AtlasProtocol economics
Atlas/Uniswap
AMM DEX · UNI

Uniswap

A governance switch now redirects part of LP fees into UNI burn.

Fees paid by users · 30dObserved
$61.4M

Open-adapter fees across supported Uniswap versions and deployments.

Gross protocol income · 30dObserved
$4M

Protocol-fee value routed to the active buy-and-burn architecture on covered deployments.

Token-holder value · 30dObserved
$4M

Adapter attributes protocol-fee-funded UNI burns to holders; this is indirect value, not a cash distribution.

Incentives / emissions · 30dSource conflict
Not available

The adapter reports $0.38 for 30 days but $9.33M over one year. The current-window coverage is too ambiguous to present as authoritative.

Money flow

Follow $100 of Uniswap v2 swap fees

Most trader fees still pay LPs. The protocol portion enters fee-collection contracts and can drive the UNI burn mechanism.

$100v2 with protocol fees active: 0.25% LP fee and 0.05% protocol fee from a 0.30% total
83.3% · Liquidity providers

Retained inside v2 pools for LPs

Curated rule
16.7% · UNI burn mechanism

Protocol fee routed through TokenJar and releaser contracts

Curated rule

Read before comparing: This exact split applies to v2. V3 protocol shares vary by fee tier and enabled pool; v4 and other components use separate adapters.

Normalized statement

The same questions,
even when answers differ.

“Not available” is a result, not a blank. Atlas refuses to convert missing costs or conflicting emissions into a zero.

Economic line30-day valueEvidenceInterpretation
Fees paid by users (30d)$61.4MObserved

Open-adapter fees across supported Uniswap versions and deployments.

Gross protocol income (30d)$4MObserved

Protocol-fee value routed to the active buy-and-burn architecture on covered deployments.

Net protocol revenue (30d)Not availableNot available

Release execution and broader organizational costs are not reconciled into a net protocol statement.

Token-holder value (30d)$4MObserved

Adapter attributes protocol-fee-funded UNI burns to holders; this is indirect value, not a cash distribution.

Liquidity-provider income (30d)$57.5MDerived

Residual between total user fees and protocol-fee value across covered deployments.

Validator / node income (30d)Not availableNot available

Not applicable as a Uniswap protocol recipient; underlying chain validators receive base-chain gas outside this DEX statement.

Incentives and emissions (30d)Not availableSource conflict

The adapter reports $0.38 for 30 days but $9.33M over one year. The current-window coverage is too ambiguous to present as authoritative.

Treasury income (30d)Not availableNot available

Fees accumulate in TokenJar before release, but the MVP does not classify that temporary balance as spendable treasury income.

Accounting-style profit (30d)Not availableNot available

Protocol-fee capture is not accounting profit; organizational and operating expenses are outside the on-chain adapter.

DEX volume (30d)$43.4BObserved

Open-adapter spot volume across supported Uniswap deployments.

Liquidity / TVL$3.1BObserved

Current liquidity across tracked versions and chains.

Token value capture

Governance-enabled protocol fees routed to UNI burn

On enabled deployments, a portion of swap fees flows into per-chain TokenJars. Releaser contracts can require UNI to be burned in exchange for collected assets.

Do not overstate it: Coverage is not universal. A high total Uniswap fee number can coexist with a much smaller UNI-linked flow because versions, pools, and chains differ.
SustainabilityFee-supported

What keeps it working?

Uniswap has the strongest observable demand base in the group and now captures a measurable protocol share. The open question is how much fee extraction it can sustain without impairing LP economics, routing, or governance legitimacy.

Participants

Who provides what—and takes which risk?

Swappers

Receives
Permissionless token exchange
Provides
Pool swap fees and base-chain gas
Key risk
Price impact, MEV, and chain-specific execution cost.

Liquidity providers

Receives
The majority of active swap fees
Provides
Concentrated or full-range liquidity
Key risk
Adverse selection, range management, and inventory loss.

UNI holders

Receives
Indirect value from protocol-fee-funded burns and governance rights
Provides
Governance capital
Key risk
No direct cash claim; value depends on rollout, governance, and market response.

Governance

Receives
Control over protocol-fee configuration and releasers
Provides
Parameter decisions and deployment coordination
Key risk
Poor fee settings can reduce LP competitiveness or routed volume.
Governance surface

Which levers move the money?

Parameters matter because recipient outcomes can change while the headline fee or volume looks unchanged.

Model a change
01

v2 protocol fee

0.05% protocol / 0.25% LP from a 0.30% total fee

Every additional protocol basis point transfers income from LPs to the protocol while the trader-facing total stays fixed.

UNI governance
02

v3 protocol fee

Enabled per selected pool; initially one quarter or one sixth of LP fees depending on tier

Changes LP take rate and UNI burn funding by pool and chain.

UNI governance
03

TokenJar releaser

Governance-selectable releaser, including Firepit burn logic

Determines how collected assets become protocol or token-holder value.

UNI governance
Assessment

Strengths, dependencies, unknowns.

Strengths

  • Large, diversified fee and volume base.
  • Protocol fees are implemented through transparent on-chain contracts.
  • Governance can roll out and adjust capture by component.

Dependencies

  • LPs remaining competitive after fee redirection.
  • Routing continuing to favor Uniswap deployments.
  • Reliable release and burn execution across chains.

Still unknown

  • Full current pool-by-pool fee coverage.
  • Behavioral effect of higher protocol shares on liquidity and volume.
  • Complete protocol and organizational operating costs.
Model history

The rules changed.
The chart should remember.

Protocol fee switch activated

The UNIfication proposal turned on protocol fees and introduced a programmatic UNI burn path, starting with v2 and selected v3 pools.

Fee coverage expanded across chains

The documented current rollout includes all v2 pools and selected v3 pools, with configuration varying by fee tier and deployment.

Source ledger

Trace the claim.

Rules come from protocol documentation or governance. Amounts come from official APIs or inspectable open adapters. Each has a different job.

04
UNIfication proposal

Uniswap Governance · Governance

fee-switch activation · rollout · burn intent