The "hooks" are like bringing App Store to the iPhone.
Like Apple no longer needed to develop iPhone apps themselves, devs can build on top of Uniswap.
Now, the L2 further solidifies their dominance and liquidity.
This is bullish for $UNI as Uniswap DAO now has many more options for token utility.
Notice how Unichain's announcement doesn't mention token utility: they are keeping the options for now and discussions in the forum will start. Fee switch is not the only option anymore.
The good news: Uniswap decided to build on OP stack and implement native interoperability to enable single-block, cross-chain message passing among Superchain L2s.
This at least partly minimizes liquidity fragmentation. But liquidity fragmentation will likely worsen in the short term.
Is it bullish for $ETH, though? At least Uniswap is not launching their own L1.
But I believe Ethereum must find ways to accrue value from all these L2s launching on it. It's getting more urgent than ever.
Wouldn't be surprised if Uni v4 first launched on Unichain. Perhaps only on Unichain before moving to other chains.
It would make sense for them.
Don't think Vitalik is happy with the Unichain.
He had said that "uniswap chain makes no sense"
It adds extra friction for bridging etc.
But @VitalikButerin, this is how Rollup centric roadmap looks like.
Blackrock hears this question more than any other.
Their latest research shows Bitcoin is indeed risky but not a "risk-on" asset.
Here's the breakdown: 🧵
2/ BTC is undeniably risky, having been the worst-performing major asset in 7 out of the last 10 years.
Yet it not only recovered each time but also outperformed all major asset classes, achieving a crazy annualized return of over 100% over the past decade.
3/ Yet BTC isn't a "risk-on" asset.
BTC shows low long-term correlation with equities and other risk assets.
While short-term spikes in correlation occur, especially with shifts in U.S. dollar real interest rates or liquidity, these don't establish a lasting relationship.