Economic comparison

Same category.
Different claims.

Compare what users pay, what the protocol controls, what holders receive, and which critical costs remain unknown.

User feesTotal protocol-level charges paid for the service. Base-chain gas is excluded unless the protocol captures it.
$596.9KObserved
$59.1KDerived
$837.2KObserved
$118.6KObserved
$61.4MObserved
Protocol incomeThe portion controlled by the protocol, treasury, contributors, or a protocol-directed value mechanism before observable direct costs.
$86.5KObserved
Not availableNot available
$170KObserved
$53.5KObserved
$4MObserved
Net revenueGross protocol income after observable direct costs required to deliver the service.
Not availableNot available
Not availableNot available
Not availableNot available
Not availableNot available
Not availableNot available
Holder valueOperational value sent to holders through direct distributions, buybacks, or burns. The mechanism must be shown because these are not equivalent.
$28.5KObserved
Not availableNot available
$170KObserved
Not availableNot available
$4MObserved
LP incomeFee or reward income allocated to liquidity providers, before inventory losses and capital costs.
Not availableNot available
$26KDerived
$667.2KDerived
$65.1KDerived
$57.5MDerived
Validator incomeFee and reward income allocated to validators or node operators. Fee-funded and issuance-funded amounts are separated where possible.
Not availableNot available
$21.3KDerived
Not availableNot available
Not availableNot available
Not availableNot available
IncentivesNew issuance or treasury spend used to fund security, liquidity, or usage. A missing value never becomes zero.
Not availableSource conflict
Not availableSource conflict
Not availableSource conflict
Not availableSource conflict
Not availableSource conflict
Treasury incomeOperational flow sent to a governance, community, or protocol treasury.
Not availableNot available
Not availableNot available
Not availableNot available
Not availableNot available
Not availableNot available
Accounting profitNet protocol revenue after operating expenses and incentives. Usually unavailable because off-chain expenses are not public.
Not availableNot available
Not availableNot available
Not availableNot available
Not availableNot available
Not availableNot available

Values are snapshots, not rankings. Hover or open a protocol page for the exact classification note. Missing values are never treated as zero.

Detailed comparison · 01

THORChain vs Uniswap

Both facilitate exchange. One funds a native security-and-liquidity network; the other redirects selected AMM fees from LPs into a token-burn architecture.

TH

THORChain

System income under the current documented fixed distribution

$100System income under the current documented fixed distribution
75% · Nodes + liquidity providers
10% · TCY holders
5% · RUNE holders
5% · Developer fund
5% · Marketing
Inspect sources and caveats ↗
UN

Uniswap

v2 with protocol fees active: 0.25% LP fee and 0.05% protocol fee from a 0.30% total

$100v2 with protocol fees active: 0.25% LP fee and 0.05% protocol fee from a 0.30% total
83.3% · Liquidity providers
16.7% · UNI burn mechanism
Inspect sources and caveats ↗
01

What the fee funds

THORChain must fund cross-chain security, liquidity, contributor shares, TCY, and burn. Uniswap's selected protocol fee primarily shifts income from LPs into the burn system.

02

Token claim

THORChain splits token economics across RUNE utility/burn and TCY direct distribution. UNI capture is indirect through fee-funded burns.

03

Security budget

THORChain node income is inside the protocol economy. Uniswap relies on each host chain's validators, whose gas income is outside the DEX statement.

04

Governance trade-off

A higher Uniswap protocol share directly lowers LP income. A higher THORChain fixed recipient share reduces the remainder available to nodes and LPs.

Governance scenario

Change the rule, not the chart.

Uniswap v2 protocol share

What if governance redirects more of the same 0.30% trader fee?

Assumption: This holds user fees and volume constant. It does not predict whether LPs or routers would react.

RecipientCurrentProposedChange
UNI burn mechanism$166.7K$166.7K$0.0
Liquidity providers$833.3K$833.3K$0.0