Uniswap adds seven external liquidity sources as 0x warns of malicious hooks

The dispute over hook safety intensifies with Uniswap's founder calling it a 'skill issue' and 0x alleging trades deliver up to 50% less than quoted

By LineZotpaper

Published23 October 2026

Read Time3 min

Uniswap Labs launched aggregator hooks on Ethereum, Base and Robinhood Chain on Oct. 22, allowing its web app and API to route swaps through seven external liquidity venues including Curve, Fluid and PancakeSwap. The expansion comes as trading aggregator 0x continues to warn that malicious Uniswap v4 hooks can quote one price and settle at another, with one reported case of trades delivering 50% less than quoted.

Uniswap Labs has added seven external trading sources to its flagship interface, letting users access liquidity from Curve, Fluid, PancakeSwap and other venues through Uniswap-developed adapters. The move, announced Oct. 22, covers more than 90% of DEX activity on the three supported chains, according to Uniswap. Trades settle atomically in a single transaction and quotes refresh every block.

The launch comes amid an ongoing dispute over the safety of Uniswap v4 hooks. In September, trading aggregator 0x published research examining 84,163 hooks across six chains, classifying 19.4% as safe, 54.2% as malicious and 26.4% as "likely malicious." The study described malicious pools that display a favourable price during quote requests and behave differently at execution, with one Base hook recording 6,516 fills and $143,037 in fees. 0x reported a 50% shortfall between quoted and executed prices in some cases.

Uniswap founder Hayden Adams responded on Sept. 15, calling the issue a "skill issue" and arguing users should not route trades to bad hooks. He offered help to teams screening hooks and defended v4 hooks as a source of innovation. Paradigm's Dan Robinson echoed the sentiment in sharper terms, saying 0x's post should have been titled "0x routing made a mistake" and that routers should vet arbitrary hooks before treating them as liquidity.

0x has pushed back, with engineer Duncan Townsend saying 0x already used Uniswap's allowlist and alleged at least one malicious hook sat on it. Director of engineering Philip Liao cited a Robinhood Chain transaction, allegedly routed through Uniswap's interface, in which a malicious hook took 4.8% of one routing leg, or 1.2% of the overall trade.

Uniswap updated its routing guidance on Oct. 16, stating its router automatically considers most eligible hooks and requires manual allowlisting for hooks with certain permissions. The guidance says approval is a routing decision and leaves security audits outside its scope. OpenZeppelin's Oct. 8 audit of specific router changes documents optional per-hop slippage checks, which can be omitted.

The new adapters are Uniswap's own integrations, a different surface from the third-party hooks 0x analysed. Whether Uniswap screens the pools behind its adapters or vets the adapters themselves remains an open question.

Analysis

Why This Matters

Traders using Uniswap's aggregated routes may be exposed to malicious hooks that deliver worse prices than quoted, potentially losing funds.
The dispute between Uniswap and 0x highlights a broader industry tension between innovation (customizable hooks) and user protection against exploits.
With seven new external sources now available, the attack surface for deceptive pools widens, making the effectiveness of Uniswap's safeguards critical.

Background

Uniswap v4 introduced hooks, which allow developers to add custom logic to liquidity pools. This flexibility has attracted both legitimate builders and attackers who create pools that misrepresent prices. 0x, a competing aggregator that routes roughly 70% of its trades through Uniswap liquidity, has been publicly documenting malicious hooks. Uniswap and its backers at Paradigm argue that aggregators are responsible for vetting the hooks they route to.

Key Perspectives

Uniswap Labs and Paradigm: They argue that the onus is on aggregators to screen hooks and that Uniswap's own router already does so. They maintain hooks are a source of innovation and that bad actors can be avoided with proper vetting. 0x: The aggregator contends that its research shows malicious hooks are widespread and that even Uniswap's allowlist may not catch them. It calls for stronger protections at the protocol level. Critics/Skeptics: The lack of public execution-quality data from Uniswap and the optional nature of per-hop slippage checks leave room for doubt about whether safeguards are sufficient in practice.

What to Watch

Whether Uniswap publishes execution-quality data comparing quoted vs. executed prices across the new integrations.
Whether any deceptive pool reaches users through an adapter or allowlisted hook, turning the dispute from argument to reproducible losses.
Independent audits of the exact deployments of the new adapters and the default application of per-hop minimum-output checks.

Sources

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

Checked

12 claims in this story checked against 1 source: 11 supported.

Show each claim

SupportedUniswap added seven external liquidity sources as 0x warned about malicious hooks.CryptoSlate: “Uniswap Labs launched aggregator hooks on Ethereum, Base, and Robinhood Chain on Oct. 22, letting its web app and API route swaps through external liquidity from Curve, Fluid, PancakeSwap, and other venues.”
SupportedUniswap founder Hayden Adams called the hook-safety issue a “skill issue.”CryptoSlate: “Adams replied on Sept. 15 saying that it was a “skill issue,” arguing that users shouldn’t route trades to bad hooks.”
Supported0x reported trades delivering up to 50% less than quoted.CryptoSlate: “trading aggregator 0x reported that malicious Uniswap v4 hooks quoted one price and settled at another , with some trades delivering as much as 50% less than quoted .”
SupportedUniswap launched aggregator hooks on Ethereum, Base and Robinhood Chain on Oct. 22.CryptoSlate: “Uniswap Labs launched aggregator hooks on Ethereum, Base, and Robinhood Chain on Oct. 22”
SupportedThe launch lets Uniswap’s web app and API route swaps through seven external venues, including Curve, Fluid and PancakeSwap.CryptoSlate: “Uniswap says seven external sources are live at launch, covering more than 90% of DEX activity on the three chains.”
SupportedUniswap says the seven sources cover more than 90% of DEX activity on the three chains.CryptoSlate: “Uniswap says seven external sources are live at launch, covering more than 90% of DEX activity on the three chains.”
SupportedTrades through the new sources settle atomically in one transaction, and quotes refresh every block.CryptoSlate: “Quotes refresh every block, trades settle atomically in a single transaction, and users keep their existing approvals.”
Partly supportedThe 0x study examined 84,163 hooks across six chains and classified 19.4% safe, 54.2% malicious and 26.4% likely malicious.CryptoSlate: “0x's Sept. 14 research examined 84,163 hooks across six chains and, as of Sept. 11, classified 19.4% as safe, 54.2% as malicious and 26.4% as “likely malicious.””
SupportedOne Base hook recorded 6,516 fills and $143,037 in fees.CryptoSlate: “One Base hook recorded 6,516 fills and $143,037 in fees”
SupportedAdams argued users should not route trades to bad hooks.CryptoSlate: “Adams replied on Sept. 15 saying that it was a “skill issue,” arguing that users shouldn’t route trades to bad hooks.”
SupportedParadigm’s Dan Robinson said 0x’s post should have been titled “0x routing made a mistake.”CryptoSlate: “saying 0x's post should have been titled “0x routing made a mistake.””
Supported0x engineer Duncan Townsend said 0x used Uniswap’s allowlist and alleged a malicious hook was on it.CryptoSlate: “Engineer Duncan Townsend said 0x already used Uniswap's allowlist and alleged that at least one malicious hook sat on it.”