Data Source: CryptoRank

 

 

The primary-market spotlight last week: on Nov 13, Grayscale publicly filed its S-1 registration statement, targeting a NYSE listing under the ticker GRAY. The underwriting syndicate includes heavyweights such as Morgan Stanley, BofA Securities, Jefferies, and Cantor, among others. No offering size or price range was disclosed. The prospectus notes $318.7M in revenue (-20% YoY) and $203.3M in net income for the first three quarters of 2025, with ~$35B in AUM across 40+ products. With the U.S. government shutdown over and the SEC back to normal operations in mid-November, Grayscale’s Q3-updated filing effectively moves it to the front of the queue, improving execution visibility and investor attention.

 

This “public turn” blends push and pull factors. On one hand, fee compression and net outflows in the ETF arena are feeding through to revenues, slowing the margins of the high-fee “cash-cow” model in 2025. On the other, a listed-company profile means more frequent disclosure and tighter governance, nudging Grayscale toward a new balance among lower fees, broader product lines, and more active strategies. With flagship funds (e.g., GBTC/ETHE) under pressure, new products and strategy diversification become key to sustaining scale and earnings resilience.

 

Bottom line, this is less a simple “capital-raising event” and more a repricing window for product mix and valuation. Near-term, a public listing plus a top-tier brand and distribution footprint may help tap deeper institutional pools (advisors, pensions). Looking ahead, the core valuation anchors will be Grayscale’s ability to stabilize ETF net flows, manage margin pressure from lower fees, and add growth via multi-asset and active products. Watch three data lines: (1) net creations/redemptions and fee moves in core ETFs; (2) the revenue mix from new products; and (3) post-listing cost structure and the boundaries on M&A/proprietary investing. Together, these signals will determine how quickly Grayscale can rebalance from a “high-fee era” to one driven by scale + product strength.

 

 

Hayden Adams, founder of the leading DEX project Uniswap, along with Uniswap Labs, has formally submitted the "UNIfication" governance proposal, the core of which is to activate the protocol's "fee switch." The move instantly ignited the market, causing UNI—long considered a "valueless governance token"—to surge by nearly 40% within 24 hours. This finally enables UNI to evolve from a symbolic governance token into one capable of capturing more of the protocol's value. However, this is not merely a simple adjustment to its economic model, but rather a meticulously orchestrated legal breakthrough and political game that has been two years in the making.

 

In fact, discussions about the fee switch have been ongoing for a long time but were repeatedly stalled. The crux of the issue was a16z, one of UNI's largest token holders, which feared that if the protocol began distributing profits to holders, the UNI token would likely be classified as a "security" by the U.S. SEC, leading to catastrophic legal and tax risks. However, things took a turn in 2025. First came the establishment of Uniswap's DUNA (Decentralized Unincorporated Nonprofit Association) legal entity. This solution, tailored for DAOs by the crypto-friendly state of Wyoming, provides limited liability protection, allowing the DAO to safely engage in for-profit activities. Second, the U.S. regulatory environment has eased; a change in the SEC chairmanship and a shift in the overall political climate cleared the final external obstacles. With the legal shield in place and regulatory clouds parting, activating the fee switch became a natural course of action.

 

The "UNIfication" proposal is carefully designed to transform UNI from a governance tool into a deflationary asset in two steps. The first step is a straightforward, direct burn: the proposal suggests a one-time burn of 100 million UNI (10% of the total supply) from the Uniswap treasury as a "retroactive compensation" for fees the protocol could have captured but didn't since its inception. This creates scarcity at the source and was the primary driver behind UNI's price surge.