Call to RING liquidity providers on Arbitrum: bring liquidity back to Ethereum mainnet

[hackfisher]

This is not a governance proposal. It is an open call from community members to fellow LPs.

RING liquidity is currently split between Ethereum mainnet (Uniswap V2 RING/WETH), Arbitrum, and Polygon. Total DEX volume across all of them is small. Splitting a thin market into three pools makes every pool shallower, increases slippage for every trade, and does not earn LPs more fees.

Two things have changed since liquidity moved to Arbitrum:

Ethereum mainnet gas has been low for a long time. At RING's current trading volume, gas is not what makes the token expensive to trade — lack of depth is.
Every extra chain adds a bridge hop for anyone entering or exiting a position. For a bridged token on an L2, that means waiting on the Arbitrum canonical bridge (~7 days) or paying a third-party bridge. This is friction with no upside for a low-volume asset.

Ethereum mainnet already has the deepest RING pool. Consolidating there is the simplest thing we can do to improve RING's price quality, and it costs the DAO nothing.

What we're asking

If you provide RING liquidity on Arbitrum, consider withdrawing it, bridging back to Ethereum, and adding it to the mainnet Uniswap pool. Nobody is required to do this. It is a request, not a rule.

[Laki389]

Since gas fees for trading on the Ethereum network have been negligible for quite some time now, this makes sense, IMHO.

It will strengthen RING liquidity on Ethereum.

Liquidity on Arbitrum and Polygon made sense when trading on Ethereum was prohibitively expensive, but that hasn’t been the case for quite a while now.

[xiaoch05]

Agree! Given RING's current trading volume, concentrating liquidity on Ethereum mainnet should improve market depth and price execution more effectively than maintaining fragmented liquidity across multiple chains.

If liquidity on Arbitrum is gradually withdrawn and consolidated back on Ethereum, the Darwinia–Arbitrum bridge would also lose much of its practical value. Maintaining a bridge comes with ongoing infrastructure, monitoring, and operational costs, while the actual demand and usage may no longer justify those expenses.

From a cost-benefit perspective, I therefore think it would also make sense to consider retiring the Darwinia–Arbitrum bridge once the Arbitrum liquidity has largely migrated back to Ethereum.

This would simplify the overall infrastructure, reduce unnecessary maintenance costs, and keep resources focused on the chains where RING liquidity and trading activity are actually concentrated.