone/thing else? The statement itself I think is fine to attribute to Bloomberg in the way its currently worded (i.e. "bloomberg says it's estimated" vs "bloomberg estimates"). Not too hung up on that though, just curious. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 11:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It should be attributed to Bloomberg per WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. We didn't read it on Messari, we read it on Bloomberg. HocusPocus00 (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thats incorrect. Bloomberg didnt say it, they quoted someone. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing that link, HocusPocus00. Seems like citing Bloomberg as the secondhand source is fine. Attribution in-text, as is the case here, may not even be necessary to be honest. It's not a restatement of opinion; i.e. that estimation has been made, as verified by a non-controversial RS (Bloomberg). The in-text citation should be sufficient to allow the reader to get more info if they wish, per WP:INTEXT. So perhaps just removing that "according to..." attribution in the sentence is better than trying to figure out who exactly deserves to be attributed. A parallel analogy for illustration purposes, would be something like if the NYT said "according to companies X, Y, and Z, the event A probably occurred around 3:00 PM today..." Here you wouldn't need to say according to X, Y, and Z... blah blah blah. Citing the NYT, just saying "Event A likely started at 3:00 PM.^[cite]" would be totally sufficient given the credibility of the New York Times. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 00:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. HocusPocus00 (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial

Uniswap restricted access to tokens via UI Black List. Details: https://uniswap.org/blog/token-access-app List of unsupported tokens: https://github.com/Uniswap/interface/blob/main/src/constants/tokenLists/unsupported.tokenlist.json Citation: https://twitter.com/Uniswap/status/1418697012095164420 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Windump (talk • contribs) 18:41, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuit

Is the Wells Notice and potential lawsuit from the SEC worthy of adding to the page? In similar instances it is mentioned on other pages, but I am curious if the situation needs to progress in order to be worthy of adding.

Here are a few of the sources I have gathered about the situation just for reference:

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/cpi-report-today-inflation-stock-market-04-10-2024/card/sec-warns-defi-firm-uniswap-labs-of-potential-lawsuit-WBbtKQFAkh12I28Ds4fm

https://www.reuters.com/technology/sec-warns-uniswap-labs-potential-enforcement-action-2024-04-10/

BridgeCityBoyz (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]