Forum thread view
Snapshot vote view
Cross-layer view
Overview Forum Analysis Snapshot Cross-layer
Forum thread · Discourse
Forum Governance Forum · governance.uniswap.org Thread #4421
Fee Switch: Should Uniswap turn on protocol fees?
1,204 posts · 184 authors · Jan 2022 – Oct 2025 · 3 years 9 months → 8 Snapshot TCs → Proposal #44
Sentiment arc: CryptoVADER monthly score
Positive Negative instInstitutional entry
← NegativeNeutralPositive →
Post volume — monthly activity
bars = posts per month
Jan 2022Jan 2023Jan 2024Jan 2025Oct 2025
Downstream governance events
Snapshot
TC-001 · Fee switch temperature check
Feb 2022 · 71.4% for
PASSED
›
Snapshot
TC-012 · Fee pilot program (3 pools)
Sep 2023 · 68.2% for
PASSED
›
Snapshot
CC-044 · Consensus check: 0.15% activation
Oct 2025 · 84.2% for
PASSED
›
On-chain
Proposal #44 · Protocol fee activation
Nov 2025 · 76.4% for
EXECUTED
›
Influential voices
by reply count + reach
01
GF
GFX Labs
0x7c3a…9e1 · 89 posts
Posts
Replies recv.
avg −0.38 · opposes fees
02
EK
Erin Koen (UF)
0x3d1b…7aa · 64 posts
Posts
Replies recv.
avg +0.29 · supports fees
03
ACI
ACI
0x88bc…2f3 · 47 posts
Posts
Replies recv.
avg +0.08 · neutral
04
?
Unattributed
0xf9e2…114 · 38 posts
avg −0.12
Who talks vs. who votes
Forum authors who also voted on-chain when Proposal #44 reached a vote.
184
Forum authors
∩
214
On-chain voters
Overlap: 31 wallets did both
14.5% overlap — deliberative and voting communities are largely separate
KEY FINDING
85.5% of on-chain voters never posted in the fee switch thread. Deliberative participation and voting power are structurally decoupled.
Overview Forum Analysis Snapshot Cross-layer
Snapshot vote · TC-001
Snapshot · Temperature Check TC-001 PASSED
Should Uniswap turn on the fee switch for select pools?
Feb 14 – Feb 21 2022 · 7-day voting window · Proposed by 0x3d1b…7aa
Vote breakdown
weighted by UNI held at snapshot block
Yes
71.4%
38.2M UNI
No
24.8%
13.3M UNI
Abstain
3.8%
2.0M UNI
892
Unique voters
53.5M
Total UNI cast
No quorum
Snapshot — advisory
Voter overlap — TC-001 vs. Proposal #44
who voted in both?
Of the 892 who voted in this temperature check, how many returned for the eventual on-chain vote 3.5 years later?
Voted in both
38%
TC only
62%
On-chain only
76%
PARTICIPATION DECAY
76% of final on-chain voters were not present at the original temperature check — the electorate shifted substantially across the 3.5-year deliberation arc.
TC vs. on-chain comparison
TC voters
892
Snapshot · Feb 2022
On-chain voters
214
Governor · Nov 2025
TC result
71.4%
For · advisory only
On-chain result
76.4%
For · binding
NOTE
Snapshot attracted 4× more participants than the binding on-chain vote. Power-weighted result was directionally consistent.
Linked nodes
Forum
Fee Switch thread
Thread #4421 · preceded this TC
›
Snapshot
TC-012 · Fee pilot
Next temperature check · Sep 2023
›
On-chain
Proposal #44
Terminal on-chain vote · Nov 2025
›
Top voters by weight
01
a16z Crypto
0xa9d1…3f2
28.4M
YES
02
GFX Labs
0x7c3a…9e1
11.2M
NO
03
Univ. Michigan
0x4bcd…f11
5.8M
YES
Overview Forum Analysis Snapshot Cross-layer
Nodal governance map
Cross-layer governance map
Each row is a governance issue · columns are nodes · read left to right to trace the path from deliberation to execution
All issues
Fee switch
Treasury
Deployments
Institutional
Forum discourse
Snapshot vote
On-chain vote
Forum → Snapshot
3.2×
Average months between peak forum activity and first temperature check. Forum deliberation precedes Snapshot by an average of 3.2 months.
Snapshot → On-chain
1.8×
Average number of Snapshot votes before an on-chain proposal. Most issues require multiple signalling rounds before advancing.
Sentiment → Outcome
r = 0.74
Correlation between final forum sentiment score and on-chain vote outcome. Forum sentiment is a strong predictor of eventual result.