Why Some Think the UNI Token Has No Value Without Revenue Models

Since its launch in September 2020, the UNI token has been a symbol of decentralized governance within the DeFi landscape. Distributed through one of the most famous airdrops in crypto history, UNI was designed to empower users by giving them a voice in how Uniswap the world’s leading decentralized exchange (DEX) evolves. In many ways, it marked the beginning of an era where tokens were not just speculative assets but mechanisms for community-driven decision-making.

Yet, over time, cracks have emerged in this governance-only model. Despite being backed by one of the most profitable and widely used protocols in DeFi, UNI itself does not capture or distribute any of that value to its holders. 

Unlike traditional company shares or even some competing DeFi tokens, UNI does not entitle owners to dividends, buybacks, or revenue streams. Critics have begun asking a hard question: what is the point of holding UNI if it does not directly benefit from Uniswap’s success?

This article unpacks why some experts believe UNI risks becoming a “valueless” token, examines the arguments for and against adding revenue models, and explores what this debate means for the future of DeFi governance.

What is the UNI Token?

The UNI token is Uniswap’s governance token, created to decentralize decision-making within the protocol. Holders can:

• Vote on proposals that affect the platform’s development and treasury allocation.

• Influence decisions on liquidity incentives, partnerships, and upgrades.

• Signal community sentiment around the protocol’s future direction.

However, UNI holders do not receive any direct share of Uniswap’s vast trading fees. This is striking because Uniswap itself generates billions in annual trading volume, making it one of the most profitable applications in all of crypto. 

Instead of distributing revenue, those funds are reinvested in protocol development, liquidity mining, or remain in the treasury. Critics see this as a structural weakness in UNI’s value proposition.

Read Also: How to Claim the Uniswap (UNI) Token Airdrop?

Why Critics Question UNI’s Value

Governance Token Limitations

The most common critique is that governance rights alone are insufficient. While governance sounds important in theory, in practice, voter participation rates across DeFi protocols are often very low. A majority of tokenholders never engage in governance at all, reducing UNI’s utility to little more than a speculative asset.

Jeff Dorman, Chief Investment Officer at Arca, has been among the most vocal critics. He argues that without direct financial incentives, UNI is “meaningless,” functioning as nothing more than a “governance pass.” In his view, a token that does not share in protocol revenue offers no real reason for investors to hold it long-term.

The Role of Incentives

The gap between protocol income and tokenholder benefits is where the debate intensifies. Many in the DeFi ecosystem believe that tokens only sustain value when they create alignment between user participation and financial rewards. 

Fee-sharing and buyback programs are two of the most common methods for closing this gap. These mechanisms not only strengthen tokenholder loyalty but also help reduce selling pressure, stabilizing the token’s market value.

Read Also: Uniswap Price Prediction: Can UNI Break $15 Resistance as Whales Pile In?

Incentives and Protocol Income

Uniswap is a revenue-generating powerhouse, collecting transaction fees from every swap made on its DEX. However, none of this income flows back to UNI holders. This contrasts with protocols like Sushiswap, which experimented with fee-sharing models by distributing a percentage of revenue to tokenholders who staked their tokens.

This difference has shaped perception. While Uniswap has remained the market leader in terms of liquidity and brand recognition, Sushiswap’s model arguably gave its token a stronger sense of financial purpose, even if its overall adoption lagged behind. For UNI, the absence of income-sharing makes it appear disconnected from Uniswap’s economic engine.

Market Reactions and Comparative Context

Hayden Adams, Uniswap’s founder, has defended UNI’s governance-only structure. He argues that tying token ownership directly to revenue streams introduces substantial regulatory risks. 

If UNI were to provide dividends or buybacks, regulators could classify it as a security, triggering stricter compliance requirements in the U.S. and other jurisdictions.

Nonetheless, history shows that protocols willing to experiment with revenue distribution have seen positive market reactions. Sushiswap, for example, initially faced skepticism but won credibility by rewarding its tokenholders. 

Other protocols like GMX and dYdX have also embraced token models where revenue flows to users, further highlighting the contrast with UNI.

This comparative context has amplified UNI’s critics, who argue that Uniswap’s dominance as a platform makes the lack of incentives for tokenholders even more glaring.

Read Also: Uniswap's UNI Tokens Fully Unlocked: What’s Next for VC Investors?

Regulatory and Sustainability Considerations

The debate over UNI’s value cannot be separated from regulatory realities. Revenue-sharing mechanisms, while attractive to tokenholders, could invite government scrutiny and legal hurdles. 

In the U.S., especially, distributing protocol income risks being classified as an unregistered security offering. This could expose both Uniswap Labs and tokenholders to potential penalties.

From a sustainability perspective, proponents of governance-only models argue that keeping tokens separate from financial rights ensures long-term protocol survival. They claim the trade-off is worth it: sacrificing short-term price appreciation for regulatory safety. 

On the other hand, critics see this as a lost opportunity. Without incentives, UNI may struggle to maintain relevance in a competitive DeFi landscape where new tokens continue to innovate.

Governance vs. Revenue Models: A Comparative Table

Read Also: Will UNI Explode? Uniswap Price Outlook Shows Bullish Patterns & $250 Long-Term Potential

Conclusion

The UNI token represents both the promise and the limitations of governance-first token design. On one hand, it empowers community decision-making and avoids the regulatory pitfalls of revenue-sharing. 

On the other hand, it risks being seen as a hollow token symbolic rather than substantive, especially in a world where rival protocols actively reward holders.

The debate over UNI is not just about one token. It reflects a deeper question about DeFi governance: should tokens remain tools of decentralization alone, or evolve into hybrid instruments that blend governance with economic participation? 

The answer may shape not only UNI’s long-term trajectory but also the future standards for governance tokens across the entire DeFi ecosystem.

FAQ

What is the UNI token used for?

UNI is Uniswap’s governance token, enabling holders to propose and vote on protocol changes, treasury use, and upgrades.

Why do critics say UNI has no value?

Critics argue UNI lacks intrinsic value because it does not share in Uniswap’s revenue or offer buybacks, making it governance-only.

How could UNI increase its value?

By introducing revenue-sharing or token buybacks, UNI could align tokenholder incentives with protocol income and improve long-term sustainability.

Why hasn’t Uniswap added revenue models?

Uniswap prioritizes avoiding regulatory risk. Revenue-sharing could classify UNI as a security, leading to legal challenges.

What’s the outlook for UNI?

UNI’s future depends on whether it adopts revenue-sharing or maintains a governance-only role. The outcome could influence wider DeFi token design.

Bitrue Official Website:

Website: https://www.bitrue.com/

Sign Up: https://www.bitrue.com/user/register

Disclaimer: The views expressed belong exclusively to the author and do not reflect the views of this platform. This platform and its affiliates disclaim any responsibility for the accuracy or suitability of the information provided. It is for informational purposes only and not intended as financial or investment advice.