Uniswap says, “v4 is an aggregator now,” and my first thought was: What exactly is it aggregating—the liquidity or the tolls?
Aggregator Hooks launched on October 22. They wrap external pools like Curve, Fluid, and PancakeSwap and route through them as if they were Uniswap’s own pools. The feature is rolling out first on Ethereum mainnet, Base, and Robinhood Chain. The official post got nearly 200,000 views. The team was pretty blunt about it: trades routed through these hooks still pay protocol fees, which are used to burn UNI.
In plain English: other people’s LPs provide the liquidity, Uniswap charges admission, and UNI holders get the deflationary upside. I’m not denying that this is bullish for UNI. But if you’re the one actually placing an order, what you care about is the execution price—not whose token gets burned.
As it happens, someone tested it. sol.engineer ran a same-block comparison on Robinhood Chain: 100 trades across the 10 most popular tokens, ranging from 0.1 to 100 ETH. ZODs had the best price 65 times, tied 13 times, KyberSwap won 16 times, and Uniswap’s aggregator hook won only twice. Another four trades were rejected, three of them due to price impact exceeding 30%.
But don’t rush to treat this as definitive proof. ZODs is their own product, which hasn’t even launched yet. Grading your own test and coming first is the kind of result you should take as a rough indication at best—and 100 trades isn’t a large sample.
My take: this update is fundamentally about Uniswap grabbing the trading gateway and fueling the UNI-burn narrative, not helping you save on slippage. For large trades, compare quotes from several aggregators yourself. Don’t blindly hit confirm just because “Uniswap is an aggregator now.”
#Uniswap #DeFi
Aggregator Hooks launched on October 22. They wrap external pools like Curve, Fluid, and PancakeSwap and route through them as if they were Uniswap’s own pools. The feature is rolling out first on Ethereum mainnet, Base, and Robinhood Chain. The official post got nearly 200,000 views. The team was pretty blunt about it: trades routed through these hooks still pay protocol fees, which are used to burn UNI.
In plain English: other people’s LPs provide the liquidity, Uniswap charges admission, and UNI holders get the deflationary upside. I’m not denying that this is bullish for UNI. But if you’re the one actually placing an order, what you care about is the execution price—not whose token gets burned.
As it happens, someone tested it. sol.engineer ran a same-block comparison on Robinhood Chain: 100 trades across the 10 most popular tokens, ranging from 0.1 to 100 ETH. ZODs had the best price 65 times, tied 13 times, KyberSwap won 16 times, and Uniswap’s aggregator hook won only twice. Another four trades were rejected, three of them due to price impact exceeding 30%.
But don’t rush to treat this as definitive proof. ZODs is their own product, which hasn’t even launched yet. Grading your own test and coming first is the kind of result you should take as a rough indication at best—and 100 trades isn’t a large sample.
My take: this update is fundamentally about Uniswap grabbing the trading gateway and fueling the UNI-burn narrative, not helping you save on slippage. For large trades, compare quotes from several aggregators yourself. Don’t blindly hit confirm just because “Uniswap is an aggregator now.”
#Uniswap #DeFi