0xbec643bd…c51csent to0x408ed635…24c3·#18,207,213·0x7971e0c5…cfa6ec
Uniswaps multi-chain expansion is becoming massive and we extremely support this movement in terms of user experience, ease of reaching numerous chains on one protocol. The concept of “friendly fork” can able both Uniswap and Zero Chain to innovative consequences. We have couple questions and rewies about this temparature check. The answers will lead us to vote on the on-chain proposal.
Since there’s a big TVL difference between Uniswap and Retro Protocol, will there be anything except the participation of Zero Protocol's governance? How will the revenue be distributed?
“Zero Protocol will utilize Uniswap’s established backend infrastructure as its foundational engine and be granted access to ecosystem-funded tooling.”
“Zero is a direct fork of the existing Retro project on Polygon POS, which already relies on Uniswap V3 for trading.”
Zero Protocol is described as a direct fork of Retro, but it’ll take Uniswap's backend infrastructure as its foundational engine. How is it possible for a fork (Zero) to use some other backend (Uniswap) instead of the protocol it originally forked (Retro)?
Can you also briefly explain how will the Zero Protocol be the liquidity layer for Polygon zkEVM?
We voted “for” on this temperature check, and we’ll consider those answers for our future voting. We wish you good luck as ITU Blockchain delegation team