The burn transaction was executed on December 27, 2025, at 8:33 PM UTC, marking one of the largest token burns in decentralized finance history.
The burn follows a decisive governance vote that concluded on December 25, with 125,342,017 UNI tokens cast in favor and only 742 against—representing 99.9% approval. The proposal exceeded the required 40 million UNI quorum by more than three times, demonstrating strong community consensus around the protocol’s new economic direction.
What the UNIfication Proposal Changes
The UNIfication proposal fundamentally restructures how Uniswap generates and distributes value. Previously, all trading fees went directly to liquidity providers who supply tokens to the platform. Now, a portion of these fees will be redirected to the protocol itself and used to burn UNI tokens on an ongoing basis.
For Uniswap v2 pools, liquidity providers now receive 0.25% of trading fees instead of the previous 0.3%, with the protocol capturing 0.05% for token burns. On Uniswap v3, the protocol’s share varies by pool tier—capturing one-quarter of LP fees for 0.01% and 0.05% pools, and one-sixth of LP fees for 0.30% and 1% pools.
The fee switch initially activated on Uniswap v2 and select v3 pools covering 80-95% of liquidity provider fees on Ethereum mainnet. Additionally, net sequencer fees from Unichain, Uniswap’s Layer 2 network, will flow into the same burn mechanism after covering operational costs.
Why 100 Million Tokens Were Burned
The initial 100 million UNI burn represents a retroactive adjustment. Since Uniswap launched in 2018 with the fee switch capability built into its smart contracts, the protocol could have been collecting fees all along. However, regulatory uncertainty under former SEC Chair Gary Gensler delayed activation for years.
According to the proposal documentation, the 100 million token figure estimates what might have been burned if protocol fees had been active since the UNI token launched in 2020. Uniswap founder Hayden Adams confirmed the vote results on December 25, stating the protocol can now become “the primary place tokens are traded.”
Source: @Uniswap
The burn mechanism works through two smart contracts called TokenJar and Firepit. Trading fees accumulate in TokenJar, where they can only be withdrawn if UNI tokens are burned in the Firepit contract. This creates what developers call a “deflationary loop”—as protocol usage grows, UNI supply shrinks.
Market Response and Price Impact
UNI’s price responded positively to both the governance approval and burn execution. The token rose more than 5% in the 24 hours following the burn, with trading volume and market capitalization both increasing. Over the week leading up to the governance vote, UNI climbed more than 17%.
The 100 million UNI were burned from the protocol treasury. Current circulating supply stands at approximately 730 million UNI out of a total supply of 1 billion. This permanent removal from the treasury creates scarcity that could support long-term price appreciation, assuming demand remains steady or increases.
Uniswap processes approximately $2 billion in daily trading volume and has generated over $1.05 billion in fees so far this year, according to DeFillama data. Based on current volumes, analysts estimate the ongoing fee switch could generate around $130 million annually for additional token burns.
Operational Changes and Future Development
Beyond the burn and fee activation, UNIfication consolidates operations by transitioning Uniswap Foundation teams and responsibilities to Uniswap Labs. Interface fees, wallet fees, and API fees charged by Uniswap Labs are being set to zero, refocusing the company entirely on protocol-level development.
To support ongoing growth, governance approved an annual budget of 20 million UNI tokens beginning in 2026. This growth fund will support protocol development, integrations, and ecosystem expansion through a vesting contract. The Uniswap Foundation confirmed it will continue funding builders and maintaining active grant programs despite the treasury reduction.
The proposal also introduces Protocol Fee Discount Auctions (PFDA), a system designed to improve liquidity provider returns by internalizing MEV (maximum extractable value) that would otherwise go to searchers or validators. Traders can bid for temporary fee exemptions, with winning bids sent directly to the UNI burn mechanism.
Implications for DeFi
The UNIfication passage represents a significant shift in how major DeFi protocols approach tokenomics. By directly linking token supply to protocol usage through continuous burns, Uniswap transforms UNI from a purely governance token into a value-accruing asset.
The move follows years of debate within the Uniswap community about how to create economic value for UNI holders. The protocol noted in its proposal that the regulatory climate has changed and DeFi has reached an “inflection point of becoming mainstream,” enabling this transition.
Some liquidity providers have raised concerns that protocol fees could compress already thin margins, particularly on Uniswap v3 pools where capital efficiency is high. Critics warn of two potential risk scenarios: either liquidity providers withdraw due to reduced returns, or governance becomes overly dependent on UNI incentives to retain liquidity, creating a circular system that limits benefits for passive token holders.
However, the near-unanimous vote suggests strong community confidence that the benefits outweigh these risks. Industry figures including Jesse Walden of Variant, Kain Warwick of Synthetix, and former Uniswap Labs engineer Ian Lapham publicly supported the initiative.
The Path Forward
Following the mandatory two-day governance timelock, all approved changes are now active on-chain. Market participants are closely watching liquidity flows, particularly liquidity provider behavior across v3 and v4 pools, to assess how UNIfication performs in practice.
With the fee switch activated and the retroactive burn complete, Uniswap enters a new phase where protocol performance and token economics are directly aligned. Whether this bold restructuring delivers on its long-term goals will depend on maintaining the delicate balance between protocol value capture and competitive liquidity provision in an increasingly crowded DeFi landscape.