Latest proposal about UNI, here's the conclusion: The beneficiaries are Labs, while secondary token holders don't capture any value from this. From the perspective of secondary token holders: 1/ Enable the protocol fee switch (once activated, the protocol can capture value from users' trading fees. For example, in V2 pools, the trading fee is 0.3%. After activation, LP fees will be 0.25%, and protocol fees will be 0.05%), and use it to burn UNI. This would generate approximately $140M annually for buyback and burn. [Calculation method: Hayden Adams' original words: "Burning 100M UNI from the treasury is roughly equivalent to the amount of UNI that would have been burned if fees had been charged from the beginning." Over 5 years, with UNI priced at $7 (based on the price at the time of the proposal), this averages $700M/5 = $140M annually in protocol fees.] 2/ Unichain sequencer fees will be used to burn UNI, generating approximately $10M annually. Total burn value is around $150M annually. 3/ However, the proposal "suggests governance establish an annual growth budget of 20M UNI." At the current price of $9.2, this means the market will see an additional $184M worth of UNI flowing out of the treasury annually. Before the proposal, the foundation's annual ecosystem growth expenses were around $35M. The new proposal increases UNI spending by a whopping $149M annually. Total burn value is approximately $150M annually, but the newly added UNI outflow is also $149M annually. So, the new proposal won't reduce UNI circulation in the secondary market.