💎 Does Aerodrome generate higher revenue than Uniswap – true or false? Alex (from Aerodrome) argues that Aerodrome is generating REVs many times higher than Uniswap, Medium 5x, and that when Aerodrome merges with Velodrome to form Aero, this model will expand even more significantly across the EVM. But Hayden Adams of Uniswap countered that this comparison was misleading. ⚠️ The problem lies in the definition of "revenue". Aerodrome collects 100% of transaction fees from LPs, but then returns a large portion to LPs through Token emission and incentives. Simply put, this model is like this: collect fees → re-release them using Token to maintain liquidation. Therefore, the "revenue" figure may seem large, but in reality, it's not revenue retained within the system, but rather fees subsidized by Token. Hayden argues that if Uniswap did the same (collecting fees and then distributing them as Token), Uniswap could also report very high "revenue," but that wouldn't reflect sustainability. Conversely, Alex's argument also has some merit. Alex argues that every protocol has costs, and if those costs aren't paid with Token emission, they're being paid elsewhere. With Uniswap, development costs are primarily covered by Uniswap Labs through VC Capital and frontend fees. In return, investors receive equity from Uniswap Labs, not UNI Token. In DeFi, equity and Token are constantly competing for value: value retained within the company doesn't flow to the Token. Therefore, even without publicly "printing Token," UNI holder are indirectly bearing the growth costs, albeit in a less visible way. Hayden further countered that the accusation of "infinite Token dilution" was untrue for Uniswap. The majority of the team's and investors' Token were unlocked years ago, the circulating supply hasn't changed significantly, and only a small fraction of the Token are used for grants and the foundation. In other words, Uniswap doesn't use emission to power its system like Aerodrome. ⚠️ So who is right in the end? The truth is, they are talking about two different economic models. Aerodrome is optimized for rapid growth, using Token to inject liquidation and create a clear network effect, but at the cost of Token dilution. Uniswap chose not to subsidize Token, maintaining a "cleaner" supply model, but at the cost of value growth being driven more by the Labs' equity than by the UNI Token. The most important point isn't which revenue figure is higher, but that Hayden Adams had to directly participate in the debate. This shows that Aerodrome has grown large enough to become a real competitor, rather than just a side project. Aerodrome's incentive mechanisms and ve-model are creating enough competitive pressure for Uniswap to speak out in defense of its approach. In short: Saying Aerodrome "generates higher revenue than Uniswap" is mathematically correct, but incorrect if that's understood as sustainable revenue in the traditional sense. Conversely, saying Uniswap "doesn't use Token to power the system" is partly true, but it overlooks the fact that Token holder still indirectly pay for growth through the conflict between equity and Token. This debate, therefore, is not just about transaction fees, but about the core question of DeFi: is the ultimate value flowing to the Token or to the company behind it? Chia to MilliΞ, a developer on Uniswap.

UNIFication: Behind the $900 million fee switch that sent UNI up 40% 📌 coin98.net/unification-uniswap...… Analyzing the Aerodrome & Velodrome merger plan to overthrow Uniswap. 📌 coin98.net/phan-tich-aerodrome...…