I think $UNI could be significantly undervalued and all they have to do is get with the meta... Right now, Uniswap generates ~$310M per quarter in trading fees (that’s over $1.2B annually). But none of it goes to UNI holders. All fees go directly to LPs. There’s been a long-standing proposal to turn on Uniswap’s “fee switch,” where 1/6 of protocol fees (0.05% out of the 0.30%) would be redirected to the treasury or UNI holders. As we've seen, this is the meta. Hyperliquid provides roughly 55% of their fees to buybacks. Rumors are circulating that the $pump token is going to have revenue share or revenue buybacks. This is where we're heading and Uniswap needs to get with the times. Let's look at the numbers: If Uniswap redirects just 1/6 of fees to buybacks: > ~$207M/year in UNI buybacks at current volume >Circulating supply would shrink by ~5% annually >That alone could drive a ~5% price boost (from $6.69 → ~$7.03), assuming constant market cap (Or if staked instead, UNI holders could earn ~10% yield) Now compare this to Hyperliquid: > They redirect ~54% of perp fees to buybacks > That’s ~$270M/year in HYPE buybacks on just $500M in total fees Their token has tripled since April Uniswap earns 2.5× more in fees than Hyperliquid—but doesn’t use any of it to benefit holders. Even a small redirect would make UNI one of the most capital-efficient tokens in the game. This is where the space is heading; revenue-generating protocols feeding that revenue back to holders via buybacks or yield. Uniswap is sitting on a goldmine. All it takes is one governance vote to flip the narrative.