Post

Uniswap launches pools.trade to enter the launchpad sector, rewriting the Robinhood Chain competitive landscape on day one. Written by: Nicky, Foresight News At midnight on August 6, Uniswap officially launched the token launch platform pools.trade on Robinhood Chain, enabling token issuance and trading functions. The platform supports auto-compounding liquidity, permanently locked liquidity, and anti-sniping mechanisms, charging no additional launchpad fees, only retaining the standard 0.25% LP fee of Uniswap v4 pools, of which creators can choose to withdraw 0.05% as revenue. Users can create tokens through crowdfunding launch and instant launch modes. After launching, pools.trade quickly became the most active launch entry on Robinhood Chain. According to Dune data, on the first day, Uniswap V4 on Robinhood Chain had a trading volume of approximately $73.6 million, surpassing Ethereum mainnet’s $47.2 million. On August 6, Uniswap founder Hayden Adams publicly disclosed that pools.trade’s cumulative trading volume had exceeded $150 million, with some users completing trades via early smart contract versions before the official UI release. pools.trade is currently still in Beta, and Hayden Adams stated the team will continue to roll out upgrades and optimizations. As of press time, two tokens in the pools.trade ecosystem have market caps exceeding one million dollars, with FRONG’s market cap around $8.7 million, 24-hour trading volume reaching $30.8 million, and approximately 12,300 holding wallets; pools.trade token’s market cap is about $1.9 million, 24-hour trading volume $15.3 million, and about 6,580 holding wallets. Regarding platform data, Uniswap’s revenue on Robinhood Chain has shown structural changes. As of August 6, Uniswap’s on-chain revenue on Robinhood Chain was about $187,000, while Ethereum mainnet revenue was about $65,000, with the former exceeding the latter by nearly 300%. The token issuance volume changes from August 4 to 5 more intuitively reflect the shift in competitive dynamics: on the 4th, Uniswap launched 457 tokens, Flap about 6,500, Pons platform about 4,600, and Pons v2 about 2,600; on the 5th, Uniswap’s launched tokens surged to 12,000, Flap about 6,500, Pons about 2,200, and Pons v2 about 2,500. Uniswap’s single-day launch volume exceeded the combined total of the other three. Uniswap’s launch of its own launchpad at this time has clear strategic logic behind it. Since Robinhood Chain went live, Meme token trading has been highly active. According to DefiLlama data, the chain’s current total locked value is about $433 million, with 24-hour DEX trading volume around $550 million. Uniswap accounts for over 90% of on-chain trading and liquidity provision, with Uniswap’s fee contribution on the chain in the past 24 hours about $2.15 million, far exceeding Pons V1’s approximately $355,000. Although Uniswap firmly occupies the trading layer, the token launch segment was previously controlled by third-party platforms like Flap and Pons. Uniswap long played the role of "backend infrastructure," unable to directly access the entry traffic of creators and early traders. There are many launch platforms on Robinhood Chain, but only two or three have truly scaled and gained brand recognition, with capital advantages forming the core dividing line. Flap, as a launchpad with established reputation on BNB Chain, naturally brought user base and brand credit when deploying cross-chain to Robinhood Chain, quickly initiating bilateral network effects. Pons attracted market attention through the price performance of its platform token PONS, which once surpassed a $55 million market cap on July 27, aggregating a considerable creator and trader community driven by wealth effects. Most smaller launchpads lack brand endorsement and capital strength, making it difficult to compete with leading platforms on customer acquisition costs and liquidity incentives, gradually becoming marginalized. Uniswap’s entry elevates capital advantages to a higher level. As one of the largest protocols in decentralized trading, Uniswap has millions of existing users, deep integration with mainstream wallets like MetaMask and Ledger, and a full ecosystem distribution network covering trading APIs and aggregators. Hayden Adams emphasized that pools.trade was connected from day one to multiple ecosystem entry points including Uniswap Web app, wallets, trading APIs, Bitget, Fomo, GMGN, OKX wallet, etc., charging no additional launchpad fees, only retaining the standard 0.25% LP fee, far lower than the approximately 1% fee common on other launchpads. All LP fees are automatically reinvested into locked liquidity pools, with 80% for reinvestment and 20% to creators. Market feedback shows UNI token price rose about 5% on August 5, indicating initial market recognition of Uniswap’s strategic extension into launchpads. While pools.trade’s launch has attracted market attention, the community has engaged in intense discussions around the platform’s fee design. Some users believe pools.trade’s 0.25% LP fee is very trader-friendly, significantly lower than the roughly 1% fee common on similar platforms, effectively reducing trading costs. However, many creators and community members raised doubts, considering this low fee structure unfriendly to token creators, with some even describing it as "more predatory" or "anti-builder." The core argument of critics focuses on the significant reduction in creator revenue. Some community members calculated that with $1 million trading volume, other launchpads charging about 1% fee might yield creators around $6,000 in revenue share, whereas pools.trade’s 0.25% fee structure would only provide about $500. Additionally, concerns exist that Uniswap’s self-built launchpad might squeeze the survival space of third-party platforms like Pons and Flap, which have long relied on Uniswap liquidity, viewing the protocol’s direct competition with ecosystem projects as unfair. Some critics even see the low fee itself as proof of being unfriendly to ecosystem builders, questioning Uniswap’s lack of the "commercial ruthlessness" that platforms like pump.fun achieve through high fees. In response to concentrated community doubts, Uniswap founder Hayden Adams replied on the X platform on August 6. He pointed out that some token issuance platforms’ 1% liquidity pool fee equates to about 2% buy-sell spread, which is their main income extraction method, increasing trader costs and causing initial liquidity pools to lose efficiency as token scale expands. He stated that Uniswap’s self-built pools.trade adopts a 0.25% fee and automatic fee reinvestment mechanism, which is more conducive to long-term liquidity growth of tokens. Regarding concerns about creator revenue, Hayden Adams further explained that launchpad liquidity usually comes from zero-cost locked assets, with no price risk requiring high fee compensation. In such scenarios, high fees are essentially a hidden tax, sacrificing trader interests to subsidize creators and platforms, while pools.trade chooses to reduce friction costs to grow trading volume, allowing creators and traders to jointly benefit from deeper liquidity pools.