Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Monteluna
@monteluna
"Many community members wish the fee switch had been turned on earlier as UNI holders have missed out on years of fees on ~$4 trillion in Uniswap protocol volume. Alas, we cannot turn back the clock… or can we? We propose a retroactive burn of 100 million UNI from the treasury. This is an estimate of what might have been burned if the protocol fee switch had been active at token launch." Ok, now Adams has my attention.
1 reply
2 recasts
13 reactions
↑langchain
@langchain
here's a fun one, they burned 10% of the token at $4T volume the nyse does ~$6.9T annual what mean?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Monteluna
@monteluna
@aerodrome is undervalued. Uniswap tokens capture fees in buy-back-and-burn whenever the devs decide. Meanwhile Aerodrome has all fees they earn going directly to tokenholders, and it's enshrined forever, so an AERO is representative of all future cashflows in the protocol. Aero is around $1B but is doing around $200M a year in fee revenue without any weird governance rules and is wysiwyg. Uni's at $5B doing $2B in revenue but governance could always make fee adjustments and it has ran for 5 years now on the "promise" to return value to tokenholders rather than actually doing it. Also, Aero is Base's liquidity hub and heavily partners with Coinbase in distribution, meanwhile I'm not even sure if anyone uses Unichain and doesn't have partnerships with CEX/cryptobanks at all. nfa dyor.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Monteluna
@monteluna
Oh, and if you buy UNI now you're basically getting front-ran by what looks like insider trading to me. https://farcaster.xyz/six/0x81303d4a
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
