In this article5 sections
Uniswap‘s fourth protocol version processed more than $44 billion in trades over the last thirty days, according to Cointribune. That puts v4 at 49.9% of Uniswap’s total volume, ahead of v3 at 44.9% and v2 at 5.2% — the first time in the recent distribution that the newest version has clearly outrun each older version taken separately.
The same week brought a comparable milestone elsewhere in decentralized trading. Cryptobriefing reported that Phantom, the Solana wallet, announced on October 15, 2026 that its perpetual futures product had passed $50 billion in cumulative trading volume, generated by 192,000 traders across millions of positions. The two figures measure different things — one is rolling monthly activity on a DEX, the other is lifetime volume on a wallet-integrated derivatives venue — but both point to where retail trading is concentrating.
Also read: Uniswap Founder Adams Defends v4 Fee Model, Says Critics Misunderstand Impact on LPs
Key facts
- Uniswap v4 handled more than $44 billion in transactions over thirty days, equal to 49.9% of the protocol’s total volume, Cointribune reported.
- Uniswap v3 still accounts for 44.9% of trades, with v2 at 5.2%, per Cointribune.
- Uniswap v4 launched on January 31, 2025 and is deployed on twelve blockchain networks, including Ethereum, Base, Arbitrum, Polygon and Optimism.
- Phantom’s perpetuals product, rolled out in July 2025, passed $50 billion in cumulative volume with 192,000 traders, according to Cryptobriefing.
- DefiLlama data cited by Cryptobriefing put cumulative Phantom Perps volume near $51.8 billion as of mid-October 2026, with 30-day volume between $2.5 billion and $3.5 billion.
What v4’s architecture changed
Version four introduced hooks — modules that let developers customize how liquidity pools operate. Cointribune reported these can modify fees, automate certain operations or support more advanced management strategies. The release also groups pools into a single main contract with a reworked accounting system, which the outlet said reduces some usage costs of the protocol.
Adoption has been quick enough that v4 now carries nearly as much volume as the two previous versions combined, though v3 remains a substantial venue at close to 45% of trades.
Also read: 50,000 Europeans Urge EU to Ease MiCA Stablecoin Reward Rules
UNI’s separate story
Protocol activity and token demand are not the same thing, and Cointribune drew that distinction explicitly. The UNI token recently defended the $6.80 support level, where buyers stepped in and improved the hourly technical structure. On the daily chart, UNI traded above its 20-, 30- and 50-day exponential moving averages.
Derivatives positioning showed optimism: Cointribune cited Coinalyze data indicating roughly 63% of tracked positions were bullish, while noting that the same concentration of leveraged longs carries liquidation risk if the price drops suddenly.
Analysts are watching a liquidity zone around $11. According to CoinGlass’s liquidation map cited by Cointribune, about $535.1 million of potential liquidity sits near that level. Reaching it from $6.80 would require a rise of roughly 62% — a move Cointribune said cannot be inferred from Uniswap v4’s volume alone and would still need confirmation in the spot market.
Supply-side mechanics remain active. In December 2025, Uniswap destroyed 100 million UNI tokens after approval of the UNIfication program, and a February 2026 governance vote accompanied a 15% increase in the token, extending protocol fee collection to additional networks. On June 6, 2026, Cointribune reported a single-day burn of 134,000 UNI. Burns reduce supply without guaranteeing a price increase.
Why it matters
For Uniswap, the numbers settle an internal question: whether v4 would cannibalize v3 or add to it. For now the newer version is absorbing the bulk of activity while v3 retains a meaningful share, rather than one version collapsing into the other. For traders, the distinction between venue volume and token price is the practical takeaway — the $44 billion is trade flow through the protocol, not buying pressure on UNI.
Phantom’s figures, reported separately by Cryptobriefing, point to a parallel shift in derivatives. The wallet charges a 0.05% builder fee on top of Hyperliquid’s base rates and routes orders to Hyperliquid’s on-chain order book without users leaving the app. Cryptobriefing reported Phantom’s perps product has generated over $20 million in cumulative revenue, making it the top revenue earner among all Hyperliquid builders. The product remains blocked in the United States, the United Kingdom and several other regions, meaning that volume was built without two of the largest retail trading markets. Cryptobriefing also noted the concentration risk: any disruption or policy change at Hyperliquid would flow directly to Phantom’s perps users.
What to watch
Whether UNI converts protocol activity into sustained spot demand is the open question, and the $11 liquidity zone cited by Cointribune is the level analysts are tracking. For Phantom, the useful health check is the $2.5 billion to $3.5 billion monthly volume range from DefiLlama, which indicates steady activity rather than a launch spike.
Nothing here is financial advice, and cryptocurrency markets are volatile and uncertain.
Reported by cointribune.com.
Sources: Cointribune, Cryptobriefing