Uniswap adds seven trading sources as 0x disputes its protection from malicious hooks

The new adapters were developed by Uniswap Labs to integrate external liquidity sources. This expansion comes amid a dispute with trading aggregator 0x, which reported that malicious Uniswap v4 hooks quoted one price but settled at another, with some trades delivering as much as 50% less than quoted.

0x's Sept. 14 research examined 84,163 hooks across six chains and classified 19.4% as safe, 54.2% as malicious and 26.4% as 'likely malicious.' One Base hook recorded 6,516 fills and $143,037 in fees, while a BNB Chain hook recorded 4,879 fills and $18,592.

Uniswap's defense

Uniswap founder Hayden Adams rejected the criticism in September, calling it a 'skill issue' and arguing that users shouldn't route trades to bad hooks. He offered help to teams having trouble screening hooks and defended v4 hooks as a source of innovation.

Paradigm's Dan Robinson made a similar argument in sharper terms, saying 0x's post should have been titled '0x routing made a mistake.' He pointed to Uniswap's hook-approval process and said routers should vet arbitrary hooks before treating them as liquidity.

Security concerns

0x engineer Duncan Townsend disputed Uniswap's protections, saying 0x already used Uniswap's allowlist but alleged that at least one malicious hook sat on it. 0x director of engineering Philip Liao cited a Robinhood Chain transaction where a malicious hook took 4.8% of one routing leg.

Uniswap updated its routing guidance on Oct. 16, saying its router automatically considers most eligible hooks and requires manual allowlisting for hooks that use certain permissions. The guidance leaves security audits and guarantees outside its scope.

New integration details

Uniswap says seven external sources are live at launch, covering more than 90% of DEX activity on the three chains. External liquidity appears as Uniswap v4 pools through Uniswap-developed adapters, and routes through them generate fees that contribute to UNI burns.

Enso's July investigation of an Ethereum Curve USDC/USDT pool found 129,070 successful swaps that delivered less than quoted, with about $225,000 in gross quote overstatement. Curve is now an external source for Uniswap, though whether the problematic pool is routable through the new adapters remains unconfirmed.

Future implications

The dispute's resolution depends on whether Uniswap can demonstrate that its safeguards work effectively. If the company publishes execution-quality data, shows that per-hop minimum-output checks apply by default, and confirms independent audits, its position gains credibility.

Conversely, if a deceptive pool reaches users through an adapter or allowlisted hook, the dispute moves from argument to reproducible losses. Traders using aggregated routes depend on screening that the public record documents only partially, and future quote-versus-execution comparisons will reveal the effectiveness of Uniswap's safeguards.