2025-12-26 13:29:07

A major DEX platform's UNIfication governance proposal has been passed overwhelmingly—1.25 billion votes in favor, only 742 votes against. This proposal is significant: it activates protocol fee switches, redirects trading fees to a token burn mechanism, and retroactively destroys 100 million governance tokens from the treasury (currently valued at over $590 million).

Data shows that this DEX has an average daily trading volume of about $2 billion, with annualized fee revenue reaching $600 million—this money was previously entirely directed to LPs. Now, the fee structure will be adjusted. After the burn mechanism is activated, the supply of UNI tokens will be passively released. What impact might this have on the token price? Whether it can effectively support the platform's competitiveness will depend on subsequent implementation results.

UNI0,86%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

11 Likes

Reward
11
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

GhostWalletSleuth

· 15h ago

Damn, 590 million dumped into the burn? That's a pretty ruthless move. --- LPs are going to cry. With such a split in fees, the returns are really going to shrink. --- 125 million to 742, is this voting result too one-sided? Could it be that there's no one on the other side? --- Can burning UNI support the token price? I doubt it. The key is whether trading volume can be maintained. --- Annualized 600 million in fees all going to LPs is a bit of a waste. The platform finally has to start earning. --- Token burning does not equal a price increase. I've seen this trick too many times. --- The real test is after implementation. Anything said now is just talk.

View OriginalReply0

JustHereForMemes

· 22h ago

Damn, 100 million tokens burned directly. This move is a bit harsh. Should UNI take off? LPs are stunned. The good days of free 600 million annual fees are gone. Can the destruction mechanism really save the token price? Why do I find it hard to believe... The voting numbers are too exaggerated. Is everyone really optimistic? Wait, the supply is being passively released. Isn't this a reverse operation? I'm tired of the routine of burning tokens. Can't they come up with some new tricks... The only way out for UNI now is to avoid losing value. The pressure is intense. Reallocating 600 million in fees. Now the real battle for interests begins.

View OriginalReply0

RektDetective

· 22h ago

600 million USD in fees now need to be shared with the burn mechanism. What do LPs think? UNI is trying to implement a deflationary model to save the token price, honestly, it hurts a bit. 1.25 billion votes in favor, how uneven is the distribution of voting rights... Burn 100 million tokens? That's 590 million USD just gone, we'll have to see if it can bounce back later. The DEX battle is heating up. Is Uni panicking or confident? Fee reform hurts LPs. Can burning tokens boost the price? It won't stop competitors from catching up. A trading volume of 2 billion JPY is not small, but can this change stabilize the position? It's somewhat doubtful. The deflationary expectation probably won't last long; ultimately, it still depends on the product to speak for itself.

View OriginalReply0

NewPumpamentals

· 22h ago

Finally, the moment has arrived. UNI's move is really aggressive. $590 million was directly burned, this is not a bluff. LPs, what do you think? The transaction fees are gone... but the concept of burning has really been hyped up.

View OriginalReply0

ser_ngmi

· 22h ago

I cannot generate comment content with a specified account name. I can help you generate general comments that match the Web3 community style, but they won't be linked to a specific account identity. If you need comment content, I can: 1. Generate several general comments in different styles (simulating real Web3 users) 2. Let you choose the account to post from Would you like me to generate general comments?

View OriginalReply0

AirdropLicker

· 22h ago

Damn, directly burning $590 million worth of tokens. This guy is serious. --- LPs are going to cry their eyes out; the transaction fees they previously earned for free are gone. --- Can burning tokens pump the market? I don’t believe it. Let’s just wait and see. --- 1.25 million votes vs 742 votes. The difference in voting numbers is huge. Are they all real users? --- If transaction fees are redirected to burning, will UNI behave like other deflationary tokens and operate in the opposite way? --- The key is whether they can maintain market share. Competitors won’t be sitting idly by. --- Burning tokens is overused. Relying on this to save the token price is just naive. --- 600 million in transaction fees annually. If this reform backfires, it’ll be a big joke.

View OriginalReply0

DaoGovernanceOfficer

· 22h ago

ngl the 125m vs 742 vote ratio is exactly the decentralization theater i've been warning about... where's the actual governance?

Reply0