Recently, the long-debated fee switch proposal in the UNI ecosystem has finally been settled. UNI has decided to link the token and ecosystem profits: it will allocate one-sixth of the transaction fees to repurchase tokens.

In addition, the project team has burned nearly 10% of the total token supply as compensation for the previous lack of burning operations.

Before this news was released, on November 8, the price of UNI was approximately $5. After the announcement, as of the time of writing, the price of UNI has risen to $9.22.

The significant increase in the token price is likely due to the community's excitement over finally finding strong support for the intrinsic value of the token, which has been reflected in the token price.

I am also pleased with this step taken by UNI.

I believe the more important significance of this news is that crypto projects, typified by Uniswap, are beginning to return to common sense. They are no longer allowing tokens to merely be empty assets with so-called "governance value," but are gradually bringing the value of tokens back to common judgment standards: what is the relationship between this token and the project, and what is its value?

Mr. Buffett once mentioned in his remarks about how companies should return value to shareholders:

If a company has a good plan to utilize its free cash flow to maintain and build a stronger moat, it should make good use of that cash flow; otherwise, it should return the cash flow to shareholders:

• Either through cash dividends to shareholders
• Or by using free cash flow to repurchase shares

If a company neither makes good use of its cash flow nor returns it to shareholders, it is not a good company.

Both good companies listed in the U.S. stock market and those listed in the A-share market generally adhere to the above practices.

This standard should actually be the criterion for judging the quality of any company.

Unfortunately, in the crypto ecosystem, with the exception of a few companies (like some CEXs), the vast majority of companies/teams neither effectively utilize cash flow to strengthen their moats nor return income to token holders or use it to repurchase tokens.

This has led to a large number of tokens essentially being just a pile of worthless "air" assets.

Uniswap's step will have significant implications for improving the overall atmosphere of the crypto ecosystem.

However, since Uniswap has taken this step, we should rigorously use the above standards to measure the value of the UNI token.

Among the publicly available data from Uniswap, there are two interesting figures:

First, the project recorded nearly $230 million in transaction fees over the past 30 days, which translates to an annual fee of $2.76 billion.

Second, the project recorded a total of $1.504 billion in transaction fees from November 2024 to October 2025 (a full year).

Based on this data, we can estimate its PE and "dividend yield."

If we consider its fee income as its net profit, its annual net profit is approximately (lower limit) $1.504 billion to (upper limit) $2.76 billion.

Using the price of $5 before the significant increase and a total circulation of 6.29 billion tokens, its PE would be 11 to 21.

If we use the price of $9.22 after the increase and the same total circulation of 6.29 billion tokens, its PE would be 21 to 39.

Since the proposal stipulates that one-sixth of the transaction fees will be used for token repurchase, we can calculate this fee as a dividend to determine its dividend yield.

The dividends available for distribution are approximately (lower limit) $251 million to (upper limit) $460 million.

Using the price of $5 before the increase and a total circulation of 6.29 billion tokens, its dividend yield would be approximately 0.7% to 1.5%.

If we use the price of $9.22 after the increase and the same total circulation of 6.29 billion tokens, its dividend yield would be 0.4% to 0.8%.

I compared this data with Apple:

UNI's current fully diluted market capitalization is $9.2 billion, while Apple's fully diluted market capitalization is $39.8 trillion.

UNI's current maximum PE is 39, while Apple's current PE is 36.25.

UNI's maximum dividend yield is 1.5%, while Apple's is 0.39%.

Overall, Apple's market capitalization is over 430 times that of UNI. Generally speaking, the higher the market capitalization, the more difficult it is to improve profitability metrics, or in other words, the less "attractive" the profitability metrics appear. Given Apple's high market capitalization, UNI's various metrics do not show particularly "attractive" or "impressive" results compared to Apple.

Does this indicate that UNI's current profitability still has considerable room for improvement?

On the other hand, although these metrics appear relatively average, they are much less inflated compared to when the "market dream rate" was high.

Does this also suggest from another perspective that while the market may be irrational and crazy in the short term, it will eventually return to the fundamentals of the project in the long run, gradually reflecting the project's true intrinsic value?

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。