Uniswap: Brand should not be open-source or decentralized, value lies in team maintaining consistency

Uniswap founder Hayden Adams stated that while Uniswap's front and back end are open-source to ensure project decentralization, the brand should not be open-source because brand consistency is valuable, indicating that the team needs to control brand resources to achieve this.

This article is compiled and translated. For any doubts, please refer to the original text.

Uniswap Frontend and Backend Open Sourced

Under the Copyleft GPL licensing structure, Uniswap has open-sourced its frontend code, allowing anyone to fork, modify, and distribute the codebase, with the condition that any derivative work must also be open-sourced under the GPL license.

Forking the frontend interface contributes to increasing decentralization. For instance, in the event of a malfunction in the frontend interface that Uniswap operates, users can still access on-chain protocols through other interfaces, whether through alternative forked interfaces or aggregators.

This move can also accelerate industry innovation and become a public good in the field; for example, half of the projects in the DeFi space use Uniswap's frontend code.

Currently, the Uniswap interface's GitHub repository has been forked 4,700 times.

Branding Should Not Be Open Sourced or Forked

Open-Sourcing Branding Does Not Contribute to Decentralization

While both the interface and on-chain protocols have been open-sourced for anyone to fork, branding is a different matter. Hayden believes that branding should not be forked, and even if forking the frontend and contract content, Uniswap's trademark should not be used.

Uniswap's trademark policy clearly outlines restrictions. For example, forked projects can state that "this project is built on the Uniswap protocol," but cannot claim to be "operated by the Uniswap team."

Why can anyone fork the frontend interface but not the brand?

Forking Branding Misleads Users

Unlike immutable on-chain protocols, forks of frontend interfaces operated by different teams are modifiable, thus possessing different security attributes, which could be exploited by bad actors, including scammers.

In fact, scammers create hundreds of fake versions of frontend interfaces every week, attempting to deceive users, ultimately resulting in fund theft.

While branding and logos can thwart these scam sites, conversely, branding and trademarks could be misused by these individuals for forking. If people are deceived on a website that appears to be operated by Uniswap Labs, it damages the brand's reputation.

Therefore, branding should not be open sourced or forked, and those who violate the rules of using the brand should be penalized.

Consistency is Key for Brand Value

Hayden states that users may not agree with every aspect of Uniswap's trademark policy, but the team will enforce it. Essentially, this principle applies to all other projects in the crypto space and beyond.

Considering branding as something that should operate without permission, just like on-chain protocols, is simply a wild idea. Brands are different from protocols and should not be decentralized.

Brands are built on user trust and familiarity. If the product behind the brand keeps changing, such as with many forked protocols, it will create confusion for users, hinder trust-building, and ultimately fail to accumulate brand value.

Consistency is crucial for brand value, hence it cannot be open sourced or decentralized.

Users should not hesitate about the brand, as it will diminish its value.