Two trading screens can show the same pair of token names and still be two markets, because a clone of an automated market maker copies the look of the pools while deploying its own contracts. The names in the tab follow the factory that minted the pair, and a screenshot of a familiar pool is a poor proof that you are on the original protocol.
That mix-up is ordinary: people treat a screenshot of a familiar pool as proof they used the original, then later discover the pair address was minted by a different deployer. Fees, votes, and later fills follow that deployer, which is why copying ticker text from a browser tab can still leave you on a fork.
Forked automated market makers are a product class that search engines often collapse under one comparison. The useful split is which factory minted the pair, which fee switch is on, and which governance token that project actually uses.
Uniswap is the original constant-product protocol in this comparison, and SushiSwap is a separate project that copied the pool look. BloFin lists UNI as UNI/USDT on spot and as UNIUSDT and UNIUSD perpetuals, which sit beside either decentralized exchange (DEX).
Uniswap's factory, protocol fees, and UNI token
Uniswap's tell is the permissionless factory that creates one pair contract per token pairing. Read that pair's hex before you treat two tickers that also appear on a Sushi screen as one market, because shared ticker text is still two pairs if two factories minted them.
The v2 architecture docs put that factory's purpose in one line: it creates one smart contract per unique token pair, and only one (source: Uniswap Docs, v2 architecture). That factory is Uniswap's, so a Sushi pair is created by a different deployer even when the review screen shows the same two tickers.
Protocol fees on Uniswap are a later governance setting, a slice of swap fees that can feed UNI burns, and they sit on top of the pool fee liquidity providers already earned. Historic v2 pools charged a flat pool fee that compounded in reserves, and that LP line is a different switch from turning on protocol fees.
UNI is the token that votes those switches, an ERC-20 on Ethereum with governance rights, and holding UNI pays no cash coupon from pool volume. Holding SUSHI is a different token purpose on a different project, so Sushi staking stays with Sushi's own docs.
Suppose you hold 90 UNI and open two review screens that both say UNI/USDT, one naming a Uniswap factory pair and the other naming a Sushi pair. The 90 UNI you already hold are the same ERC-20. The pool you are about to use is the factory that minted the pair, because shared ticker text is still two markets.
| Criterion | Uniswap | Sushi (forked AMM) |
|---|---|---|
| Who creates the pair | Uniswap factory indexes pairs | A separate factory |
| What the pool looks like | Two-token AMM reserves | Forked AMM look |
| Pool fee on classic v2 | Flat pool fee into reserves | Forked the AMM look |
| Protocol fee | Governance setting, later votes | Sushi internals |
| Governance token | UNI, ERC-20 | SUSHI, a different token |
| What you hold after a UNI swap | UNI in your wallet | UNI in your wallet, different pair |
That table is a description of Uniswap-side architecture, written as a map of factory, fees, and UNI, with PancakeSwap and other Uniswap-like forks reserved for a later one-line fence.
The shared look still fools a screenshot, which is why the next section names the factory as the tell.
How a forked pool still uses a different factory
A Sushi pool can look like a Uniswap v2 pair because it forked the AMM. You still see two reserves in a contract, and a review screen that repeats the same ticker text, while your 90 UNI still move as ERC-20 UNI. The factory that minted the pair is still the tell.
How Uniswap AMMs work is the pool picture across versions, and generic AMM literacy sits in automated market makers.
Once deployed, Uniswap core contracts keep running as written: no party can pause them, reverse a trade, or change protocol behavior after the fact (source: Uniswap Docs, How Uniswap Works). A 2020 liquidity migration out of some Uniswap pairs left that Uniswap core in place, so old Uniswap pairs kept running as deployed while Sushi's new pairs ran on Sushi's contracts.
On September 9, 2020, public coverage recorded a Uniswap clone beginning to move liquidity into its own pools. Decrypt reported that SushiSwap, described there as a clone of Uniswap, had begun migrating tokens out of the then-leading DEX into its own liquidity pools (source: Decrypt, SushiSwap Set to Drain Nearly $1 Billion From Rival Uniswap). That coverage is the fork date in public.
You can hold UNI that last filled on Uniswap, UNI that last filled on Sushi, and UNI that never touched either DEX. The token standard stays ERC-20, while the pair you used is only the history of that fill.
Gas is still the chain's fee token, so on Ethereum that is ETH even when the pool is UNI and USDT, and how Ethereum works is the chain picture. A Sushi-looking pair on the same chain still spends that gas, and it spends none of Uniswap governance.
Generic CEX versus DEX literacy, books versus AMMs, sits in centralized versus decentralized exchanges, while the Uniswap-versus-Sushi split stays on a forked AMM. Why a DEX mid and a CEX last can disagree is a separate price story in DEX and CEX prices.
The useful check is small: copy the pair address from the confirmation, then ask which factory created it. You can compare that hex to Uniswap's pair-for-tokens lookup. A mismatch means the screenshot was a fork even when both tabs said UNI/USDT, because copying the word Uniswap from a browser tab can still leave you on a fork.
Fees are the next Uniswap-side check, because the screenshot also hides which fee switch is on.
Pool fees and the protocol-fee switch
Every Uniswap swap pays a pool fee to liquidity providers, and a later protocol fee can take a portion of that fee toward UNI burns. The historic v2 pool fee of 0.30 percent is the LP line, a different setting from the protocol-fee switch Tally 100 executed on July 27, 2026.
Uniswap v2 charged a flat 0.30 percent fee that was added to pool reserves. After a December 2025 governance proposal, the same fees page still says protocol fees are active on all v2 pools and select v3 pools. It also says v4 fee-adapter flows can be enabled through governance, so treat that page as a concept explainer that can lag executed votes (source: Uniswap Docs, Fees).
Tally proposal 100 is Executed as of July 27, 2026. Protocol fees are live across all v2 and v3 pools on 11 chains, and the same text introduces a v4 system on a subset of v4 pools on those same chains (source: Tally, Uniswap proposal 100). The eleven-chain v2/v3 recap is a named list from that vote, and a live inventory of every Uniswap deployment still has to be read from later votes.
Holders have no pro-rata claim on those protocol fees. The 0.30 percent v2 pool fee is still the amount the classic pair charged traders before any protocol cut, and mixing those two numbers turns a UNI balance into a fake yield coupon.
Sushi's original pitch, in the 2020 coverage, was a token plus rewards around a copied AMM, which is why search pages still contrast fee share with governance only. On Uniswap, the live setting is the executed fee vote plus the UNI burn path, and both can change again by governance, so treat current chain lists as current settings.
You can skip a farm screenshot and still use the fee split if you can name the fee on the screen. Name the pool's LP fee on the pair, or the protocol fee Uniswap governance turned on for named versions and chains. Suppose the confirmation shows the classic v2 LP line. That figure is paid inside the swap. The protocol-fee switch is a later vote on named versions and chains.
UNI is the token that votes those settings, so the balance itself is the next split.
What a UNI balance actually governs
UNI is the governance token of the Uniswap protocol. Holders are represented through DUNI, and protocol fees collected across Uniswap products are used to burn UNI. That burn path is a supply mechanism.
"UNI holders have no individual or pro-rata claim on protocol revenue; value accrual is mediated entirely through this burn mechanism and any other distribution mechanism governance may subsequently authorize" (source: Uniswap Docs, UNI token).
That sentence is Uniswap's: a Sushi fill of UNI leaves you with the same ERC-20, and it creates no second UNI and no Uniswap coupon. You can delegate and vote when the tokens sit in a signing wallet the Uniswap governor can read, while UNI left on an exchange ledger stays a venue line until you withdraw.
Suppose you already hold 90 UNI in a wallet from an earlier Sushi-looking swap, then later want to vote on a Uniswap fee proposal. The governor reads UNI at the proposal's start block for that wallet after delegation, with no DEX field on the ballot. A BloFin sub-account stays an exchange ledger line until you withdraw, because support cannot cast that vote for you.
Uniswap versus a centralized exchange, including who holds UNI after a BloFin fill, sits with Uniswap versus centralized exchanges. Use that parent when the other market is a venue book, and use the Uniswap-versus-Sushi split when the other market is a forked AMM.
A UNI balance is a Uniswap governance position, and a Sushi headline is a different project's story, so keep the token check and the factory check separate. Burning UNI through Uniswap protocol fees, when those fees are on, still sends you no dividend you can withdraw.
If you wanted the buy decision itself, that sits off the versus-Sushi question. Whether to invest in crypto is the generic frame, while the Uniswap-side checks only name what UNI does on Uniswap versus a lookalike pool.
A venue UNI product is still a third screen even when both DEXes show UNI, which is why the BloFin listings sit beside either DEX.
UNI/USDT and UNIUSDT beside either DEX
UNI/USDT is BloFin spot, UNIUSDT is a USDT-margined perpetual, and UNIUSD is a separate inverse SWAP. A Uniswap pool is two reserves in a factory pair, and a Sushi-looking pool is still another market, so a fill on one leaves the other ledgers untouched.
BloFin has listed UNI/USDT on spot since January 15, 2024. Those listing dates are venue dates, separate from a Uniswap factory event and from a Sushi migration date.
BloFin lists two UNI perpetuals: UNIUSDT at up to 75x, listed January 12, 2023, and UNIUSD, an inverse contract settled in UNI, at up to 20x, listed June 27, 2025. Copying UNIUSDT's 75x onto UNIUSD mixes two listings, and copying either perpetual onto UNI/USDT mixes a derivative with spot.
You can hold UNI/USDT, a small UNIUSDT position, wallet UNI from a Uniswap pair, and wallet UNI from a Sushi-looking pair at the same time. The screens will all say UNI while the fills stay separate. Closing UNIUSDT credits or debits the venue, withdrawing UNI/USDT to a wallet is a transfer, and the pool swap is a later chain call.
| Product | What you hold | What that product settles |
|---|---|---|
| BloFin UNI/USDT | Venue spot balance | A listed cash-market fill |
| BloFin UNIUSDT | USDT-margined SWAP at 75x | Price exposure in quote |
| BloFin UNIUSD | Inverse SWAP at 20x, settle UNI | A second perpetual listing |
| Uniswap pair | Wallet UNI plus a factory pair | A Uniswap factory swap |
| Sushi-looking pair | Wallet UNI plus a different factory | A fork fill on Sushi's contracts |
Copying 75x onto a pool mixes a derivative with two token reserves, and copying a Sushi screenshot onto UNI/USDT mixes a fork fill with a listed book. Read the product on the screen you are about to confirm, and that product check is the last split before the purpose test.
When the Uniswap vs Sushi split applies
Use the Uniswap versus Sushi split when you needed a forked AMM, factory and UNI first, and use the parent CEX page when the other market was BloFin. PancakeSwap is another Uniswap-like fork family, named here as a third market a searcher can park, and which one fits depends on the purpose, with no single winner.
If you wanted UNI in a Uniswap factory pair, you read the pair hex and pay chain gas, while UNI that only had to match a Sushi-looking ticker can still sit off Uniswap's factory. A listed UNI/USDT fill with no chain call is BloFin, whose parent page owns that custody split.
A 2020 vampire headline is useful as a date and a poor live inventory, because Uniswap shipped later versions, fee votes, and UNI burns while Sushi shipped its own stack. Pancake farm steps and Sushi BentoBox walkthroughs belong on those projects' docs.
Suppose you still hold 90 UNI after a Sushi-looking output, then route that same ERC-20 into a Uniswap pair on the same chain. The hop is a transfer of UNI from one pair's output to another pair's input, so sequence does not merge the protocols. You still have two factories, two fee settings, and one governance token that only Uniswap's governor reads as UNI. The Sushi-looking pair did not become a Uniswap pair because you reused the coins.
You can use both DEXes in sequence, and that hop still merges none of the protocols. If the other market was a centralized book, the parent page is the comparison that matches.
Keep the test short: which factory created the pair, which fee switch you are quoting, and whether the UNI in hand can vote on Uniswap. If the screenshot was a Pancake deployment on BNB Chain, treat it as a third family and stop, and leave that project's farm runbook on that project's docs.
Common questions about Uniswap vs SushiSwap
If you paste the same 0x address into a Uniswap review and a Sushi review, is that the same UNI pool?
That hex is your wallet, because Uniswap's v2 factory creates and indexes its own pairs while a Sushi factory is a different deployer. Both screens can show UNI because UNI is one ERC-20, so you read the pair address on the confirmation. If the pair hex is a Uniswap factory pair you are on Uniswap. If it is a Sushi pair you are on the fork, while the same UNI can exit either pool.
If you deposit UNI to BloFin after a Sushi swap, does BloFin credit a Uniswap fill?
The venue credits UNI when the asset arrives on the network and any memo the deposit form named, and it reads neither "Sushi" nor "Uniswap" off the transfer. A screenshot of a Sushi confirmation is a poor substitute for a BloFin UNI/USDT listing, so you confirm the token, the chain, and the memo, then send a small test. A wrong network can park the coins even when the ticker looks right.
If your UNI is still inside a Sushi LP position, does Tally read that LP token as UNI?
The governor reads UNI balances it can see, and a Sushi pair share is a different ERC-20 from UNI, so leaving 90 UNI inside that position means Tally is looking past UNI in your signing wallet. Exit the position if you want those coins counted as UNI, then delegate before the proposal's start block, because the LP token is a pair share.
Does a PancakeSwap UNI pool turn this into a three-way vs page?
PancakeSwap is another Uniswap-like AMM family, and its docs list BNB Chain among deployment chains, while Uniswap's cluster has no versus-Pancake node. A Pancake UNI pool is still that project's pair, so the comparison stays Uniswap versus Sushi and does not grow a third versus column.
Does Tally 100's 11-chain v2/v3 list include Robinhood Chain?
Tally 100's eleven-chain v2/v3 recap omits Robinhood Chain, and Tally 99, executed the same calendar day, July 27, 2026, is the Robinhood v2/v3 expansion. That onchain vote covers v2 and v3 fees on Robinhood Chain (source: Tally, Uniswap proposal 99). v4 on Robinhood sits in Tally 100's subset, so count the executed text and skip adding a twelfth chain onto proposal 100.
If you are liquidated on UNIUSDT, does that close UNI sitting in a Sushi pair?
UNIUSDT is a BloFin SWAP, and a Sushi UNI pool is a pair contract, so liquidation on UNIUSDT is a venue engine event on that SWAP. It leaves UNI in a Sushi pair and UNI in a Uniswap pair in whatever wallet still holds the ERC-20. The reverse is also true: a thin Sushi pool can move your 90 UNI while UNIUSDT stays open. Read each product's close path.
After Sushi's September 9, 2020 14:10:32 UTC migration, did Uniswap v2 pairs halt?
Sushi's Migration FAQ said migration was possible from anytime after Wednesday September 9, 2020 at 14:10:32 UTC (source: Sushi, Migration FAQ). That timestamp moved Uniswap liquidity that had been staked in MasterChef. Uniswap's deployed core stayed in place and old Uniswap pairs kept running, so treat a 2020 Sushi headline as a migration date.
Does BloFin's UNI/USDT listing date tell you which Uniswap fee tier to use?
January 15, 2024 11:00 UTC is when this CEX spot market went live, and a Uniswap UNI/USDT pool still has a fee tier on a specific factory pair. The listing date leaves Uniswap fee tiers and Uniswap versions to the pair itself, so you read the pair's fee on the confirmation, then still match chain and pair hex.
Researched and written by the BloFin Academy editorial team with AI-assisted drafting. Updated September 2026. Primary sources: Decrypt's September 9, 2020 SushiSwap migration report, Uniswap v2 architecture docs, Uniswap fees docs, Uniswap UNI token docs, Uniswap How Uniswap Works docs, Tally Uniswap proposal 100, Tally Uniswap proposal 99, and Sushi's Migration FAQ. All facts independently verified against cited documentation current as of September 2026.
This article is educational and general in nature, not financial or investment advice. Cryptocurrencies like UNI carry real risks, including price volatility, smart-contract risk in pools, venue risk on an exchange balance, and the chance of losing funds to a lost seed, a fake token, or a lookalike factory pair. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy, sell, hold, or participate in any project. Do your own research, and consider speaking with a licensed professional before making financial decisions. BloFin does not provide investment advice.