Educating users about UIs after Labs' hand-off

Compound Labs’ decision to open-source its front-end to the protocol and move hosting to IPFS are important steps in the decentralization of the protocol. Given the criticism around Uniswap Labs’ blacklisting of certain synthetic and derivative assets on its hosted UI, Compound Labs presents a different way forward here.

That said, this change – particularly the redirection of Compound Labs’ to the IPFS hosted interface with its cumbersome URL – has introduced some possibly underappreciated risks to user confidence and is creating a lot of undue stress for ordinary users. Evidence from the protocol’s Discord server suggests that many casual users are having at least a moment of panic when they get redirected to a URL they don’t recognize and see what appears to be a clone of the Compound Labs interface requesting access to their wallet. It’s natural for these users to worry that they or the Compound Labs’ UI might have been phished or worse, shaking confidence in the protocol as a safe place to earn yield on their digital assets.

This move is good for decentralization, but it happened very quickly by the standards of most typical users and was introduced without much of any warning on itself. I would argue that most users who deposited via the Labs interface are still unaware that this change took place and that if the wrong narrative took hold, the suddenness of the change and the sketchy appearance of the IPFS URL are both legitimate threats to the protocol’s reputation (backwards as that may feel for those who understand the reasons for the change).

There are many things we could do as a community to mitigate this risk. We have other community-developed UIs in the pipeline which is great; @getty has registered an ENS for the Compound multi-sig to control hosting of this UI, which is also a great start.

But I think the most important thing we can do in the short term is to create a new splash page or banner on the interface, before asking users to connect their wallet, that explains the change and provides links for users to educate themselves about it / verify the accuracy of the redirect.

I think it would boost confidence the most if this splash page were actually built by Compound Labs and hosted at by Compound Labs, perhaps no longer automatically redirecting to the IPFS site. This would arguably be better than a redirect from a decentralization perspective; I could imagine that some courts might not care so much about the distinction between hosting a website and hosting a redirect to a website outside of Labs’ control.

Curious whether others feel the IPFS redirect is an urgent issue. Forum participants are among the most well-educated of the protocol’s users when it comes to ethereum infrastructure, so I worry we might be underestimating the damage we’re inadvertently causing to user confidence here.


I feel having both the option of a centralized frontend for easy access, as well as a decentralized IPFS frontend for those who want it is the best way for this. A way this could be implemented is the same way Uniswap has done it on their app. By going to, if you are on an IPFS enabled browser (Brave, or a browser in combination with the IPFS companion), it will give you the option to load up the IPFS version instead. I don’t personally know enough to understand how they did this, but this is something to look into.

In case you have no idea what I’m talking about with Uniswap, this little button pops up on Brave:

EDIT: Going to, it seems that the button already appears there. This should be good enough to allow those who want to use the IPFS version to access it easily for the time being, until we get the ENS domain Getty has set up into the hands of either governance or the multi-sig.


I think this is an urgent matter.

I went ahead and set up compoundapp.eth and transferred it to the community multisig. I also set up compoundprotocol.eth but haven’t transferred that yet.

1 Like