Market-listing governance threshold
Uniswap (v2 + v3)'s assessment for RD-F-072 — scored not_applicable on the v1.7.0 rubric. The evidence below is the curator's reasoning for this score.
Evidence summary #
Lending-only factor (taxonomy PD-024). DEX-analogue note: V2 pool creation fully permissionless (no governance). V3 pool creation permissionless for enabled fee tiers; new fee tiers require UNI governance enableFeeAmount(). This permissionless listing creates long-tail pool exposure — yellow-class DEX observation flagged for v1.1 factor consideration.
Detail #
Taxonomy §Category 4 PD-024: lending-only. V3 factory createPool() is permissionless for any fee tier already enabled in the factory. New fee tier creation requires UNI governance proposal calling enableFeeAmount(uint24 fee, int24 tickSpacing). V2 factory createPair() is fully permissionless — no governance involvement for any pair. The permissionless factory creates long-tail token pool exposure (any token, including scam tokens, can be listed). This is a DEX-specific yellow-class observation not captured by the lending-specific factor as scoped in v1.0. Flagged for v1.1 DEX-specific factor consideration.
Sources #
- DocsUniswap V3 Developer Docs — FeesUniswap developer docs fees page — fee tiers, governance enableFeeAmount, permissionless createPoolretrieved 2026-05-12
- Taxonomy PD-024 + v1.1 flagTaxonomy PD-024 lending-only. DEX-analogue yellow-class permissionless pool listing observation flagged for v1.1retrieved 2026-05-12
- Etherscan — UniswapV3FactoryUniswapV3Factory — createPool permissionless; enableFeeAmount governance-gatedretrieved 2026-05-12
Methodology #
Classify the governance threshold required to list a new market as: permissionless / low-threshold (team multisig) / high-threshold (DAO vote) / no new listings.
See the full factor methodology and distribution across all protocols →