Valuation summary for this round: UNI is currently priced at $8.912 (verified on 2026-10-06 18:39 +0800); opening a new position is not currently recommended. Bear-case valuation: $2.2646096178; base-case valuation: $10.6153575834; bull-case valuation: $28.4693780523; current weighted valuation: $10.7882362641; weighted valuation one year from now (2027-10-06): $12.4052849346. Suggested entry price ranges: watch zone $8.45–$8.631, core zone $7.7–$8.4, panic zone $6.5–$7.5 (entries must meet the conditions in the main text; if the fundamentals thesis is invalidated, cancel the remaining tranches).
The attribution of actual fees and their transmission to UNI burns are validated. This round carries forward the complete latest version of the original model, updating only the circulating supply on a like-for-like reporting basis and making a minor price adjustment. Project progress should not be interpreted as warranting a 50% cut to the valuation. Stay in cash while waiting for the right price and actual fee conditions. This round fully incorporates six developments in adoption and compliance; they support or constrain the original assumptions but do not directly change the scenario prices for this round.
Data as of 2026-10-06 18:40 Beijing time; operating data cover complete UTC days through October 5.
Real fee transmission does not mean all revenue accrues to UNI
Uniswap has real trading fees and an operational path for converting collected fees into UNI and burning it. The foundations of network and product adoption remain intact; however, LP fees are not entirely a benefit to UNI, and deployment on a new chain does not mean fees have been realized. This round carries forward the original valuation method and main parameters. The like-for-like circulating-supply update results in only a small price adjustment; the current price must still meet the margin-of-safety requirement. With no position, wait; for existing positions, first manage fee-transmission and liquidity risks.
Uniswap connects traders and liquidity providers, while multiple versions, routing options, and programmable features expand the market. Liquidity depth, developers, and multichain distribution create advantages, but other DEXs, aggregators, and market makers can still compete on price and execution. Users do not have to buy UNI first; if fees reduce LP returns, liquidity may migrate. The protocol must demonstrate value through adoption and actual economic transmission together.
The complete UTC window for this round ends at 00:00 on October 5. Trading fees over the past 30 days were $161.53 million, with $12.9610 million in fees eligible for collection; the corresponding full-year figures were $970.59 million and $54.6906 million. The latter is the same fee stream as the “holder revenue” statistic and must not be added to it. V2 and some V4 figures are combined in the V3 collection statistics, so the subproducts must not be counted again.
A simple annualization of the recent monthly total fees gives approximately $1.965 billion, significantly higher than the full-year figure. This indicates a stronger recent operating baseline, but does not guarantee that the elevated monthly pace will persist. The previous analysis was calibrated using an earlier September 1 snapshot; new data are available for this round, so the old observation must not be presented as current fees. Without complete data on deduplicated customers, retention without incentives, and competition over the same period, this analysis does not estimate market share.
Execution remains between fees, collection, and burns
V2 charges a total trading fee of 0.30%, comprising 0.25% for LPs and 0.05% for the protocol when enabled. For V3, the protocol share is one-quarter of the fee in some low-fee tiers and one-sixth in higher-fee tiers, depending on the configuration of each selected pool. Fees that are not enabled or are outside the coverage scope do not automatically accrue to UNI, and all LP fees cannot be capitalized to the governance token.
On each chain, the collector accrues different assets. Participants contribute UNI once a threshold is reached, convert the accumulated fee assets, and send the UNI to a burn address. Asset accumulation, conversion, and the eventual burn happen at different times. How much of the dollar-denominated fees can translate into UNI value depends on participant profitability, asset sellability, and cross-chain execution. This is an indirect burn mechanism, not a personal cash dividend.
Core contracts are immutable, but governance can still adjust adapter configurations or change asset-release paths. Unichain sequencer revenue must be net of data costs and partner revenue shares; MEV and new aggregation features must also be distinguished from existing fees and net new revenue. This model adds no unverified revenue beyond the fees currently covered. The responsibilities of Labs, the Foundation, and governance budgets are separate from individual tokenholder entitlements. Treasury grants are not new minting and are not equivalent to cash already spent.
The stage of new chains and review
Arc already has trading infrastructure and confirmation from partners, expanding the addressable market. The fee-expansion proposal began on September 18, and October 5 brought further discussion. Delegator support and payload review do not prove that fees are active in every pool. The timing of V4 discussions also differs from the statistics provider's general activation guidance. This round has not completed a chain-by-chain and pool-by-pool activation check, so neither statement is used to summarize the status across the board.
A broader product and asset scope, including new tokenized assets, may support future adoption, but issuance or listing does not mean pool-level trading, fees, or UNI burns have occurred. We retain the previous boundary that additional fees from PAXGy have not been substantiated; its issuance size is not converted into platform revenue.
The security fund has supported audits for multiple projects and recently opened a new application round; this does not mean all hooks have been audited. Core contracts, hooks, asset credit, oracles, bridges, governance, and liquidity each have distinct failure modes; audit support does not insure principal. Regulatory and legal arrangements also need to be verified by region, interface, and product. This round does not claim that all new restrictions have been ruled out.
Supply and the original model denominator
The nominal on-chain supply of 1 billion tokens, burn balances, and reported circulating supply are different definitions. This round uses the 625.15 million reported circulating supply from the same source as the original model and retains the assumption of 20 million tokens released in the future. The minting cap permitted by the contract does not automatically mean annual inflation, and future releases are not described as already approved minting. Treasury disposition, minting, and burns are still verified separately; the total supply on a fully diluted entitlement basis is not substituted for the circulating-supply denominator while also resetting the multiple.
New facts and the complete assessment
Japan's DeFi Gateway is being developed by securities firms and technology partners, with a target completion date of mid-2027. V4 pool hooks will handle access control and protection design. This increases the possibility of institutional adoption, but does not mean that a year of fees has already been generated. A separate notice for a proposed U.S. digital securities venue describes permissioned hooks, identity credentials, and eligible addresses. It cites a temporary conditional exemption, which does not make the venue a registered securities exchange; issuer procedures, trading, and trading-halt restrictions still apply.
OUSD integration offers a signal of stablecoin access and initial liquidity, while the hook for distributing incentives to LPs is still in development. Wallet API integration indicates an expanded route into trading, but complete data on routing, pool fees, and retention after incentives end are not yet available. More than $2 billion in cumulative trading volume for tokenized stocks on XLayer is historical adoption, not new activity in this round, and does not mean Uniswap or UNI received the same amount in revenue. These six items represent adoption progress at different stages and cannot be combined as if they were all commercialized.
These changes support the original model assumptions for transaction growth and fee expansion. There is no evidence requiring a uniform reduction to net capture or the capitalization multiple, and value should not be added repeatedly for the number of partnerships. The previous fully revised current reference of approximately $10.7882 is retained, as are the assumptions for annual trading fees, accrual, capture, multiples, probabilities, and circulating-supply basis. The next validation will focus on actual completion, real pool-level fees, conversion and burns, retention after incentives are excluded, and institutional compliance in practice; markets that have not been implemented are not treated as existing operations.
Carried-forward valuation and this round's adjustment
UNI should be iterated from the most recent complete version available. The earlier October 1 version had a weighted value of approximately $11.91, while the later version was approximately $10.87; an even earlier version was approximately $11.75, so the previous impression of “about $12” is supported by the record. This round starts from the original model in the later complete version, rather than using the $5.85 or $5.95 figures produced subsequently by changing the measurement basis as the comparison point.
This round retains the original model's annual trading fees of $700 million, $1.5 billion, and $2.2 billion; protocol accrual rates of 8%, 10%, and 12%; net UNI capture rates of 60%, 70%, and 80%; capitalization multiples of 50, 75, and 100; and scenario probabilities of 30%, 55%, and 15%. The 15% one-year discount remains unchanged. This multiple represents the market's judgment about capitalization of a recurring fee stream and growth, and is highly subjective. It is not a price-to-earnings multiple on equity profits, nor should the current price be used to infer a multiple and then backfill fair value.
The only directly changed figure is the same-basis reported circulating supply: updated from approximately 620.33 million to approximately 625.15 million tokens. Retaining the assumption of 20 million tokens released in the future gives a future denominator of approximately 645.15 million tokens. This causes only a small decline in the price under the same model and cannot explain the previous nearly 50% drop. A fully diluted economic-entitlement basis can be used as a separate dilution sensitivity, but it cannot be substituted for the original circulating-supply denominator without explanation while also lowering the capitalization multiple, with the difference then described as a deterioration in the project that occurred today.
The new operating data still support the transmission of real fees into token burns. Recent monthly fees are higher than the full-year average, but that is not enough to prove this pace can be sustained for a year. Therefore, we are not adding a premium for the new chain or asset issuance, nor removing the growth already included in the original model. The new developments separately test fee coverage, adoption, conversion, and burns; they should not be valued repeatedly based on the number of announcements.
| Scenario | Probability | One-year conditional price | Discounted price today |
|---|---:|---:|---:|
| Bear | 30% | $2.604052 | $2.264610 |
| Base | 55% | $12.206493 | $10.615358 |
| Bull | 15% | $32.736653 | $28.469378 |
$1.5 billion × 10% × 70% × 75 ÷ 645.148422 million tokens gives a one-year conditional price of $12.206493, which is discounted once by 15% to $10.615358 today. The current probability-weighted value is $10.788236, and the one-year conditional weighted value is $12.405285. At the current price of $8.912, the conditional weighted nominal return is approximately 39.20%, before fees, taxes, and execution costs; the market does not guarantee this return.
A 10% change in the capitalization multiple, net capture, or projected fees changes scenario values by the same amount; reducing the base-case multiple from 75 to 50 would lower the base-case value by one-third. This is a standalone sensitivity, not an adjustment made in this round without evidence that it has occurred.
Conditional action and next validation
Wait with no position until both price and evidence meet the conditions. Allocate 20% of the planned amount for this asset in the watch zone of $8.45–$8.631. Add 50% in the core zone of $7.70–$8.40, bringing the cumulative allocation to 70%; add the remaining 30% in the panic zone of $6.50–$7.50, bringing it to 100%. The watch zone must also offer a margin of safety of at least 20% against the latest weighted value. If the upper end of the range does not meet this condition, tighten the range downward; its carryover from the previous plan does not exempt it from this requirement.
For existing positions, limit concentration in line with the budget; do not add to them in response to announcements about the new chain or tokenized assets. Persistent LP outflows caused by fee extraction, failure of the conversion-and-burn mechanism, or major bridge or contract losses should cancel the remaining tranches and trigger a reassessment. The next review will verify actual deployment on new chains and pools, like-for-like operating data, conversion and burns, inventory disposition, and retention without incentives.