0x0527c1f3…8469sent to0x408ed635…24c3·#25,594,712·0xe70ce7bc…7919d7
**Voting For.**
Uniswap is running the experiment the rest of this industry keeps arguing about in theory. Protocol fees have been live across v2 and v3 on eleven chains, Labs has taken its interface, wallet and API fees to zero, and Uniswap is still the largest venue. If volumes hold through this extension, that is an empirical answer to the claim that a protocol must give its service away to defend market share. Extending fees to v4 tests it on the most competitive surface we have. That alone is worth the vote.
Three reasons I support this proposal, and one distinction I want on the record.
**It restores the link between protocol activity and the asset.** This is the property most infrastructure in this space has lost: usage grows and the token does not notice. Uniswap is rebuilding that link rather than deferring it indefinitely.
**It is a credible commitment, not a promise.** Routing revenue to a treasury is a policy any future governance can reverse and any well-organised constituency can capture. Burning is irreversible and admits no discretion. Whatever its drawbacks, it is a commitment device: it signals to holders that this protocol will be operated toward profitability rather than as a permanent subsidy, and it removes the option of quietly abandoning that discipline later.
**It demonstrates profitability without subsidy.** That matters beyond Uniswap. The prevailing argument for keeping fees near zero across this industry is that charging drives activity elsewhere. Uniswap is the only large protocol currently generating evidence either way.
**The distinction: burning is a distribution, not fiscal capacity.** Fees flowing to TokenJar and out to 0xdead do not fund a single line of development. Development is funded by the 20M UNI annual growth budget, which is issuance from a finite, never-replenished stock — economically a capital raise, not revenue. That structure is only non-dilutive when the burn exceeds the issuance.
The threshold is exact: 20,000,000 UNI over 365 days is roughly **54,800 UNI per day**. Below it, Uniswap is funding growth by diluting holders and calling it value accrual. Above it, the growth budget is genuinely self-financing.
This is precisely why the proposal deserves support: extending fees to v4 and to additional chains is the mechanism that pushes the burn above that line. But I would ask the sponsors to publish the trailing 90-day average daily burn alongside the record figure. A record day is not a run rate, and this threshold should be a standing metric rather than something delegates reconstruct by hand.