Uniswap fee switch to go live as community vote set to pass

cointelegraphPubblicato 2025-12-22Pubblicato ultima volta 2025-12-22

Introduzione

The highly-anticipated Uniswap "UNIfication" governance proposal is set to pass, having received over 62 million favorable votes, far exceeding the required 40 million threshold. The proposal will activate the protocol fee switch, leading to the burning of 100 million UNI tokens from the Uniswap Foundation’s treasury. It also introduces a Protocol Fee Discount Auctions system to boost liquidity provider returns. These changes aim to improve UNI’s supply-demand dynamics and long-term value. Since voting began, UNI’s price has risen around 25%, trading at $6.08. The proposal received strong support from major crypto figures, with minimal opposition. The Uniswap Foundation assured that protocol development remains a priority and will create a Growth Budget using 20 million UNI tokens.

The highly-anticipated Uniswap protocol fee switch, dubbed “UNIfication,” is set to pass and go live later this week, having reached the 40 million vote threshold needed to trigger one of the biggest upgrades in the decentralized exchange protocol’s seven-year history.

As of early Monday, nearly 62 million votes have already been cast in favor of the UNIfication governance proposal since voting opened on Dec. 20, with voting set to close on Thursday, Christmas Day.

Uniswap Labs CEO Hayden Adams said on Thursday that a successful vote would follow a two-day timelock period in which Uniswap v2 and v3 fee switches would flip on the Unichain mainnet, triggering the burning of more Uniswap (UNI) tokens.

The proposal will see 100 million UNI tokens burned from the Uniswap Foundation’s treasury, while a Protocol Fee Discount Auctions system to increase liquidity provider returns would also be implemented.

The changes are expected to significantly improve the supply-demand dynamics of the UNI token and make it a more appealing token to hold over the long-term.

UNI has gained around 25% since the UNIfication voting opened, and is currently trading at $6.08, helping to pull it out of a month-long slump amid a broader market pullback that saw it fall to a seventh month low of $4.88.

*Change in UNI’s price over the last week. Source:* *CoinGecko*

News of the UNIfication proposal in early November spurred a near 40% rally in the UNI token, taking it from about $7 to $9.70 on Nov. 11.

Uniswap is the largest decentralized exchange and has processed more than $4 trillion in trading volume since launching in November 2018. CoinGecko data shows that UNI is the 39th largest token by market cap, at $3.8 billion.

Big names back UNIfication proposal

Several crypto heavyweights with significant voting power backed the UNIfication proposal, including Jesse Waldren, founder and managing partner at crypto-focused venture capital firm Variant, Kain Warwick, the founder of decentralized finance protocols Infinex and Synthetix, and Ian Lapham, who previously worked as an engineer at Uniswap Labs.

Related: Altcoin season never ended, traders just missed the winners: Hayes

Only 741 votes, about 0.001% of those cast, have opposed the proposal so far, while a little over 1.5 million votes have abstained.

*Vote distribution for the UNIfication proposal as of late Sunday. Source:* *Uniswap*

Uniswap will still prioritize protocol development

At the time the proposal was made, the Uniswap Foundation assured builders that it wouldn’t scrap issuing grants to improve protocol development and growth, stating that supporting builders would remain a priority.

The Uniswap Foundation plans to create a Growth Budget to meet these goals, which would involve distributing 20 million UNI tokens.

Magazine: 11 critical moments in Ethereum’s history that made it the No.2 blockchain

Domande pertinenti

QWhat is the name of the Uniswap governance proposal that is set to pass, and what is its primary purpose?

AThe proposal is called 'UNIfication.' Its primary purpose is to activate the protocol fee switch, which will burn UNI tokens and implement a Protocol Fee Discount Auctions system to increase liquidity provider returns.

QHow many votes were required for the UNIfication proposal to pass, and how many have been cast in favor so far?

AThe proposal required 40 million votes to pass. As of early Monday, nearly 62 million votes have been cast in favor of it.

QWhat are the two main changes that will occur if the UNIfication proposal is successfully implemented?

AFirst, 100 million UNI tokens will be burned from the Uniswap Foundation's treasury. Second, a Protocol Fee Discount Auctions system will be implemented to increase returns for liquidity providers.

QHow has the price of the UNI token reacted to the news of the UNIfication proposal?

AThe UNI token gained around 25% since the voting opened, rising from a seven-month low of $4.88 to trade at $6.08, helping it recover from a prolonged slump.

QWhich prominent figures in the crypto industry have publicly backed the UNIfication proposal?

AProminent backers include Jesse Waldren (founder of Variant), Kain Warwick (founder of Infinex and Synthetix), and Ian Lapham (a former Uniswap Labs engineer).

Letture associate

Dialogue with Jia Hang | Looking Back at Two Decades of Chinese Payment Going Global

**Summary: A Conversation with Jia Hang on Two Decades of China's Payment Globalization** Jia Hang, a veteran with over twenty years in payments, reflects on China's attempts to build a global payment network through three key phases: UnionPay (card networks), Alipay+ (digital wallets), and now, stablecoins. His journey began at UnionPay International, aiming to establish China's card network abroad. While successful in following Chinese tourists ("where Chinese go, UnionPay goes"), it struggled to achieve true global scale. The core lesson: card networks like Visa/Mastercard's unassailable advantage isn't just technical standards, but their deeply entrenched **governance and profit-sharing models** that create powerful network effects. Competing as the "same species" is nearly impossible. At Ant Group, he led Alipay+, a strategy to bypass card networks by interconnecting local e-wallets worldwide. While innovative, it faced a similar ceiling. Mobile QR payments and card swipes were essentially **the same species competing for the same pie**, lacking a disruptive value proposition for users or a sustainable new incentive model to replace the card networks' established flywheel. Today, at Singapore's DCS, Jia focuses on stablecoin-based payments. He argues stablecoins represent a fundamental shift. They are not competing with Visa for consumer payments but challenging the **traditional banking and account system for value movement**. Products like "U Cards" (stablecoin-linked payment cards) are transitional, leveraging existing card networks for acceptance while building new rails. The real potential lies in stablecoins enabling seamless, low-cost global value transfer, potentially reorganizing the financial infrastructure around **accounts rather than cards**. Jia believes stablecoin adoption for local retail payments, cross-border transactions, and as high-yield savings vehicles is becoming irreversible. This could gradually reduce reliance on traditional fiat channels, especially in regions with weak currencies or capital controls. The quest for the "next global payment network" continues, now centered on whether stablecoins can successfully bridge Web2 and Web3, establish new governance, and create compelling user value beyond mere cost reduction.

marsbit3 min fa

Dialogue with Jia Hang | Looking Back at Two Decades of Chinese Payment Going Global

marsbit3 min fa

Circle's Stock Price Plunges 76%, Hong Kong Dollar Stablecoin Set to Launch Within Two Weeks

Circle's stock price has plunged approximately 76% from its 2023 peak, reflecting a major market revaluation. Despite this, Circle President Heath Tarbert emphasized the company's focus on long-term execution and its dominant position with USDC's $73 billion circulation across 34 blockchains. The competitive landscape is intensifying. A new consortium-backed stablecoin, Open USD, is attempting to challenge incumbents by sharing reserve yields with partners. More significantly, Visa's new stablecoin platform, initially supporting Open USD while also being compatible with USDC, could erode Circle's network effects. In response, Circle is expanding into real-world payments through partnerships like the one with Japan's JCB. Separately, Tether (USDT) faces a two-year compliance window under new U.S. regulations, requiring it to adjust its reserve composition away from assets like Bitcoin and loans towards cash and U.S. Treasuries. Meanwhile, in Hong Kong, Standard Chartered-backed fintech firm Dian Dian is poised to launch a licensed HKD-pegged stablecoin (HKDAP), moving the industry into a phase where the real test is integrating licensed stablecoins into actual payment flows and corporate treasury systems. The sharp decline in Circle's stock underscores a broader shift: the stablecoin market is moving from a winner-takes-all dynamic to a multi-player competitive arena where execution, compliance, and real-world utility are becoming paramount.

marsbit3 min fa

Circle's Stock Price Plunges 76%, Hong Kong Dollar Stablecoin Set to Launch Within Two Weeks

marsbit3 min fa

Amidst Capital's Encirclement, Decentralization is the Sole Defense for Public Blockchains

In a landscape dominated by power and profit motives, the author argues that decentralization is not merely one desirable feature among many in blockchain design—it is the singular, non-negotiable defense against corporate and capital capture. The article adopts a Machiavellian, realist perspective on human institutions, positing that businesses will inevitably attempt to co-opt any valuable network to protect their profits and dominance. While external attacks like 51% forks are often discussed, the greater existential risk is internal capture—the gradual erosion of a protocol’s neutrality by vested interests, as seen historically with platforms like Visa and Google. The piece critiques permissioned chains, highly centralized “permissionless” layer-1s, and layer-2s without sufficient decentralization (e.g., single sequencers) as inherently vulnerable. These compromised systems, promoted by established financial players, are framed as delaying tactics to stifle truly open networks that threaten existing high-fee, inefficient business models. Real-world examples, such as closed enterprise consortiums that exclude competitors, illustrate how such systems cement oligopolies rather than foster innovation. The author concludes that while decentralized protocols like Ethereum are imperfect and costly to operate, they represent the only viable long-term equilibrium. In a market where value naturally flows to the most secure and neutral settlement layer, only maximally decentralized public blockchains can resist being subsumed by capital and powerful incumbents.

Foresight News13 min fa

Amidst Capital's Encirclement, Decentralization is the Sole Defense for Public Blockchains

Foresight News13 min fa

Who Decides the Rules of Bitcoin? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate

Bitcoin's governance is once again at the center of a heated debate, this time ignited by BIP-110, the "Reduced Data Temporary Softfork." This proposal aims to curb non-monetary data (like inscriptions and Runes) by introducing seven new consensus-layer restrictions over a year, such as limiting new output scripts to 34 bytes and restoring the OP_RETURN cap to 83 bytes. The controversy stems from BIP-110's fundamental shift: it moves the battle against "spam" from node relay and miner policies to the consensus layer, rendering currently valid transactions invalid. Supporters, arguing that default policy governance has failed (highlighted by Bitcoin Core v30's relaxation of OP_RETURN limits), see this as necessary to protect node resources and Bitcoin's monetary focus. Opponents, led by figures like Michael Saylor and Adam Back, warn it dangerously centralizes governance. Saylor listed 110 reasons against it, criticizing its low 55% miner activation threshold and potential for chain splits. Back emphasized Bitcoin's "permissionless" ethos, arguing no single group should impose value judgments via consensus rules. Further complicating matters, technical critiques suggest BIP-110 may be technically circumventable, and a "BlockSlop" vulnerability in its upgrade path poses a consensus risk. The debate has drawn in diverse stakeholders: miners (with pools like Ocean signaling support and Foundry polling clients), node operators (like Bitcoin Knots), and new players like corporate treasury holder MicroStrategy (Saylor), whose market influence adds a novel dimension. Ultimately, BIP-110 acts as a governance stress test, exposing the unresolved question: who decides Bitcoin's rules? It pits the authority of miners, node operators, developers, and capital holders against each other, with each side claiming to defend Bitcoin's core principles of neutrality and security.

marsbit30 min fa

Who Decides the Rules of Bitcoin? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate

marsbit30 min fa

Who Decides Bitcoin's Rules? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate

Title: Who Decides Bitcoin's Rules? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate A new technical proposal, BIP-110 (Reduced Data Temporary Softfork), has sparked a fundamental governance debate within the Bitcoin community. It aims to impose new consensus rules for one year to limit non-financial data (like inscriptions and Runes) on-chain, moving beyond simple node and miner policy filters to invalidate currently valid transactions. Supporters argue that default policies have failed due to workarounds, necessitating consensus-layer changes to protect Bitcoin's core monetary function from data spam. Critics, including Michael Saylor and Adam Back, contend this dangerously centralizes judgment, undermines permissionlessness, and sets a risky governance precedent. They advocate for market-based solutions like fees or Layer 2s instead. The debate exposes deeper tensions: miners are divided on activation; node operators assert their sovereignty; Bitcoin Core developers influence defaults without direct accountability; and large corporate holders like MicroStrategy now wield narrative influence. Technically, BIP-110 may not fully block data and carries a disclosed consensus bug risk. Ultimately, BIP-110 acts as a stress test, forcing the community to confront the unresolved question: who legitimately decides what Bitcoin is and how it evolves, amidst competing claims from miners, nodes, developers, and capital holders.

链捕手42 min fa

Trading

Spot