One Article to Understand $UORE: The V4 Hook Project That Packs Mining, Lottery, and NFT Into a Single Transaction

marsbitPublicado a 2026-05-09Actualizado a 2026-05-09

Resumen

An In-Depth Look at $UORE: The V4 Hook Project Packing Mining, Lotteries, and NFTs into a Single Transaction $UORE is the latest project leveraging the Uniswap V4 Hook mechanism, following in the footsteps of projects like SATO, uPEG, and Slonks. It distinguishes itself by integrating multiple functions—on-chain mining, a buy-to-enter lottery, auto-generated pixel NFTs (Orelings), and a deflationary burn mechanism—all within a single Uniswap V4 liquidity pool transaction. This complexity results in transaction gas fees that are 2-3 times higher than a standard swap. The project's tokenomics are intricate. Each whole $UORE token held automatically mints a corresponding Oreling NFT, a 32x32 pixel miner character with random traits determined by the next block's hash. Each Oreling has a Class (rarity) and Hash value, which combine to form its Mining Power for staking rewards. Rewards are distributed daily from an emission that decays by 1% daily, with an 80/20 split between stakers and a Motherlode lottery pool. A "refined-ore boost" mechanism taxes early reward claims, redistributing 10% to remaining stakers. The Motherlode lottery awards tickets for buys of ≥0.1 ETH, with winning chances scaling up to 1% for 1 ETH purchases. Wins split the pool 50% to the buyer and 50% to a random staker. A 1% buy tax is burned, and a 1% sell tax funds an automatic buyback-and-burn mechanism triggered at 0.1 ETH. The project's code is a fork of uPEG, with claimed fixes for NFT duplication ...

Author: Curry, Shenchao TechFlow

Still FOMOing over yesterday's trending on-chain Ethereum project Slonk? Actually, a new narrative has arrived:

V4 Hook.

Over the past two weeks, Uniswap V4's Hook mechanism suddenly became hot. SATO used Hooks to create an on-chain bonding curve, pushing its market cap to $40 million. uPEG, leveraging the viral story of Uniswap's discarded naming drafts, reached over $30 million in two weeks. Slonks embedded an AI model into a smart contract to mimic CryptoPunks, achieving 586 ETH in trading volume within six days of launch.

While these three projects have different gameplay, they all utilize Uniswap's V4 mechanism.

Now the fourth one is here.

The new project is called $UORE, launched just yesterday. What it does can be summarized in one sentence: It packs on-chain mining, token-buying lottery, pixel NFT auto-generation, and deflationary burning mechanisms, all into a single Uniswap V4 trading pool.

Because buying tokens in this pool triggers the contract to simultaneously perform these six actions in the background, the gas fee for one transaction is two to three times that of a normal swap...

Currently on Crypto Twitter, you'll find everyone complaining about this high gas cost.

Regarding the token, according to GMGN data as of the time of writing, $UORE surged to a market cap of $1.2 million within hours of launch, then quickly dropped back to $440k. The pool liquidity is only $64k, but the 24-hour trading volume is $1.2 million, meaning the money in the pool has been turned over nearly twenty times.

However, there are only 741 holders, and the total supply is less than ten thousand tokens.

Currently, the risks appear extremely high. After a brief study, I personally think it's the most mechanically complex project in the V4 Hook ecosystem (this round of new on-chain plays tends to be confusing in terms of mechanics...).

It is simultaneously a token, an NFT collection, a staking mining farm, and a lottery system. Moreover, these four things are not independent; they are welded together.

The Four-in-One Mining Farm

In most NFT projects, the token and the NFT are two separate things, bought and sold independently.

UORE is not. Its NFT is called Oreling, a 32×32 pixel miner character directly embedded into the token. For every full integer UORE you hold in your wallet, you automatically own one corresponding Oreling.

The contract mints it for you when you buy tokens, burns it when you sell tokens, and the Oreling moves with the UORE when you transfer. You cannot buy an Oreling separately, nor can you detach it from UORE.

Each Oreling's traits are determined by the hash of the next block the moment it is minted. This means you don't know what kind of character you'll get when you buy; not even the validator can see the result in advance.

The differences between these characters are not just about appearance.

Each Oreling has a Class (rarity) and a Hash (a random number from 1 to 100). Multiplying these two gives its Mining Power.

The most common Mortal class accounts for 60% with a 1x multiplier; the rarest God class has only a 1% probability with a 5x multiplier. If you're lucky and get a God with Hash 100, your mining power is 500, more than ten times that of an ordinary miner.

So what is mining power used for? Old-school play: staking.

Stake your Oreling into the mining pool, and you start receiving a share of the daily UORE release based on your mining power proportion. According to the official whitepaper, 1000 UORE are released on the first day, decaying by 1% daily thereafter, with a half-life of approximately 69 days. 80% of the release is distributed to stakers, and 20% goes into the Motherlode prize pool.

This decay rate means that within a year, 97% of the total emission will be released. The earlier you enter to mine, the larger the slice you get.

A design worth noting when claiming rewards: a 10% "refining tax" is deducted and redistributed to all stakers who haven't claimed yet. The whitepaper calls this the refined-ore boost.

In plain language, those who claim later receive more of the taxes paid by others. Those in a hurry to claim are subsidizing the patient ones.

Then there's the Motherlode, translated as the "mineral vein jackpot."

Every time you buy ≥ 0.1 ETH worth of UORE through official channels, you automatically get a lottery ticket. The winning probability is tied to the purchase amount: ~1/600 for 0.1 ETH, ~1/200 for 0.5 ETH, and capped at ~1/100 for 1 ETH. Buying more than 1 ETH doesn't increase the probability, preventing whales from spamming.

If you win, the prize pool is split in two: 50% goes directly to the buyer, and 50% is randomly distributed to one staker (weighted by mining power). As of writing, there have only been 4 wins in history, with the largest prize being 6.4 UORE.

Finally, the deflationary flywheel.

A 1% tax on buys is directly burned, and a 1% tax on sells goes into a buyback treasury. When the treasury accumulates 0.1 ETH, anyone can trigger an automatic buyback, and all bought-back UORE are burned. As of writing, 58 buybacks have been executed, cumulatively burning 358 UORE.

Looking at the overall design, it's a small innovation in token-NFT gameplay, an old trick for creating scarcity, yet another Ponzi in economic model design.

The Code is Forked, The Gameplay is Stitched

UORE wasn't written from scratch.

Someone in the community reviewed the source code and found a folder named `reference/unipeg-hook-source/`. The founder, Noah, hasn't hidden it either. He directly stated on Twitter that UORE's contract is forked from uPEG, and it fixed two known issues with uPEG: duplicate NFT generation and flash loan attacks to farm rarity.

Checking out this founder's account, his bio reads "Ethereum dev & BAYC holder." On May 2nd, he posted his first tweet about UORE, saying the project combines the mining concept from Solana's ORE with the V4 Hook architecture of uPEG.

He also proactively @'ed Unicurvefun and Openpeg, asking if they could support Orelings trading after their marketplaces launch.

From this public information, UORE's project lineage is clear:

Solana ORE provided the "on-chain mining + lottery" gameplay template, uPEG provided the V4 Hook code skeleton, and Noah made improvements and assembly on these two foundations.

Forking itself isn't the issue. I think the current problems are:

  1. Gas. People on CT report that each UORE transaction needs to complete six steps within the Hook, consuming two to three times the gas of a normal swap. Swapping back and forth might leave little profit.
  2. Time Window. The V4 Hook narrative, affected by uPEG's decline, will have a lower ceiling for subsequent projects. UORE is the fourth project in this wave of Hook hype, and the heat for the first three is already cooling. The attention window for the track waits for no one.
  3. Complexity. UORE might be the most mechanically intricate of these four projects. For an average user to understand the whole set of rules—Oreling rarity, mining power calculation, staking decay, refining tax, Motherlode probability, buyback trigger conditions—the barrier is high, and the official website is cryptic.

Moreover, the project whitepaper is also interesting:

"Read the contracts and understand the mechanics before deploying capital."

Translated into Chinese, this roughly means "Understand it before you come; don't blame me if you don't."

Combining this with the previous Hook projects, we can see that this wave of on-chain trends features complex mechanism design + immense information asymmetry, having alpha potential, but the shelf life of that alpha is getting shorter and shorter.

SATO gave about a week, uPEG gave a few days, and by the time we get to UORE, the time left for you to understand the rules might be just a few hours...

By the time you understand, the market move might already be over.

Criptos en tendencia

Preguntas relacionadas

QWhat is the core concept of the $UORE project, and what makes it unique among other V4 Hook projects?

AThe $UORE project integrates multiple mechanisms into a single Uniswap V4 transaction. Its unique concept is bundling on-chain mining, a buy-to-enter lottery, dynamically generated pixel NFTs (Orelings), and a deflationary burn mechanism all within one trading pool. Each buy/sell transaction automatically handles token purchase, NFT minting/burning, lottery ticket allocation, and tax distribution.

QWhat is an Oreling, and how is it intrinsically linked to the $UORE token?

AAn Oreling is a 32x32 pixel miner NFT. It is directly embedded into the $UORE token: holding one full $UORE automatically grants one Oreling. You cannot buy, sell, or transfer an Oreling separately from its $UORE token. Its features, determined by the next block's hash, dictate its mining power for the staking reward system.

QExplain the staking and mining reward mechanism for $UORE/Orelings.

AUsers stake their Orelings in a mining pool. Each Oreling's mining power (calculated as Class rarity multiplier x Hash value from 1-100) determines the holder's share of daily $UORE emissions. Emission starts at 1,000 tokens per day, decaying by 1% daily. 80% of emissions go to stakers, and 20% goes to the Motherlode lottery pool. A "refined-ore boost" tax of 10% is deducted from claimed rewards and redistributed to unstaked participants, incentivizing delayed claims.

QWhat is the 'Motherlode', and how does the buy-to-enter lottery work?

AThe Motherlode is a lottery prize pool. Buying at least 0.1 ETH worth of $UORE via official channels grants one lottery ticket. The winning probability scales with the purchase amount, capped at a 1% chance for purchases of 1 ETH or more. Upon winning, the prize pool is split: 50% goes to the buyer, and 50% is randomly distributed to one staker (weighted by their mining power).

QWhat are the key risks and challenges mentioned about the $UORE project?

AThe article highlights several risks: 1) High gas fees (2-3x normal swaps) due to complex contract execution. 2) A short attention window as it's the fourth project in a potentially fading V4 Hook narrative trend. 3) High complexity and information asymmetry, making it difficult for average users to understand the full mechanics quickly. 4) Its code is a fork of the uPEG project, raising questions about novelty, though it claims to fix some of uPEG's vulnerabilities.

Lecturas Relacionadas

You Use Claude and Codex Every Day, but Meta Has Restricted Internal Use

In May, Meta imposed internal restrictions on its engineers regarding the use of Claude Code and Codex, two widely used AI programming tools. Despite being a major client, Meta's guidelines, still in effect, prohibit these external models from being used for specific tasks to prevent potential "escalations with partners." The core concern is "distillation"—the risk that outputs from Claude or Codex could inadvertently contaminate the training data and evaluation processes for Meta's in-house AI coding assistant, MetaCode. If MetaCode is trained or evaluated using data generated by these external models, it risks learning their capabilities rather than developing its own, blurring the line of intellectual origin. The restrictions are precise: engineers cannot use the external models to generate test questions, debug source code, or suggest test cases. AI-generated content is also barred from environments accessible to MetaCode. However, AI can still assist with peripheral tasks like workflow setup and code organization, provided all outputs are manually reviewed. This caution reflects a broader industry dilemma. While distillation is a common technique, using a competitor's model output for training raises legal and ethical questions about the ownership of derived capabilities. Contractual terms from companies like OpenAI and Anthropic explicitly forbid using their outputs to build competing products, putting enforcement power in the hands of rivals. The move is also financially motivated, as Meta seeks to reduce its hefty internal AI spending, estimated in the billions this year. Meta's policy illustrates the delicate balance companies must strike: leveraging powerful external AI tools while safeguarding the integrity and independence of their own AI development. As AI systems increasingly help build other AIs, distinguishing the origin of capabilities becomes a fundamental challenge for the entire industry.

marsbitHace 23 min(s)

You Use Claude and Codex Every Day, but Meta Has Restricted Internal Use

marsbitHace 23 min(s)

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

The article "Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?" explores the complex and often contentious integration of AI into the cultural and creative industries, particularly film and television. It begins with the cancellation of Amazon's AI-generated animation "Punky Duck," highlighting the ethical debates surrounding AI content. AI's rapid advancement is transforming video production, enabling cost-effective, full-length AI films (e.g., "RAPHAEL," "Dreams of Violets") while sparking industry resistance over issues like "synthetic actors." The core debate has shifted from whether to use AI to how to use it responsibly. The article analyzes why AI's entry into film is uniquely unsettling. It distinguishes between "cultural fast food" (short-form, fast-paced content like micro-dramas) and "cultural main courses" (traditional, long-form film/TV). AI currently excels at the former, matching its fragmented narratives, shallow emotional needs, and free-to-consumer models. However, venturing into the latter challenges the human-centric essence of storytelling—creativity, emotional depth, and the unique value of human labor and experience. While AI can generate massive volumes of content and lower costs, it risks devaluing human creativity, leading to homogenized output, and creating unfair competition through potential intellectual property infringement. Its efficiency also amplifies content safety risks, making preemptive governance crucial. To counter these risks, the article proposes establishing clear boundaries guided by a human-centered AI content perspective. It outlines four principles: 1) Amplify, rather than displace, human creative space; 2) Respect and protect human creative output; 3) Ensure human creative control and responsibility remain paramount; and 4) Guarantee transparency and traceability in AI creation. The conclusion emphasizes that humans must act as the "helmsmen" of technology, steering AI development to enhance, not replace, the core human values at the heart of cultural expression.

marsbitHace 48 min(s)

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

marsbitHace 48 min(s)

Planck Retracted? The Father of Quantum Tripped by an Algorithm

The recent discovery that two articles (published in 1940 and 1942) by Max Planck, the Nobel laureate and founder of quantum theory, are marked as "retracted" on Springer's digital platform highlights a curious clash between historical publishing practices and modern automated systems. An investigation suggests these retractions are algorithmic errors, not due to fraud or misconduct. The papers, philosophical reflections on science published in *Die Naturwissenschaften*, were likely flagged by the platform's systems. One article, a republished lecture, may have been mistaken for duplicate publication. Another, sharing a title with a prior article by a different author (a common practice for continuing debates at the time), may have triggered a similar automated check. The digital versions have even been replaced with blank pages, contrary to normal practice of preserving retracted texts. This incident underscores how contemporary digital infrastructure, built around concepts like "self-plagiarism" and strict copyright, can misclassify and obscure legitimate historical scholarly communication. It serves as a warning that digital archives are not neutral mirrors of the past but are filtered by platform rules, potentially distorting the scientific record. As AI systems increasingly rely on such databases, such erroneous metadata could propagate, affecting how future tools interpret and access historical knowledge.

marsbitHace 52 min(s)

Planck Retracted? The Father of Quantum Tripped by an Algorithm

marsbitHace 52 min(s)

Refunds! Claude 4.8 Sees Overnight Major 'Dumb-Down', GPT-5.6's Computational Power Reportedly 'Halved'

The AI community is currently alarmed by widespread reports of significant performance degradation in two leading models. This article details a "mass self-testing frenzy" triggered by a mysterious prompt designed to detect a hidden "Juice" value, representing a model's reasoning compute budget. On OpenAI's side, users suspect a covert, limited test of a "GPT-5.6-sol" model is underway. When using a specific XML prompt on the Codex platform, a normal "gpt-5.5 xhigh" model reportedly returns a Juice value of 768. However, some users routed to the suspected GPT-5.6 test receive a drastically reduced value of 128—a six-fold decrease. This has sparked debate on whether it signifies a major efficiency leap or a "watered-down, low-cost version" achieved by slashing reasoning depth to save computational expenses. Simultaneously, Anthropic's Claude models, particularly the flagship Opus 4.8 Max, are facing intense user backlash for a perceived "physical brain cut." Users on platforms like Reddit report a dramatic decline in the model's once-impressive reasoning, with complaints of it becoming "absurdly" weakened, performing worse than older, lighter models like Haiku. Specific criticisms include: losing long-context memory, refusing to think deeply even in high-reasoning modes, providing instant incorrect answers, and engaging in unhelpful, argumentative, or "gaslighting" behavior where it contradicts users unnecessarily. The article speculates these "stealth downgrades" might be a calculated corporate strategy. Companies could initially release models with temporarily boosted compute to create an illusion of a major breakthrough, then silently scale back parameters later to manage unsustainable inference costs. A proposed underlying cause is a tightened funding environment, potentially exacerbated by SpaceX's massive IPO soaking up market liquidity, which could delay AI company IPOs and force cost-cutting measures like model "nerfing." The core issue highlighted is the asymmetry of information: subscribers pay for a service that can be silently and fundamentally altered without notification or explanation. The viral "Juice test" resonates because it represents users' desire for transparency about what they are actually paying for.

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

Refunds! Claude 4.8 Sees Overnight Major 'Dumb-Down', GPT-5.6's Computational Power Reportedly 'Halved'

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

Trading

Spot

Artículos destacados

Cómo comprar ONE

¡Bienvenido a HTX.com! Hemos hecho que comprar Harmony (ONE) sea simple y conveniente. Sigue nuestra guía paso a paso para iniciar tu viaje de criptos.Paso 1: crea tu cuenta HTXUtiliza tu correo electrónico o número de teléfono para registrarte y obtener una cuenta gratuita en HTX. Experimenta un proceso de registro sin complicaciones y desbloquea todas las funciones.Obtener mi cuentaPaso 2: ve a Comprar cripto y elige tu método de pagoTarjeta de crédito/débito: usa tu Visa o Mastercard para comprar Harmony (ONE) al instante.Saldo: utiliza fondos del saldo de tu cuenta HTX para tradear sin problemas.Terceros: hemos agregado métodos de pago populares como Google Pay y Apple Pay para mejorar la comodidad.P2P: tradear directamente con otros usuarios en HTX.Over-the-Counter (OTC): ofrecemos servicios personalizados y tipos de cambio competitivos para los traders.Paso 3: guarda tu Harmony (ONE)Después de comprar tu Harmony (ONE), guárdalo en tu cuenta HTX. Alternativamente, puedes enviarlo a otro lugar mediante transferencia blockchain o utilizarlo para tradear otras criptomonedas.Paso 4: tradear Harmony (ONE)Tradear fácilmente con Harmony (ONE) en HTX's mercado spot. Simplemente accede a tu cuenta, selecciona tu par de trading, ejecuta tus trades y monitorea en tiempo real. Ofrecemos una experiencia fácil de usar tanto para principiantes como para traders experimentados.

307 Vistas totalesPublicado en 2024.12.12Actualizado en 2026.06.02

Cómo comprar ONE

Discusiones

Bienvenido a la comunidad de HTX. Aquí puedes mantenerte informado sobre los últimos desarrollos de la plataforma y acceder a análisis profesionales del mercado. A continuación se presentan las opiniones de los usuarios sobre el precio de ONE (ONE).

活动图片