You are reading an excerpt from our free but shortened abridged report! While still packed with incredible research and data, for just $40/month you can upgrade to our FULL library of 60+ reports (including this one) and complete industry-leading analysis on the top crypto assets. 

Becoming a Premium member means enjoying all the perks of a Basic membership PLUS:

• Full-length CORE Reports: More technical, in-depth research, actionable insights, and potential market alpha for serious crypto users
• Early access to future CORE ratings: Being early is sometimes just as important as being right!
• Premium Member CORE+ Reports: Coverage on the top issues pertaining to crypto users like bridge security, layer two solutions, DeFi plays, and more
• CORE report Audio playback: Don’t want to read? No problem! Listen on the go.

Introduction

Tokenomics combines economic principles, incentive structures, and governance mechanisms to manage a token's supply, demand, and distribution. Network utility refers to a token’s practical applications and value-creation capacity within a protocol. Examining these elements together helps investors identify projects poised for lasting impact and sustainable value creation.

Investing involves balancing long-term value accrual with current market dynamics. Navigating this landscape requires a robust framework to distinguish between transient market sentiment and sustainable value.

Uniswap: A Case Study

Uniswap, a prominent decentralized exchange (DEX), integrates the market-making function directly into its protocol. Liquidity Providers (LPs) deposit token pairs, such as ETH and USDC, into liquidity pools, setting their preferred trade prices. This design ensures continuous liquidity, eliminating the need for traditional order books. Trade fees are distributed proportionally to all LPs in the pool.

Uniswap operates with a two-token model: liquidity tokens and UNI tokens. Liquidity tokens provide protocol utility by transferring all trading revenue to LPs, while UNI tokens enable protocol governance, guiding the tokenomics framework.

Governance and Revenue Distribution

Currently, UNI holders do not receive trading revenue. Similar to many growth-stage businesses, UNI holders prioritize accelerating expansion and solidifying market position over distributing profits. This model mirrors Airbnb’s early business structure, where homeowners (suppliers) provided inventory and received compensation, while equity holders focused on governance.

As Airbnb achieved network effects and growth stabilized, it generated substantial profits benefiting both homeowners and equity holders. Similarly, once Uniswap reaches steady-state growth, UNI holders may opt to redirect some protocol fees to themselves, capturing more value from the platform’s activities.

Providing tangible returns through fee distributions could increase governance participation, aligning incentives with the protocol's success and enhancing network stability. The added financial utility might lead investors to reevaluate UNI based on expected yields, attracting income-seeking investors and potentially increasing demand and price stability.

Financial Analysis and Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) Model

To assess the token's intrinsic value under a hypothetical new revenue structure, a detailed analysis is necessary. In early 2024, Uniswap’s average daily trading volume (ADV) was $2 billion, generating approximately $6.6 million in daily gross operating revenue, or $2.2 billion annualized. We use a discounted cash flow (DCF) model under the following assumptions:

It's important to understand that models like DCF rely on assumptions that may not fully capture the unique traits of cryptocurrencies. While specific numbers are rarely ideal for robust financial analysis, using a range presented in a sensitivity table would be more instructive. For illustrative purposes, we proceed with specific, internally developed assumptions.

Critics may argue that our 20% discount rate fails to reflect the true risk premium of volatile assets like UNI. A higher rate might better account for high volatility and uncertain regulations. These arguments have merit.

Comparing Uniswap and the NYSE: A Detailed Analysis

Scope and Operational Complexity

Uniswap and the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) represent two fundamentally different models of financial exchange, each with distinct operational scopes and maintenance requirements. Uniswap operates within a narrowly defined scope, focusing on liquidity aggregation for swaps. This limited scope allows Uniswap to maintain a streamlined, immutable codebase, resulting in minimal ongoing maintenance requirements. Additionally, the open-source nature of Uniswap's code makes it relatively easy to replicate, a characteristic that has significant implications for its competitive landscape.

In stark contrast, the NYSE embodies a broad and complex operational scope. The exchange is involved in a multitude of activities, including but not limited to listing and transaction fees, data licensing, trading operations, connectivity services, surveillance, listing standardization, mergers and acquisitions consulting, initial public offering consulting, and international listings. The breadth of these operations necessitates a high-maintenance infrastructure, supported by a large and diverse staff, including legal and compliance teams. This complexity makes the NYSE exceptionally difficult to replicate, ensuring its unique position within the financial ecosystem.

Valuation and Competitive Advantage

Uniswap's valuation benefits significantly from its ease of forkability, low operational expenditures, and high profit margins. The ability to easily fork the platform means that first-mover advantage is crucial, as it serves as a primary moat against competitors. Uniswap's minimal maintenance requirements translate into low operational expenses, which in turn drive high profit margins. Furthermore, the low risk associated with expanding into new markets—given the minimal cost of failure—supports Uniswap's valuation.

The NYSE, operated by Intercontinental Exchange (ICE), has a market cap of approximately $85 billion and generated a net profit of $2.8 billion in 2023. This equates to a net profit margin of about 3.2% of its fully diluted valuation (FDV). The NYSE's extensive operations necessitate significant maintenance costs and a large workforce, factors that contribute to its high operational expenditures. Despite these costs, the NYSE's unique and comprehensive service offerings provide it with a competitive edge that is difficult to erode.

Uniswap v3: Market Leadership and Revenue Generation

Uniswap v3 has emerged as the market leader in concentrated liquidity, demonstrating a clear product-market fit. The platform operates with near-zero maintenance, yet generates substantial fee revenues. These fees primarily benefit Ethereum and liquidity providers (LPs), with a smaller portion accruing to Uniswap Labs' front-end operations and market makers on UniswapX.

A hypothetical fee switch, redirecting 10% of LP fees exclusively from Ethereum-stablecoin pools, could have generated approximately $49.5 million for UNI token holders year-to-date on Ethereum alone, according to data from Flipside Crypto. This figure represents 1.3% of Uniswap's fully diluted valuation (FDV) on an annualized basis for a single chain and LP type. If UNI holders were to capture 10% of LP fees across all chains and pool types, the resultant revenue could approximate 3.2% of Uniswap's FDV, aligning with the NYSE's profit margin but without the associated high maintenance costs and large operational staff.

Uniswap's Potential and Market Dynamics

The asset management landscape is evolving, suggesting a shift towards digital assets and decentralized finance, where permissionless platforms like Uniswap could thrive. The ratio of DEX to centralized exchange (CEX) volume highlights this potential.

Uniswap benefits from network effects, where each additional user and developer enhances the platform's value. This creates a flywheel effect: more users attract more liquidity providers, increasing liquidity. Greater liquidity attracts more traders, driving volume and reducing slippage, which in turn draws more users and developers, driving innovation and further enhancing the platform.

Uniswap's unique tokenomics and network utility amplify these effects, ensuring that as usage grows, so does the platform's overall utility and value.

Conclusion

The model generated a discounted terminal value (DTV) of $12.2 billion for UNI, compared to a current market capitalization of roughly $8 billion. This suggests UNI may be undervalued, likely because fees are not currently distributed, reflecting the risk and timeline until those cash flows occur. Based on the current circulating token supply, UNI's earnings per token is roughly $0.50 with a price-to-earnings ratio of around 20x.

In conclusion, Uniswap's tokenomics and network utility offer significant potential for sustainable value creation. As the DeFi landscape evolves, Uniswap’s governance and revenue distribution strategies will play a crucial role in its long-term success.i