Source: Multicoin Capital Hyperliquid Analysis and Valuation Report; Compiled by: Golden Finance Claw

This report is divided into 10 parts: 1. Executive summary; 2. Hyperliquid architecture; 3. Market opportunities; 4. Hyperliquid development history; 5. Indicators and growth momentum; 6. Growth catalysts; 7. Risks; 8. HYPE token; 9. HYPE valuation; 10. Conclusion.

1. Executive Summary

We have long believed in the concept of "open finance" - that is, every unit of value should be interoperable, programmable, and composable on a distributed ledger. One of the most compelling expressions of this idea is to build a protocol that allows anyone, anywhere, to trade any asset. We believe that Hyperliquid is the most thorough implementation of this idea we have seen to date.

Hyperliquid is a vertically integrated Layer 1 blockchain and decentralized exchange (DEX) designed for high-speed trading. Its performance is comparable to centralized exchanges (CEXs): order confirmation times from co-located clients are around 200 milliseconds, its BTC perpetual contract order book is deeper than Binance within a few basis points around mid-price (in some cases), and most importantly, liquidity remains stable even on large trades. Unlike many other derivatives DEXs, Hyperliquid does not have an off-chain matching engine or hidden execution layer. Every order, transaction and settlement is completely conducted on the chain, and users always retain control of their assets.

Market microstructure helps traders decide where to send orders. Hyperliquid was built from the ground up and is designed to optimize trading microstructure, with features such as "order-cancellation priority" and native "order-only limit orders" that protect market makers from toxic order flow, thereby improving liquidity. Liquidation uses oracle prices submitted by validators, and the chain checks for solvency before producing each new block. Because Hyperliquid controls both the execution environment and the application layer, it can achieve things that are simply not possible on general-purpose chains.

The numbers speak for themselves: Hyperliquid had about 301,000 users and about $2 billion in open interest (OI) at the beginning of 2025. By the end of the year, the number of users grew to approximately 923,000, and OI reached approximately $6 billion. For the full year of 2025, Hyperliquid generated approximately US$873 million in revenue and processed approximately US$2.9 trillion in transaction volume, becoming the largest derivatives DEX to date and one of the fastest-growing financial applications in history. Crucially, 99% of protocol revenue is used to buy back and effectively destroy HYPE, making it one of the strongest examples of value capture in crypto today.

Multicoin has a track record of identifying, evaluating from first principles and investing early in major exchanges poised for explosive growth. For example, in February 2019, we issued a bullish report when Binance’s native token BNB was trading around $10. Then a follow-up article was published in November 2019 when BNB was around $20. At the time, Binance was already the dominant CEX, but the market underestimated the speed of its liquidity compounding, product coverage expansion, and BNB’s ability to capture value beyond traditional equity. BNB is trading at around $563 today.

We see Hyperliquid following a similar path. It is the first derivatives DEX to match the quality of CEX products without giving up self-custody or on-chain transparency, making it the most credible challenger to Binance we have ever seen. Moreover, it is not only taking share from existing market players, but also absorbing trading volume that is not originally on any exchange. Hyperliquid is starting to emerge as a trusted price discovery venue for 24/7 event-driven synthetic markets, as evidenced by crude oil trading activity during the U.S.-Iran conflict, as well as pre-IPO and open market asset transactions such as Cerebras and SpaceX.

From a marketing perspective, Hyperliquid is also completely different from CEX. Its "Builder Codes" and HIP-3 deployers are two important innovations in its customer acquisition strategy; They allow third-party developers to deploy localized trading interfaces, effectively turning Hyperliquid into a "headless exchange." Builder code and HIP-3 deployers help Hyperliquid outsource distribution and user acquisition, reducing costs while firmly controlling the liquidity layer to protect liquidity and value capture.

At a price of about $63, we believe the market has seriously underestimated HYPE and viewed it too narrowly as just a fast-growing perpetual contract DEX. In our base case, we expect HYPE to generate annualized earnings of approximately US$8 billion by 2028, which corresponds to a price of approximately US$319 based on a price-to-earnings ratio of 20 times. Additionally, our baseline scenario does not yet fully factor in several significant catalysts, such as HIP-4, HyperEVM, builder code distribution, or the impact of portfolio margin on the main product.

In short, we believe Hyperliquid is transforming into an "exchange for everything": a fully integrated, 24/7 exchange capable of trading any asset, anytime, anywhere, with a durable token value capture mechanism. Multicoin has been actively buying HYPE since February and it is now one of the largest positions in our liquid hedge funds.

2. Hyperliquid architecture

At its core, Hyperliquid is a Layer 1 blockchain built for speed, throughput, and low cost. It adopts a proof-of-stake (PoS) model and a self-developed HyperBFT consensus to push the performance limits of decentralized systems. The goal is to make on-chain derivatives transactions as fast, reliable, and liquid as CEX. From the consensus mechanism to the fee structure, every major design choice serves this goal.

Many of Hyperliquid’s design decisions were made with derivatives DEX in mind. A few notable examples include:

1. The chain allows for native trade prioritization of specific order types, such as "publish-cancel" orders and "publish-only" limit orders, which helps prevent market makers from being negatively affected by adverse selections.

2. Position liquidation is based on oracle prices submitted directly by Hyperliquid validators, thereby reducing the risk of oracle manipulation and price delays.

3. The chain itself reads the current status of DEX and determines solvency before executing new blocks, which ensures the integrity of the exchange and enhances trader confidence.

We applaud the Hyperliquid team for making some very firm and even "arbitrary" design decisions to further optimize the trading application. Every era in crypto is defined by teams that challenge the status quo and make decisions that seem restrictive relative to previous generations. These decisions bring trade-offs, but push the industry from general-purpose to specialized.

HyperBFT

At the consensus layer, Hyperliquid runs HyperBFT, a custom algorithm derived from HotStuff and optimized for transaction load. Its pipeline architecture supports concurrent transaction processing, delivering a median end-to-end latency of approximately 0.2 seconds for co-located clients and a 99th percentile latency of less than 0.9 seconds. Transactions are finalized within a block, so users do not face the probabilistic confirmation windows or common reorganization dynamics common to many other chains.

Latency is critical in trading. Market makers need real-time information and if the chain is slow or unpredictable, they will widen the spread to avoid losses from adverse choices. Reducing this uncertainty results in tighter spreads, deeper order books, and better deals for everyone. This speed is the main reason Hyperliquid is able to support CEX-like liquidity. As shown in the chart below, its BTC perpetual contracts order book has historically performed better than Binance in the narrowest range around the mid-price.

HyperCore

The trading engine runs on HyperCore, a Rust-based system that puts the entire order book on-chain. HyperCore handles everything, from placing orders, canceling orders, matching transactions, managing margins to liquidation, all done directly on the chain. It currently processes 200,000 orders per second, and the team hopes to eventually push this to over one million.

HyperCore contains multiple features specifically designed for perpetual contracts. "Pending-withdrawal" orders receive the highest priority, allowing market makers to quickly withdraw quotes and limit losses when prices change. "Pending orders only" limit orders are also directly supported at the protocol layer. For liquidation, HyperCore uses the oracle price submitted by validators as the mark price, rather than relying on short-term fluctuations in its own order book. On top of that, margin and liquidation rules are enforced locally by the chain in each block (effectively checking solvency), rather than by a separate off-chain risk engine.

This is what sets Hyperliquid apart. On most blockchains, transaction applications are just one of many primitives competing for block space and priority. Hyperliquid is built around the exchange itself so the order book does not have to compete with other unrelated activity or gas spikes on the network. On-chain resources are 100% dedicated to transactions.

HyperEVM

HyperEVM is a fully EVM-compatible smart contract environment protected by the HyperBFT consensus like HyperCore. HyperEVM is not an independent chain or rollup; it shares state and consensus with HyperCore. Smart contracts on HyperEVM can use read precompilation to access the real-time status of the central limit order book (CLOB), such as price, position and margin data. When HyperCore updates the BTC price, HyperEVM immediately reflects the change without cross-domain messaging or additional delays.

This dual execution model solves the composability challenge. HyperCore delivers trading performance unmatched by general-purpose EVMs, while HyperEVM provides programmability for third-party teams to build lending protocols, vaults, structured products, and other financial applications on top of the exchange’s liquidity and data. As of early 2026, more than 175 teams have deployed on HyperEVM, including HyperLend, Silhouette, Felix and Kinetiq.

The architecture is designed to combine the performance of specialized transaction chains with the developer reach of EVM-compatible platforms while minimizing the usual trade-offs. This work is still in its early stages, and interoperability between HyperCore and HyperEVM is one of the key catalysts we will continue to focus on. The current ecosystem is still immature compared to Ethereum or Solana. If HyperCore and HyperEVM are successfully integrated, Hyperliquid may bring something completely new: combining exchanges, risk engines and general application layers on a unified chain.

3. Market opportunities

We published an article in 2020 titled "Trade-offs in the Derivatives DEX Sector", which wrote:

"One of the greatest innovations in modern financial markets is that traders can gain financial exposure to an asset without actually taking delivery of that asset - that is, synthetic exposure. This greatly expands the range of traders who can trade in a given market, especially for assets that are difficult to deliver. This is desirable because increasing traders and capital in a given market helps reduce volatility and improve liquidity.

We believe that the biggest and most profitable opportunity in DeFi is to create a protocol that allows anyone in the world to trade any asset. We’ve been calling this idea internally a “decentralized perpetual contracts exchange” for over a year. A decentralized exchange protocol supporting synthetic assets is compelling for the following reasons:

1. No centralized exchange operator, so long-term fees are lower

2. Cross-border permissionless access

3. Resistant to censorship, no one can close the exchange

4. No counterparty risk because users hold their own funds

5. No withdrawal limits and/or transaction size limits

6. Exchange rules cannot be changed unilaterally

7. Any asset with a public price feed can be traded”

Today, derivatives dominate crypto trading. In 2025, crypto derivatives will total approximately $85.7 trillion. Perpetual contracts account for approximately 75% of total crypto trading volume and more than 90% of derivatives activity. Perpetual contracts are one of the most important financial instruments in the crypto field.

The reason is simple. Perpetual contracts never expire, so traders don’t need to constantly roll over their positions. Since they are entirely synthetic products, the same collateral pool can be used to trade a wide range of assets. Funding rates keep prices close to spot, while leverage is typically much higher than spot margin markets. These advantages make perpetual contracts the dominant product on CEX. Even if spot margin is available, traders usually prefer perpetual contracts.

Perpetual contracts are already a mature product on CEX, and trading is concentrated on a few exchanges. In 2025, Binance processed $25.1 trillion in derivatives trading volume, accounting for approximately 30% of the global market. The top four exchanges—Binance, OKX, Bybit, and Bitget—collectively handle more than 60% of derivatives activity. These platforms offer deep liquidity, fast execution, and a wide range of products. But users must give up custody of their collateral, accept counterparty risk, and trade in an environment where execution and risk management are mostly opaque.

These concerns are no longer theoretical. Mt. Gox, FTX, Genesis, Celsius, BlockFi, and Voyager are all relevant examples where centralized crypto intermediaries have failed due to poor risk management or security issues. On the other hand, blue-chip DeFi platforms such as Aave, Maker, Compound, dYdX and others have never experienced any opaque insolvency in the crisis defined by the failure of the previous generation of CeFi.

The growth of derivatives DEX

Derivatives DEX have grown from almost zero to a considerable share of trading volume in just a few years. In 2022, DEX will actually account for 0% of global perpetual contract trading volume. As of June 2026, the proportion is close to 16%.

There are several reasons for this shift. First, the lack of trust in CeFi after 2022 is structural, not cyclical. The collapse of FTX, Celsius, Voyager, BlockFi, and Genesis destroyed tens of billions of dollars in customer deposits and permanently changed how traders viewed counterparty risk. Derivatives are particularly exposed: Unlike spot trading, derivatives require collateral to be stored on an exchange for an extended period of time, making custody risk most severe where trading volumes are highest. On the other hand, protocols such as Aave, Maker, dYdX and Compound have survived the worst period of 2022 without any insolvency events, an experience that has left a deep impression on traders.

Secondly, public blockchains have accelerated significantly. Solana, Monad, BNB Chain and more now achieve sub-second finality and can process thousands of orders per second. More importantly, application-specific chains built specifically for derivatives (Hyperliquid, Lighter, Paradox, and Aster) have become the dominant architecture for perpetual contracts.

Frankly, the point we made in the DRIFT report a few years ago was that derivatives DEX on application-specific chains would lose out to derivatives DEX on public chains due to poor composability. We were wrong. In hindsight, we overestimated the importance of broad composability to a derivatives trading platform. The most important financial primitives remain spot trading, lending, and derivatives trading; beyond that, universal composability is less important than execution quality, latency, liquidity, and risk management for perpetual contract exchange selection.

We also didn’t expect that cross-chain user experience and cross-chain bridges would improve significantly, but they did. Phantom (currently the most popular self-hosted wallet in crypto with approximately 17 million monthly active users) launched native perpetual contract trading in July 2025 using Hyperliquid’s builder code. MetaMask is not far behind. Now, for example, if you have ETH in MetaMask, you can open a leveraged BTC perpetual contract on Hyperliquid directly within your wallet. The app handles the conversion of ETH to USDC, transfers funds to Hyperliquid’s settlement layer, and sends orders to the main exchange, all in one step. A user’s choice of their “main chain” no longer limits their ability to obtain derivatives. Instead, what matters now is where she can find the best liquidity and execution, and integrations with every major wallet help distribute Hyperliquid’s order book.

We also underestimated the importance of market microstructure. Perpetual contracts require deterministic ordering, extremely low latency, high-throughput order placement and cancellation capabilities, and protection against toxic order flow and MEV. These capabilities help build lasting liquidity advantages and attract third-party order flow engines. These engines send taker flow to exchanges, which in turn attracts more bidders, a cycle that causes application-specific chains to steadily gain a larger share of DeFi perpetual contracts over time.

Third, CEXs have become more cautious about launching new markets because legal, compliance and internal processes can slow things down. In contrast, derivatives DEXs can add new assets in minutes or hours, often without approval. When new tokens emerge or major events spark interest in new synthetic markets, derivatives DEXs are often the first to be offered. After users create a wallet and deposit funds, they tend to stay and trade other major assets because their funds are already there. The biggest challenge is getting users to join the platform in the first place, and getting online quickly is one of the most effective ways to attract users.

Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, CEXs are increasingly restricting access by jurisdiction. Binance, for example, has blocked dozens of countries, and US users are excluded from most offshore perpetual contracts platforms (where the vast majority of liquidity is located). Another important data point is that Reuters recently reported that Binance may lose its license to operate in the European Union as early as July 2026. DeFi protocols have always remained permissionless at the protocol level, even if some front-ends geo-block specific regions. For billions of users in underserved jurisdictions, on-chain derivatives may be the only viable path to financial inclusion.

As confidence in CeFi wanes and new application-specific derivatives chains offer better liquidity, faster listings, and truly permissionless access, we believe derivatives DEXs will continue to take market share from CeFi in the coming years.

4. Hyperliquid development history

Hyperliquid is one of the most interesting stories in crypto, and arguably in the broader technology space. The origin of this idea was born from the FTX crash. Jeff Yan studied mathematics and computer science at Harvard University, won an International Physics Olympiad gold medal, and worked on low-latency trading system development at Hudson River Trading. In 2020, he later ran Chameleon Trading, a crypto market-making agency. After the FTX crash in November 2022, he quickly recognized a clear opportunity: traders wanted a platform that offered the same performance as CEX but allowed them to retain control of their assets. The problem was, there were no existing blockchains that could support what he wanted to build.

By the end of 2022, Jeff and his co-founder—a distributed systems engineer who goes by the pseudonym iliensinc—evaluated existing blockchains and CEX. In their opinion, none came close to the latency or throughput required for a truly decentralized trading engine, so they decided to build their own chain. Within three months, they had a custom Layer 1 chain capable of running fully on-chain CLOBs.

Hyperliquid will be launched at the end of February 2023. The early months were not glamorous. The user base was mostly NFT collectors with little experience in perpetual contract trading. They placed orders of $10 and tried leverage in simulated trading competitions. There are no professional users or market makers, and several companies have approached the team, one of which calls itself the "Kingmaker" and insists that Hyperliquid will not succeed if it does not pay to buy liquidity. But the team stood their ground and refused to pay anyone.

Instead, in May 2023, they will deploy Chameleon’s successful strategy into an on-chain vault called HLP. Anyone can deposit, there are no fees and no holding fees. The vault runs automated market-making strategies that solve the cold-start liquidity problem that kills most new exchanges. This allows Hyperliquid to offer tight spreads and deep execution from day one without having to pay market makers or use token incentives. HLP currently holds approximately US$282 million in assets and has generated approximately US$136 million in profits and losses for depositors since its inception.

In 2023, the team will continue to iterate rapidly. By September of that year, the market makers that had demanded payment began to show up. Among them, one of the largest market makers on Binance, who had been cautious about new platforms after FTX, met Jeff at a conference in Singapore and started quoting on Hyperliquid soon after.

In November 2023, Hyperliquid launched a points program, but not in the traditional sense. Most points programs publish transparent formulas that are almost immediately exploited by professional "farmers," but Hyperliquid's program does not publish a formula. Every Friday, iliensinc announces the points distribution for the week, forming a ritual in Discord where users compare rewards and speculate on the system. The end result is that the program rewards real use rather than wage-based “farming.”

On November 29, 2024, Hyperliquid launched its native token HYPE through one of the largest airdrops in crypto history. 310 million tokens (31% of total supply) are distributed directly to early users, fully unlocked, with no lock-up period. Importantly, there is no VC allocation. Some individual users have received up to approximately $9.5 million in HYPE. At the time of distribution, the airdrop was worth over $620 million; as the price increased, it is now approximately $19 billion. The airdrop not only rewards early users but also creates a loyal community with a direct financial stake in the success of the protocol. As Multicoin has said many times: the best way to build a crypto community is for many people to make a little money, and Hyperliquid does that with airdrops.

In the year after the airdrop, more than 600,000 new users joined, and monthly revenue grew from approximately US$10 million in December 2024 to approximately US$55 million in December 2025. This was all achieved without external capital and by a team of about a dozen people.

We believe that resilience is one of the most important qualities of a great founder. Jeff built Hyperliquid during the harshest bear market in crypto history. He launched the product at a time when many people had lost faith in crypto and DeFi and market sentiment was near a local bottom. He also made some choices that seemed contrarian at the time, such as refusing to pay market makers and using profits from his own trading to fund the project rather than raising outside capital from investors who might not be aligned with the project's goals over the long term. Each choice went against the prevailing wisdom at the time, and each one was later proven correct.

5. Indicators and Growth Momentum

2025 is the year Hyperliquid will achieve breakthroughs on every metric. The platform had approximately 301,000 users and approximately US$2 billion in OI at the beginning of the year. By the end of the year, the user base grew to approximately 923,000, OI reached approximately $6 billion, and the platform processed approximately $2.9 trillion in transaction volume. Over the past 12 months, Hyperliquid generated approximately $869 million in profits attributed to token holders, making it one of the most profitable exchanges in the crypto space, including CeFi and DeFi.

For context, Hyperliquid’s annualized revenue now consistently exceeds that of all other Layer 1s including Tron, Solana, and Ethereum.

Monthly trading volume has grown approximately 100x since launch and has maintained good compound growth despite the macro backdrop and falling crypto prices.

Monthly revenue increased from approximately US$10 million in December 2024 to approximately US$49 million in January 2025, peaked at more than US$120 million in August 2025, and ended at approximately US$55 million in December 2025. Monthly revenue has since normalized to about $49 million, given the broader market backdrop.

Competition in the DeFi perpetual contract market will intensify significantly during 2025. In the first half of the year, Hyperliquid held about 70% to 80% of the market share. In September, its share fell to about 10%. At that time, Aster, which was supported by YZi Labs (formerly Binance Labs) and endorsed by CZ, saw its trading volume jump to about 70% after launching its token. Lighter (still in private beta at the time) accounted for about 15%.

But this situation is mostly short-lived. By January 2026, Hyperliquid had returned to the top of the DeFi derivatives space, with a weekly trading volume of approximately $40.7 billion. Hyperliquid’s current monthly trading volume is approximately $237 billion, while Aster is approximately $61 billion and Lighter is approximately $44 billion.

As of June 2026, it controls more than 59% of OI in the DeFi perpetual contract market. It’s important to note the difference between volume and OI: incentive-driven volume is short-lived, but liquidity depth and execution quality are long-lasting. Volume can be inflated through wash trading, points farming, and traders trading both ways to accumulate rewards. OI reflects traders holding real positions and real capital at risk, which is a stickier and more meaningful signal of real usage.

As of June 2026, Hyperliquid’s OI is approximately US$9.6 billion, while Aster is approximately US$1.9 billion and Lighter is approximately US$807 million. In fact, Hyperliquid’s OI alone exceeds all major on-chain competitors combined.

As of June 23, 2026, Hyperliquid also dominates liquidity in on-chain competition:

We looked at liquidation data during the February 2026 market decline and found a clear asymmetry. Aster and Lighter have much lower liquidation values ​​than Hyperliquid relative to their reported trading volumes. If traders on these platforms held true directional risk (as they do on Binance and Hyperliquid), we would expect liquidations to be proportional to their trading volume, but the reality is far from that. The trading volume of Aster/Lighter is close to Hyperliquid, but the liquidation volume is only about 1/17 to 1/37 of Hyperliquid. A more likely explanation is: This "high volume + low liquidation" pattern usually indicates that a large portion of the volume may come from: incentive-driven cycle trading (points/airdrop farming), market maker self-dealing/quasi-wash trading, or volume inflation caused by different reporting methods. Conclusion (objective): Hyperliquid shows stronger consistency between volume, OI and liquidations – a better signal of real activity.

This strongly suggests that a significant portion of Aster and Lighter trading volume comes from mutual trading between market makers or users farming points on both sides of the order book, rather than organic trading activity. We also saw this pattern after the Lighter airdrop: once token incentives disappeared, its trading volume market share plummeted by 50% within six months. TVL and fees generally dropped after the airdrop.

Hyperliquid vs. Binance (and other CEX)

What makes Hyperliquid’s growth momentum particularly notable is that its success extends far beyond DeFi. In fact, it is starting to take significant market share from CEX. Monthly perpetual contract trading volume is now around 17% of Binance’s, compared to almost zero two years ago, and OI has reached around 21%. A DEX reaching this scale relative to Binance would have been unimaginable a few years ago. As shown in the figure below, Hyperliquid has steadily taken share from Binance since its launch:

This is not because Binance is shrinking or losing CeFi market share. Binance processed $25.1 trillion in derivatives trading volume in 2025 and remains the world’s largest crypto derivatives exchange by a wide margin. Rather, it's because Hyperliquid is gaining share in a growing market and is competing with all CEXs:

There are several reasons for this. First, execution quality is a key driver. Blockworks recently released analysis showing that Hyperliquid’s order book on BTC perpetual contracts is tighter than Binance’s within a few basis points around the mid-price, and provides better execution on large trades. At ±1 basis point from the mid-point, Hyperliquid shows a depth of about $3.1 million, while Binance has about $2.3 million. At ±2 basis points, the gap widens further: approximately $5.8 million versus approximately $4.1 million. There are some nuances in the market microstructure, and we are not claiming that Hyperliquid is always more liquid than Binance. But the fact that the two are essentially at the same level speaks for itself, especially considering Binance’s long-standing dominance in liquidity. For professional traders and market makers, this depth and tightness determines where they send their order flow, and the answer is increasingly Hyperliquid.

What is impressive is that Hyperliquid does all this without controlling user funds like CEXs such as Binance, OKX, Bybit and others. Every order, trade, liquidation and position on Hyperliquid is recorded on-chain and can be verified by anyone. This kind of post-trade transparency is something CEX cannot provide.

The JELLY incident in March 2025 is an instructive example. One trader attempted to manipulate the JELLYJELLY token, a meme coin with low liquidity, by opening a large short position on Hyperliquid while driving up spot prices on other platforms. When the short was liquidated, HLP took over a toxic position that briefly showed approximately $13.5 million in unrealized losses. Afterwards, the validators gathered together and voted to delist the JELLY perpetual contract market and settle all positions at the pre-manipulation price. Affected users were compensated through the Hyper Foundation, and HLP ended the day with a profit of approximately $700,000.

On the one hand, skeptics can assert that this shows that the system is centralized, and they are not entirely wrong. A small set of validators making discretionary decisions on settlement prices is a real centralization concern that we will discuss later in the risk section. But the more important point is how it happens. Manipulation, validator voting, settlement prices, and compensation plans all take place publicly and in real time on-chain. Anyone in the world can verify what exactly happened and why. The attacker's wallet, position size, timeline, and final resolution are all visible within minutes. This transparency also provides traders with information to decide whether to continue using the platform after seeing how it reacts in certain high-pressure situations.

There was another incident a few weeks ago where a whale opened an approximately $340 million ETH long position with 50x leverage and then withdrew the collateral to deliberately trigger a liquidation. She walked away with about $1.8 million, and HLP absorbed losses of about $4 million. Importantly, the system worked as designed and the team responded immediately by reducing the maximum leverage for BTC and ETH. The community can transparently see what happened and the team's response.

On the other hand, if something similar happened on Binance, absolutely no one would know about it. CEX has long faced accusations of betting against its customers, tolerating wash trading, making opaque decisions on liquidation and loss sharing, and seizing customer funds for making positive expected value trades. Whether these are true and which exchanges are involved is actually not critical. The key is that you can't verify it either way because all data is stored on private servers controlled by CEX.

Transparency is not just a philosophical nice-to-have, it is actually a practical benefit that compounds over time. First, market makers can verify that they are not front-running and traders can audit the clearing mechanism. Additionally, regulators can examine the complete history of any market they want. As institutional capital moves on-chain, they will increasingly demand verifiable execution and transparent post-trade reporting, and Hyperliquid has a unique advantage over CEX competitors in this regard. For those who believe that institutions don’t want their trading activities to be public, preferring to use confidential systems (the complete opposite of Hyperliquid’s aggressive transparency), there’s no reason why Hyperliquid could eventually offer a dark pool product as well.

6. Growth Catalysts

Catalyst 1—HIP-3: License-Free Market

Hyperliquid Improvement Proposal 3 (HIP-3) will be launched in October 2025 and is the most important upgrade on the network to date. Prior to HIP-3, the creation of new markets was governed by validators, deciding which assets could be listed and setting key parameters. With HIP-3, deployment on HyperCore becomes permissionless. Any entity staking at least 500,000 HYPE (approximately $31.5 million as of June 2026) can deploy the new perpetual contract market, with full control over oracle configuration, leverage limits, and risk settings. The fee is split 50/50 between the deployer and the protocol, and the deployer will be at risk of having their staked HYPE slashed if their market causes protocol degradation or problems.

This is a fundamental shift for the exchange as it expands the platform from crypto-native perpetual contracts to a broader venue for trading any asset that can be synthetically represented. Throughout the history of DeFi, much of the activity has been self-referential and endogenous to the crypto ecosystem. People trade cryptoassets for cryptoassets, borrow cryptoassets using cryptoassets as collateral, and construct derivatives based on cryptoprices. But with HIP-3, we are now starting to see meaningful trading activity on non-crypto assets.

Synthetic derivatives are ubiquitous in traditional finance because many traders are more concerned with gaining exposure to an asset than actually owning that asset.如果交易者想投机苹果公司，他不必买入AAPL股票。他想要直接的敞口、高效的杠杆和明确的退出方式。对于投机黄金的散户交易者、对冲外汇风险的财资部门，或锁定未来生产价格的大宗商品生产商，同样如此。

传统金融的交易量远远超过加密领域。如果Hyperliquid能够吸引那些不关心BTC、ETH、SOL、HYPE等加密资产，而只是想要一个交易石油或白银风险场所的传统交易者，其可寻址市场将扩大数个数量级。

Trade[XYZ]由Unit背后的独立团队构建，是最高产的HIP-3部署者，目前约占OI的90%。其市场现在包括WTI和布伦特原油、黄金、白银、标普500、纳斯达克和个股的永续合约。 2026年3月18日，标普道琼斯指数正式授权Trade[XYZ]使用标普500指数，称其为“第一个也是唯一一个官方授权”的标普500永续合约。虽然公开公告并未确认永久性合同独占权，但Trade[XYZ]在上线时是唯一的授权提供方，我们认为这很重要。该协议是一个重要信号，表明Hyperliquid生态系统能够赢得主要金融机构的信任。

HIP-3的增长势头惊人。 HIP-3的OI在上线后仅六个月内从几乎为零增长至超过29亿美元，增长了100倍以上。 Trade[XYZ]上排名前30的市场中不到一半是加密市场，其余是大宗商品、股票和指数。在高峰日，HIP-3市场占Hyperliquid全部交易活动的近一半，目前占Hyperliquid整体OI的33%。

HIP-3在2026年2月底伊朗冲突期间非常清晰地证明了其价值。在美国-以色列空袭导致油价上涨30%后，传统大宗商品交易所周末休市。交易者随后利用Hyperliquid的WTI永续合约作为唯一流动性充足、全球可访问的实时油价发现场所，而传统大宗商品交易所已关闭。 CL-USDC日交易量超过12亿美元，短暂超越ETH永续合约成为平台第二大市场。我们不认为这只是一次性事件。 Hyperliquid在危机期间充当了关键的金融基础设施，因为它全天候运行，而CME和ICE则不然。

下面是华尔街日报报道快照：

近期，在HIP-3生态中还发生了另外两件值得关注的事件。首先，在Cerebras于纳斯达克IPO期间，交易所场内的一位摩根士丹利交易员屏幕上打开了Hyperliquid（Trade[XYZ]）的Cerebras上市前交易图表。这表明Hyperliquid正成为新资产进入公开市场时的真实价格发现引擎。同样，在SpaceX IPO期间，SPCX的上市前及随后上市后的市场成为Hyperliquid上交易量第二大的资产，交易额超过10亿美元。附带一提，即使在IPO初期的热潮过后，交易量仍持续保持高位。从客户获取的角度看，SpaceX IPO当天，Hyperliquid上新建钱包的数量也出现了10倍的增长。

催化因素2——HIP-4：预测市场和期权

HIP-4于2026年初宣布，允许用户在HyperCore上直接构建预测市场和期权。此次升级增加了基于结果的合约，这些是完全抵押的金融工具，具有确定的收益结构和固定日期。这些合约不依赖保证金或清算，成为预测市场和期权交易的核心功能。

我们认为这两个类别在DeFi中难以找到产品市场契合度有两个主要原因：性能限制和缺乏分销。通用L1和L2通常缺乏这些产品所需的速度和容量。大多数期权协议和预测市场也是作为独立应用构建的，与交易者已经持有抵押品和未平仓头寸的现有场所分离。

HIP-4解决了这两个问题。在Hyperliquid上，预测市场和期权的运行速度与HyperCore交易引擎一样快且可靠，所有这些都在一个已经拥有深度流动性、众多活跃用户和准备用于保证金的资本的交易所内。交易者可以使用其永续合约头寸中的抵押品参与预测市场，无需将资金转移到别处。 Polymarket等独立平台无法提供这种跨保证金。

这里的TAM非常巨大。预测市场目前每月交易量约210亿美元。加密期权在高峰期间月交易量超过1800亿美元，Coinbase以29亿美元收购Deribit，表明了该市场可能的价值。如果Hyperliquid能在这两个类别中复制其在永续合约上的一小部分成功，收入机会将是可观的，尤其是因为两者都可能支持比核心永续合约业务更高的费率。

催化因素3——投资组合保证金

投资组合保证金可能是Hyperliquid最被低估的催化因素。 这是CEX上多年来的标准功能，但在链上实施更难。

投资组合保证金允许用户统一使用其全部保证金余额，而不是为每个头寸分别分配。例如，如果Alice同时做多BTC和做空ETH，她可能不必为两笔交易分别提供全额抵押品。系统可以看到这些头寸相互抵消且相关，因此释放她的一部分资本。此外，Hyperliquid上任何未使用的投资组合保证金余额，在她不交易时会自动通过借贷协议产生收益，使她的资本更高效运作。

基差交易（由Ethena的USDe稳定币推广）在启用投资组合保证金后资本效率大大提高。例如，假设Alice持有1个BTC现货，并以杠杆做空1个BTC-USDC永续合约。如果BTC朝任一方向大幅波动，她的一个头寸将处于价内，另一个将亏损（如果亏损的是高杠杆永续头寸，她可能被清算）。但有了投资组合保证金，她的统一抵押品核算将识别现货多头仓位的正盈亏并释放抵押品，从而不会清算她。这种模式适用于各种专业交易公司进行的套利交易。

在HIP-3、HIP-4和Hyperliquid核心交易所市场之间也存在重要的跨保证金机会。 BTC越来越多地作为宏观资产交易，其价格受流动性、利率、通胀、风险偏好、ETF流量和美元驱动。但表达这些观点仍要求交易者将头寸分散在多个场所。交易者可能在加密永续合约交易所做多BTC，通过E*TRADE对冲股票敞口，在别处管理利率，并使用Kalshi或Polymarket管理事件风险。 Hyperliquid有机会将这些市场整合到一个风险引擎下，让交易者在一个地方管理相关头寸和抵押品。

一个简单的例子是用BTC对股票进行交易。希望做多BTC同时对冲更广泛市场风险的交易者，可以将BTC永续头寸与HIP-3纳斯达克市场或标普500永续合约的空头头寸配对。为了对硬通货采取更强立场，她可以同时做多BTC和黄金，同时做空股票。如果她担心实际收益率上升可能给BTC带来压力，她可以将BTC多头与利率或国债期货空头结合。这些都是宏观交易，当两边在同一场所进行保证金交易而非分散在不同场所时，资本效率会大大提高。

HIP-4带来了额外的优势，因为许多重大宏观风险来自特定事件。例如，BTC交易者可以在FOMC会议、高CPI报告或10年期收益率变化期间，使用结果市场进行对冲，同时将她的主要BTC头寸保留在同一平台。做市商也能从中受益。如果某人在这些事件市场中报价，他们可以在同一账户内用BTC、ETH、黄金、纳斯达克、石油或利率进行对冲。这应有助于使这些市场更高效、更实用。

催化因素4——Coinbase协议

Hyperliquid去年进行了一次“烘焙比赛”以选择原生稳定币合作伙伴。 Native Markets，一家Hyperliquid生态系统公司，赢得了该过程并推出了USDH。想法很简单：Hyperliquid有数十亿美元的稳定币抵押品存放在交易所上，历史上这些浮存金的大部分经济价值通过USDC归于Circle和Coinbase。 USDH是首次尝试将部分收入带回Hyperliquid生态系统。

5月，Coinbase介入并提出了一版更好的协议。该协议被接受，Coinbase现已成为Hyperliquid上官方USDC国库部署者。 Native Markets目前正在过渡出该角色，Coinbase有权收购USDH品牌资产。因此，Hyperliquid保留了用户已经了解和信任的USDC作为抵押品，同时重新获得了此前完全归Circle和Coinbase的浮存金经济价值的绝大部分。

这很重要，原因有二。首先，这是真实收入。具体数字尚未披露，但Aligned Quote Asset文件提到约90%的收入分成。按Hyperliquid上约61.3亿美元的USDC抵押品和3.65%的总国库收益率计算，90%的收入分成意味着每年超过2亿美元的年化收入归入代币。

其次，这表明Hyperliquid能够达成严肃的商业协议。这始于社区与小型原生发行方的“烘焙比赛”，一年后他们直接与Coinbase谈判，并重构了平台上稳定币的经济模式。这是一个重要的证明，表明他们正越来越多地像一个严肃的金融交易所一样运作，拥有真正的业务拓展杠杆。

催化因素5——构建者代码

构建者代码允许第三方前端将订单流路由到Hyperliquid核心交易所，以换取一定比例的费用。实际上，Hyperliquid将分销外包，同时保留流动性层。任何钱包、交易应用或聚合器都可以连接到同一底层CLOB，并赚取其产生收入的一部分。

如今最大的构建者代码运营商包括Phantom、MetaMask、Insilico、Based和Hyperdash，共同为Hyperliquid带来每日约中九位数的交易量。仅Phantom就拥有超过1700万月活用户，其Hyperliquid集成自2025年7月上线以来累计永续合约交易量已超过430亿美元，为其业务产生了约2200万美元的收入。

到目前为止，构建者代码尚未像HIP-3那样取得轰动性成功。但要素已经具备。历史上加密领域大多数前端赚钱的方式是充当经纪商和/或交易所。正如我们在多个场合所说，交易是本行业最赚钱的业务。对我们来说，大多数钱包、数字银行、前端、聚合器等都希望其用户能够访问永续合约，这似乎是必然的。与其从头构建一个全新的衍生品DEX、获取流动性（很可能还要付费）、被代币分散注意力等，所有这些订单流引擎运营商都可以将流量路由到最具流动性的永续合约交易所，而这毫无疑问是Hyperliquid。

这种模式在战略上对Hyperliquid非常有利，因为核心团队不需要直接获取用户，只需维持深度流动性。飞轮效应也将复合：更多的构建者集成带来更多交易量，进而加深流动性，改善执行，吸引更多构建者。同时，根据我们的“DeFi协议不捕获价值，DeFi DAO管理风险”框架，HYPE代币应继续在市值和流动性上增长，我们认为这应使平台相对于竞争对手更加安全。

构建者代码与使币安的Link生态系统如此有价值的动态相同，只不过在这里是无需许可的，并在协议层面进行收入分成，而非通过双边定制业务拓展协议。

催化因素6——HyperEVM

截至2026年初，超过175个开发团队已部署在HyperEVM上，包括借贷协议（HyperLend）、暗池（Silhouette）、稳定币基础设施（Felix）和流动性质押（Kinetiq）。

HyperEVM的主要价值主张是与HyperCore的可组合性。通过读取预编译，智能合约可以访问实时CLOB数据，包括价格、头寸和保证金信息，无跨域延迟。由于这些应用与交易所在同一条链上运行，它们可以直接使用Hyperliquid的流动性、价格和CLOB。借贷协议可以使用实时永续合约价格进行清算，结构化产品可以在同一笔交易中通过CLOB进行对冲，稳定币可以依赖Hyperliquid的原生价格喂价而非外部预言机。

生态系统仍处于早期，HyperCore与HyperEVM之间的互操作性仍在发展中。但随着集成加深，Hyperliquid拥有了其他衍生品交易平台没有的东西：一个垂直整合的金融堆栈，其中交易所、风险引擎和DeFi应用层都在一个系统内运行。 HyperEVM上的每一个新应用都为资本流入Hyperliquid创造了又一个理由，并为HYPE代币作为Gas创造了另一项需求来源。

催化因素7——监管努力和美国对永续合约接受度的提高

Hyperliquid似乎也在更认真地对待监管。在华盛顿特区设立的Hyperliquid政策中心，由Jake Chervinsky领导，是一个明确信号，表明生态系统不想永远置身美国之外。目标是向政策制定者和监管者教育DeFi市场、永续合约和链上金融基础设施。这很重要，因为监管风险一直是任何永续合约平台最大的不确定性之一。 Hyperliquid现在正为“DeFi永续合约可以适应可行的美国框架”这一论点投入真正的资源。

时机值得注意，因为美国监管机构正开始对永续合约采取更积极的态度。虽然永续合约在1993年首次被理论化，并于2016年由离岸中心化交易所实施，但美国准入直到最近才被允许。 2026年5月，CFTC允许注册的CeFi交易所上线真正的比特币永续合约，随后迅速扩展到其他主要数字资产永续合约。主席Michael Selig表示，这是将加密最具流动性的产品之一纳入美国监管体系的一部分。 Hyperliquid尚未直接从这些批准中受益——实际上，这些批准增加了与币安竞争的全球CEX产品——但主要观点是，永续合约正从仅限离岸的产品转变为美国监管机构现在愿意考虑的产品。从受监管的中心化永续合约准入到链上准入还有很长的路要走，但第一步是该产品集本身的可获得性。

催化因素8——ETF和新资本池

最后一个催化因素不如其他因素基本面，但仍然重要。大多数传统金融资产管理公司、注册投资顾问、家族办公室、对冲基金、资产配置者等无法轻易购买HYPE、托管它、在离岸场所交易，或承担任何操作复杂性。即使Coinbase近期上线HYPE，许多机构仍不习惯在加密原生场所交易或直接持有该代币。但HYPE对他们来说应该是极具吸引力的资产，鉴于其底层现金流状况，特别是相对于几乎所有其他大型加密资产（除少数例外，如SOL）。即使这些经理理解其逻辑，历史上一直存在结构性障碍阻止他们持有它。

但现在这个障碍已经消失。 2026年5月，21Shares的Hyperliquid ETF开始在纳斯达克交易，随后Bitwise的BHYP在纽交所上市，Grayscale的竞争产品HYPG Hyperliquid Staking ETF也紧随其后。从各项指标看，HYPE ETF的推出取得了巨大成功。有趣的是，现货HYPE ETF在其前10个交易日内吸收了超过1%的HYPE供应量，这是迄今为止所有现货加密ETF最强劲的首秀。

ETF资金流（或Hyperliquid Strategies和Hyperion等数字资产财资公司的出现）并非核心投资逻辑，但它们在Hyperliquid的基本面对传统投资者越来越容易理解的时刻扩大了买家基础。你有真实的收入、HYPE代币回购、新的稳定币浮存金收入线、新的HIP-3和HIP-4市场，以及通过跨保证金成为更广泛金融交易所的可信路径。 ETF和DAT有望让HYPE捕捉所有这些催化因素所产生的兴趣。

7. 风险

虽然HYPE的投资逻辑有大量上行空间，但也存在诸多风险。下面，我们概述这些风险并解释为何我们认为它们是可控的。

风险1——去中心化与治理

人们经常批评Hyperliquid“中心化”。这显然是关于Hyperliquid最常被提及的担忧，值得深思。截至2026年6月，网络有27个验证者，而上线时只有4个。这比以太坊约88.7万个验证者或Solana的742个少几个数量级。网络存在的前两年，节点代码一直闭源。正如JELLY事件所示，一个小型验证者集合可以在几分钟内召集并就市场和区块链机制做出共识决定。

这些是合理的担忧。 27个验证者意味着网络的活性和抗审查性依赖于一个相对较小的运营商群体，其中许多接收基金会的委托。闭源代码也使得外部人士难以独立审计核心交易引擎。

我们不忽视这些担忧，但有几个缓解因素。 Hyperliquid是为高性能衍生品交易而构建的，其中验证者数量与执行速度之间的权衡不同于通用L1。亚秒级最终性和每秒20万笔订单的容量，在更小、低延迟的验证者集合下更容易实现。这种权衡是否可接受取决于你优化的是什么。

其次，验证者集合在增长而非缩减。基金会委托计划积极致力于增加验证者多样性，对参与者有KYC/KYB要求，以确保地理和运营分布。趋势是随时间推移朝着更大去中心化发展，即使当前状态未达到极端标准。

第三，也是最重要的，对JELLY事件的响应是迅速、协调且完全透明的。在CEX危机中，类似决定通常闭门做出，很少或没有公开审计追踪。 Hyperliquid处于中间位置。它比以太坊或Solana更中心化，但仍远比传统CEX更透明和可验证。对于其目标用户，特别是最关心执行质量和交易后透明度的专业交易者，这种权衡似乎是可接受的。这体现在尽管治理争议反复出现，平台仍在继续增长。

我们认为Hyperliquid在信任谱系上的位置对于衍生品DEX来说实际上是较强的，用户通过行动表明他们对平台的信任假设感到满意。团队已表示他们希望在确信安全时开源代码，我们预计随着安全工具赶上生态系统中的主动威胁，他们会更愿意开放系统。

风险2——监管

Hyperliquid目前处于监管灰色地带。作为一个无需许可的链上永续合约协议，全球任何人都可以直接访问网络。前端通常封锁美国等不允许访问的地区用户，但很难知道有多少用户或多少交易来自受限区域，无论是通过直接访问还是使用代理设置绕过地理封锁。

永续合约仍然是核心产品，其法律地位不确定，特别是在美国法律下对掉期处理和期货处理的解释。如前所述，CFTC最近授权了受监管的CEX在美国上线大盘数字资产永续合约；然而，该授权不适用于美国用户访问离岸场所或链上永续合约产品。而且，尽管CFTC将新授权的永续合约定性为期货，CME立即就此授权起诉了CFTC，突显了他们认为永续合约被错误定性为期货的看法。如果CFTC对Hyperliquid协议、协议开发者或其验证者采取执法行动，可能对平台增长轨迹和HYPE价值产生重大影响。

这里有几个缓解因素。监管环境已朝着支持加密的方向显著转变。 SEC和CFTC于2026年3月签署了正式谅解备忘录，建立了协调规则制定。 CFTC主席Selig已指示工作人员探索促进永续合约回流美国。 CLARITY法案建立了数字资产监管的双轨框架，已通过众议院，正在参议院协调中。 2026年3月，CFTC向Phantom发出不采取行动函，确认使用户能够访问受监管衍生品的钱包软件不会触发注册要求，这是监管态度对DeFi前端软化的信号。两个月后，CFTC为Kalshi和其他平台在受监管的CEX上推出美国本土大盘数字资产永续合约开辟了道路。

此外，Hyperliquid政策中心于2026年3月初成立，由Hyperliquid基金会以100万HYPE代币资助。 HPC是与监管机构合作、探索美国个人和机构与传统金融一起访问Hyperliquid方式的积极努力。这表明团队认真对待监管参与。

风险3——竞争

交易所领域历来是加密领域竞争最激烈的市场。许多CEX和DEX曾崛起为主导地位，随后被取代。 Mt. Gox、Bitfinex和dYdX都是警示案例。币安是主要的例外。它已保持头部地位约八年，尽管多年来面临所有监管和法律挑战，仍然是一个运营极佳且资本充足的组织。在我们看来，它可能是Hyperliquid最大的长期威胁。

在DEX方面，Aster和Lighter是两个最值得注意的竞争对手。 Aster由YZ Labs支持并获得CZ背书，在2025年9月曾短暂占据DeFi永续合约约70%的市场份额，随后消退。 Lighter由前Citadel工程师构建，得到a16z和Lightspeed以15亿美元估值支持，使用ZKPs进行交易验证和零费用模式。 Solana上也有可信的衍生品DEX，包括Phoenix、Drift和Bulk Trade，尽管它们尚未达到有意义的规模。这些团队主要依赖Solana市场结构的一些功能升级，包括来自大型验证者客户端（Agave和Firedancer）的进步，以及Jito的BAM基础设施用于应用控制的执行。这些升级将使Solana DeFi衍生品平台能够提供Hyperliquid今天拥有的一些功能，如挂单撤单优先。实际上，一些竞争对手的DEX交易量似乎比Hyperliquid对激励更敏感，但这并不意味着DeFi衍生品的竞争将永远无关紧要。

也有可能更多受监管的衍生品交易所将在美国出现，并提供真正的永续合约。我们已经看到Kalshi和Coinbase的早期迹象。如果CME和ICE开始向美国交易者提供永续合约，它们可能在Hyperliquid在美国可用之前吸引需求。

我们认为Hyperliquid的优势比标题市场份额数字显示的更大。如前所述，我们认为许多竞争对手靠用户为获取空投而耕作积分来支撑，因此它们的数字在我们看来值得怀疑。看看Lighter空投后发生了什么：其DeFi永续合约交易量市场份额此后暴跌了约50%。而Hyperliquid则因深度流动性、强大执行和构建者集成而具有真正的持久力。这是一个难以用短期策略和激励复制组合。坦率地说，我们认为这需要在创新上有重大阶跃函数改进，比如技术或产品突破，而我们尚未看到有人接近这一点。

风险4——HyperCore/HyperEVM互操作性

以太坊和Solana之所以达到巨大规模，很大程度上是因为在其之上构建了蓬勃发展的第三方开发者生态系统。利用这两条链的项目广度创造了强大的利益相关者网络，他们深度激励看到底层生态系统和代币的成功。 Hyperliquid尚未达到这样的生态系统规模。

HyperEVM可能解决这一问题，但HyperEVM与HyperCore之间的互操作性和可组合性在很大程度上仍未解决。读取预编译允许HyperEVM智能合约访问HyperCore状态，但写入功能（EVM合约在HyperCore上下单或修改头寸的能力）仍通过CoreWriter开发中。在此桥梁更充分建成之前，HyperEVM应用与核心交易所的集成深度仍将有限。

主要的缓解因素是Hyperliquid的核心业务不需要大型EVM生态系统也能运作。交易所已产生约8.78亿美元年收入，HyperEVM贡献甚微。因此，我们将HyperEVM视为看涨期权价值，而非投资逻辑的硬性要求。

构建者代码和HIP-3也为第三方开发者提供了无需部署EVM智能合约即可在Hyperliquid上构建的方式。 Phantom的构建者代码集成是一个很好的例子，直接将订单流路由至HyperCore，无需接触HyperEVM。如果HyperEVM可组合性改善，它可能成为一个有意义的催化因素。但即使没有，我们认为也不会改变核心交易所的前景。

风险5——代币价值捕获与稀释

HYPE的投资案例取决于其价值捕获机制的持久性和可信度。如果代币经济学因稀释、激励错位或治理决策而被削弱，HYPE可能无法捕获平台产生的经济价值，或捕获低于投资者预期的价值。

主要的稀释担忧是贡献者解锁时间表。核心贡献者在2028年前每月获得约992万HYPE，按当前价格计算相当于每月约6.25亿美元的潜在卖压。回购销毁机制能否抵消这种供应扩张，取决于费用增长能否超过解锁，但我们离那还很远。

这里的主要保障是产品收入与代币价值紧密相连。没有复杂的股权结构或优先股需要担心。每个人在协议成功中的经济利益都与HYPE挂钩，因此客户/交易者、代币持有者和团队都分享同一目标。团队已表现出愿意减少自身的代币分配。例如，在2026年1月释放120万枚代币后，他们次月将解锁量削减了近90%，降至仅14万枚代币。我们认为这是团队关注长期对齐并重视代币价格的强烈信号。

此外，99%的协议收入流入HYPE援助基金用于回购和销毁。截至2026年6月，该基金已从公开市场累积超过4500万HYPE，目前价值约28亿美元。援助基金在代币下方创造了结构性买盘，直接与平台使用挂钩。

我们将在下面的估值部分进一步讨论代币供应动态，但可以说，我们认为当前的完全稀释估值数字被显著高估，特别是在大多数投资者的时间范围内。

风险6——坏账

在某些方面，Hyperliquid面临比CEX更大的坏账风险。 CEX可以使用KYC、账户级控制、提款审查、内部风险团队，在某些情况下还可以对已知对手方采取法律追索。 Hyperliquid没有这些工具，因为任何人都可以存入抵押品、使用杠杆并进行交易。这种开放性对产品至关重要，但也使协议在应对市场剧烈波动后的操纵或抵押不足损失时选择更少。

随着Hyperliquid上线更多资产，尤其是通过HIP-3和HIP-4，这变得更加重要。长尾市场将包括流动性较弱、参考定价可靠性较低、所有权更集中、事件驱动跳空风险更大的资产。如果交易者在流动性不足的市场中建立大量头寸，且市场跳空穿过了清算水平，协议可能面临坏账。在CEX中，他们有时可以减慢提款、减记账户、追索用户，或使用平台外风险控制。 Hyperliquid必须在协议和市场设计层面解决更多这些问题。

好消息是，Hyperliquid已经历了加密历史上最大的清算事件。 2025年10月10日，全市场超过190亿美元杠杆头寸被清算，其中Hyperliquid约占12.5亿美元。尽管波动幅度和速度惊人，Hyperliquid仍保持偿付能力并继续运营，为其清算和风险系统提供了重要的现实测试。

这显然并未消除风险，但该平台已经历了一次周期性的清算级联事件并表现极佳。事实上，与币安（其最大竞争对手）相比，10月10日对Hyperliquid是一次有意义的胜利。在币安上，几种合成资产脱锚，包括USD（Ethena的稳定币）、BNSOL和WBETH。由于这些资产在币安上广泛用作抵押品，发生了超出必要的更多清算。

除了依赖过往成功外，Hyperliquid还拥有大多数DEX缺乏的内置优势：它运行在自己的L1上。大多数DEX只是构建在其他区块链结算层上的应用程序。它们可以暂停交易、更改风险设置或使用保险基金，但一旦交易结算且抵押品离开应用，它们限制损失的方式有限。

Hyperliquid验证者拥有更多工具，因为Hyperliquid的撮合引擎、风险系统、L1会计和跨链桥都在一个系统中协同工作。在最坏情况下，验证者可以集结起来，就管理提款、跨链桥操作或在损失变为永久之前管理系统状态达成分布式共识，正如在JELLY事件中所见。

8. HYPE代币

我们已就设计能真正捕获价值的DeFi代币的挑战写过大量文章。大多数做不到。我们总是问：代币是否对协议收入有直接索取权？能否被分叉出去？是否受速度问题困扰？使用是有机的还是激励驱动的？持有它是否有实用价值？

HYPE通过了所有这些测试。它在各方面拥有我们在加密领域所见最清晰的代币设计之一。值得注意，Hyperliquid没有独立的股权层。没有股东名册、没有优先股，也没有一组拥有独立于HYPE的经济索取权的股权投资者。团队、用户和代币持有者都参与同一资产的成功。我们认为这创造了异常紧密的利益对齐，并赋予了Hyperliquid相对于其他大多数主要加密协议的结构性优势。

代币分配

由于团队从未进行外部融资，HYPE分配中没有投资者份额。 10亿枚代币总供应分配如下：31%在启动时空投给早期用户（3.1亿枚，完全解锁），38.9%预留用于未来社区排放，23.8%分配给核心贡献者，其余留给基金会和生态资助。

团队代币在启动后有1年锁定期，归属期延伸至2027年和2028年。核心贡献者每月获得约992万HYPE，按当前价格约6.25亿美元。这是代币潜在卖压的主要来源。

HYPE实用性

HYPE在Hyperliquid生态系统中具有五个不同功能：

1. 最重要的是，99%的协议收入通过援助基金用于回购和销毁HYPE。这是将平台使用直接与代币价值挂钩的机制。

   a. 剩余约1%用于支持协议运营和相关业务开支。

2. 其次，质押层级解锁交易费用折扣，激励交易者持有和质押而非卖出。这创造了一个速度吸纳池：活跃交易者积累HYPE并非出于投机，而是因为持有可降低他们在平台上的交易成本。

3. 第三，它是Hyperliquid L1上所有交易的Gas代币。在HyperEVM上的每一笔订单、交易和交互都需要HYPE作为Gas，创造了随网络活动扩展的基础需求。

4. 第四，它可以被质押以保护网络并获得收益。验证者必须质押至少1万HYPE才能参与，委托者从协议通胀和交易费用分配的组合中获得质押奖励。当前质押年化收益率约为-2.25%，该费率根据总质押量动态调整，其设计灵感来自以太坊的质押曲线。

5. 最后，HYPE赋予验证者对协议升级和变更的治理权。验证者参与基于质押权重的提案投票，包括市场下架、参数更改，以及如援助基金销毁投票所示，永久性供应决策。

在我们后续的BNB报告中，我们引入了所谓“交易所代币方程”：

交易所代币网络价值 = 交易所创造的价值 × 代币价值捕获效率

第一项（交易所创造的价值）由交易量、收入、用户、流动性深度和管理质量衡量。基本上就是交易所从基本面角度看表现如何。我们已在报告中阐述了Hyperliquid在这些指标上的主导地位。

第二项，即代币捕获价值的效率，正是HYPE真正脱颖而出的地方。该代币通过自动化每日回购系统收集99%的协议收入，无需任何人工决策。没有股权层竞争现金流，也没有拥有特殊权利或董事会席位的投资者。从经济角度看，HYPE是协议现金流归集的主要工具。这是我们所见过的交易所代币模型最清晰的范例。它比BNB、HT、DYDX、UNI或任何CEX股权结构都更简单，因为价值去向始终明确。

9. HYPE估值

Hyperliquid在过去12个月（TTM）产生了约8.78亿美元收入，其中99%通过HYPE援助基金的回购销毁流回代币持有者。因此TTM协议收益约为8.69亿美元。

值得注意，几乎所有收入都早于任何有意义的HIP-3贡献。平台在2025年初到年底大致将自由现金流运行率翻了一番，而尚未受益于所有即将上线的各类产品升级。通过HIP-3的RWA关联永续合约、通过HIP-4的预测市场和期权、投资组合保证金、Coinbase稳定币协议、构建者代码扩张以及不断增长的HyperEVM生态系统，都代表了尚未反映在历史数据中的增量收入流。

Hyperliquid还为HIP-3市场保留了“增长模式”，实际将平台费率降低了90%，以鼓励流动性和交易活动。在市场仍处于早期时这种补贴是合理的，但HIP-3现已成为平台的重要组成部分。随着增长模式逐步减少或取消，Hyperliquid应从这些市场中捕获更大份额的经济价值，从而在不依赖额外交易量增长的情况下创造有意义的利润率顺风。

估值框架

在本估值中，我们使用现金流倍数方法，与我们此前在BNB和DRIFT报告中采用的方法一致。我们假设99%的协议收入将继续通过回购销毁机制归属于HYPE代币持有者，这是系统当前且已明确的设计。

DEX（包括衍生品和现货）是现有利润率最高的业务之一。 CEX利润率强劲，但它们承担客户支持、全球许可、服务器、托管基础设施和合规团队的成本。 Hyperliquid的成本仅为大型CEX的一小部分。该协议已以小型团队实现可持续运营，在长期经济均衡中，我们相信它将保持95%以上的利润率。在我们的估值模型中，我们排除支出，因为协议已实现正现金流，且成本结构相对于收入可忽略不计。

我们还将考虑Coinbase USDC协议产生的收入，鉴于现金流规模及其应随核心交易所业务增长大致线性扩展的事实。而且它目前已是活跃的收入线。

1. 我们的第一个假设是，到2028年，加密衍生品总交易量将以35%的复合年增长率增长。 作为对比，CeFi衍生品交易量从2020年到2025年以每年44.8%的速度增长，2025年达到85.7万亿美元。我们使用了较低的增长率，基于本报告讨论的长期趋势，我们认为这是非常保守的。

2. 我们的第二个假设是，到2028年，衍生品DEX将占加密衍生品市场的32%，高于目前的约16%。 DeFi的份额从2022年的几乎为零在三年内增长到16%。在接下来两年达到32%与之前的年增长率一致，考虑到执行质量的持续改善、近期CeFi失败后信任丧失、支持性监管以及RWA关联产品的增长，这似乎是现实的。其中最大的部分无疑是HIP-3和RWA交易量的机会。

3. 第三个假设是，Hyperliquid维持其在衍生品DEX市场中目前约30%的份额。 我们并未建模Hyperliquid在DeFi内的任何市场份额增长，尽管在过去两年大部分时间里Hyperliquid一直在获得份额，且目前控制着超过59%的OI（它们在交易量市场份额上较低，可能出于本报告讨论的耕作目的）。

这刻意保守，因为我们想证明即使Hyperliquid的竞争地位从今天起不再改善，投资逻辑仍然成立。作为背景，我们相信随着交易所具有流动性网络效应（参见币安在现货/永续合约，以及Deribit在期权），其份额将显著更高。

4. 第四个假设是，Hyperliquid上的USDC余额将大致与交易量同步增长。随着时间的推移，平台应增加支持更高杠杆的资产，如外汇对，但也会吸引风险偏好较低的交易者群体。我们假设这些效应大致抵消，使平台上的平均杠杆基本保持不变。

基准情形

在这些假设下，到2028年加密衍生品总交易量将达到约210万亿美元。这仅占当今场外外汇和利率衍生品交易额的约6%，二者合计年化约3.7千万亿美元。这些数字看似庞大，但仅占当前场外外汇和利率交易额的6%，我们认为并非牵强。

在210万亿美元年交易量下，衍生品DEX将占其中32%，即67.2万亿美元年交易量。如果Hyperliquid的市场份额保持30%不变（保守稳态），我们得到约20.16万亿美元的年交易量。在此名义交易量下，平台上的USDC将增长约7倍至约430亿美元，创造约14.1亿美元的收入线（假设利率稳态，影响USDC收入）。

如果交易费用从2025年起保持3.28个基点不变（我们将HLP的费率排除在考虑之外，因为它对业务的意义越来越小），年收益将从8.69亿美元增加到来自交易费的66亿美元 + 14.1亿美元 = 约80亿美元。 我们保持2025年净费率不变，而非假设费率扩张，尽管HIP-3、HIP-4和投资组合保证金可能随时间改变收入结构，且很可能以更高利润率的方式。

我们要清楚该模型排除了什么。它假设更广泛衍生品市场增长慢于历史模式，Hyperliquid在DeFi内零市场份额增长，也不包括来自预测市场和期权的任何显著贡献，或HyperEVM Gas流量，所有这些都代表我们前面记录的真实的、有意义的增长催化剂。它还假设DeFi以过去三年相同的速度蚕食CeFi。这按设计是对业务两年后可能状况的低估。

调整供应量

创世时共创建了10亿枚HYPE代币。然而，我们认为调整该数字是合适的。我们使用Hyperliquid Strategies计算真实流通供应量的框架。由于我们以2028年为模型，我们加入截至2028年底的质押排放，得出模型中约5.02亿HYPE的流通量：

按当前约63美元价格计算，HYPE对应约320亿美元估值，对比8.69亿美元收益，基于当前流通浮动量的TTM市盈率约为36倍。如果计入Coinbase协议（按当前平台USDC名义金额将推动约2亿美元的未来收益），HYPE实际上交易在约30倍远期收益。

我们对2028年协议收益80亿美元应用20倍市盈率。 作为背景，COIN目前交易在约24倍2028年共识市盈率，CME约17倍，HOOD约32倍。 这些业务并非完美可比，但它们为公开市场如何估值规模化交易所和交易平台提供了有用的参考点。

对于一个仍以惊人速度增长收益、具有这种运营杠杆、这种代币价值捕获质量以及许多未实现催化因素的企业，20倍倍数在我们看来相当合理。我们还注意到，与大多数DeFi协议中“收入”包括支付给流动性提供者或贷款人的利息不同，Hyperliquid的8.69亿美元TTM收益代表了实际协议级现金流，通过直接的、程序化的回购机制归属于代币持有者，使其与大多数加密指标相比更接近传统收益的比较。

在基准情形下，对80亿美元收益应用20倍倍数，我们得出1600亿美元估值，按调整后5.02亿枚代币供应量计算，意味着HYPE价格超过319美元，在保守假设下较当前水平有超过5倍的上行空间。

为了说明该分析的敏感性，我们使用不同假设给出熊市和牛市情形。

我们的熊市情形假设整体加密衍生品市场到2028年仅以10%的复合年增长率增长，DEX市场份额仅达到20%。我们还假设HIP-4或HyperEVM Gas没有有意义的贡献。同样，USDC增长与交易量增长线性相关。

在这些熊市假设下，Hyperliquid将产生约27.3亿美元的协议收益。按20倍倍数，得出约550亿美元调整后市值，或每枚HYPE约109美元。

我们的牛市情形假设衍生品市场将因本报告讨论的因素而爆炸式增长。我们假设其以50%的复合年增长率增长。我们还假设衍生品DEX将占加密衍生品整体市场的50%。在这些假设下，我们得到约17.3亿美元的协议收益。

三种情形总结：

1、熊市情形：20倍倍数 × 27.3亿美元收益 = 550亿美元估值 = 约109美元/枚

2、基准情形：20倍倍数 × 80亿美元收益 = 1600亿美元估值 = 约319美元/枚

3、牛市情形：20倍倍数 × 173亿美元收益 = 3460亿美元估值 = 约689美元/枚

通过HIP-4的期权和预测市场尚未达到任何规模，投资组合保证金处于Alpha阶段。构建者代码集成和新的HIP-3部署者正在扩张，是科技领域真正独特的客户获取来源。每一项都代表了基准情形中未包含的潜在上行空间。

综合来看，我们认为市场低估了HYPE。 目前，HYPE的交易市盈率与成熟的DeFi协议大致相同，尽管它具有更高的增长、更强的产品管线和更好的代币价值捕获。它的定价也与传统交易所和经纪商相似，而这些业务比Hyperliquid缺乏创新性。 风险回报具有吸引力，因为已有明确的现金流基础限制了下行空间，而上行空间取决于链上衍生品能有多大以及Hyperliquid能赢得多少市场份额。

10. 结论

Hyperliquid是自币安以来推出的最重要的新加密交易所。我们并非轻率地说出这话。在投资交易所基础设施七年、见证每一个主要平台的兴衰之后，我们相信Hyperliquid以极少数交易所能达到的方式找到了产品市场契合度。

与币安的相似之处难以忽视。 2017年，币安在六个月内从无名小卒跃升为主导CEX。市场当时没有认识到流动性复合的速度有多快、产品质量与交易量之间的飞轮有多强大，以及BNB代币能捕获多少价值。我们在2019年以10美元发布了BNB报告，当时该交易所已被广泛采用且根深蒂固，如今其交易价格为563美元。

Hyperliquid遵循相同的剧本，但具备币安从未拥有的结构性优势。它是非托管的，执行完全在链上且可验证，收入通过自动化的每日回购机制流向代币持有者，中间没有股权层。此外，它还扩展到大宗商品、股票、预测市场和期权，这些市场由于许可和监管限制，CEX往往更难进入。

数据不言自明。 2025年，Hyperliquid在约2.9万亿美元交易量上产生了约8.73亿美元收入，用户群增长至约92.3万，OI累积至约60亿美元，超过所有DeFi竞争对手的总和。其BTC永续合约订单簿比币安更紧密、更深。整个项目由一个小型团队构建和运营，从未拿过一分外部资本。

我们对Hyperliquid今天的成就感到兴奋，但更大的机遇还在前方。 HIP-3上RWA关联的OI已超过29亿美元，官方授权的标普500永续合约在首周产生了超过1亿美元的日交易量。 HIP-4将增加预测市场和期权，而投资组合保证金将缩小与CEX之间最大的剩余功能差距。构建者代码和HIP-3也通过允许钱包和第三方应用直接将订单流路由至Hyperliquid来扩大分销。这些共同创造了两条主要的增长路径：纵向扩展至期权和预测市场等新市场类型，以及横向扩展至新的传统金融资产类别。

每一个催化因素都相互强化。新产品和更广泛的分销为平台带来更多交易量。这些交易量产生更多费用，用于回购和销毁HYPE。随着生态系统增长，Hyperliquid对交易者、构建者、做市商和机构变得更加有吸引力，创造了一个强大的飞轮潜力。

存在真实风险。 Hyperliquid在去中心化、治理、监管明确性、日益激烈的竞争以及HyperEVM是否会成熟为强大生态系统方面仍面临悬而未决的问题。我们在报告中讨论了这些风险，并认为相对于潜在上行空间它们是可控的。团队已经应对了操纵企图、与Aster的竞争性市场份额争夺以及早期艰难的熊市。在每种情况下，团队都迅速应对并变得更强大，这显示了他们的韧性和进取心。

在约63美元价格下，HYPE的TTM市盈率约为36倍，或计入现已上线的Coinbase/USDC协议后的远期收益约30倍。在我们的基准情形假设下，我们预计到2028年年收益将达到80亿美元，按20倍倍数对应约319美元价格。如果我们概述的任何催化因素得以实现，上行空间将显著更高。

基于所有这些原因，我们看好HYPE，并预计其将在未来几年显著跑赢更广泛的加密市场。