A year on, Hyperliquid is no longer a curiosity. It is a problem for everyone else.

 

This blog covers:

• How Hyperliquid went from a fast perp DEX to a top-15 crypto asset, with $4.5trn in cumulative volume and 60–70% of on-chain perpetual market share
• Why the buyback flywheel funded by roughly 97% of exchange fees has become one of crypto’s most durable demand mechanisms
• The arrival of US-listed spot HYPE ETFs from 21Shares and Bitwise, and what their early inflows actually imply
• The HIP-3 and HIP-4 upgrades, which have pulled tokenised equities, oil and prediction markets onto a single venue
• The brewing fight with CME and ICE, and the three strategic doors Hyperliquid can walk through

When we last wrote about Hyperliquid in April 2025, the protocol was an interesting outlier. HYPE traded near $18. Total value locked across its layer-1 hovered around $800m. The token-generation event was still fresh enough to feel speculative. The thesis, that sticky perpetual-futures volume could compound into something durable.

A little over a year later, the facts have caught up. HYPE changes hands at around $63, having printed an all-time high of $64.32 on May 24th. The fully diluted valuation sits near $60bn; the circulating market capitalisation is close to $15bn, ranking it inside crypto’s top eleven. DeFi TVL on the Hyperliquid layer-1 has passed $2bn, against a broader $5.5bn including the hypercore bridge. Cumulative perpetual volume across the platform has cleared $4.5trn. In any given week, Hyperliquid alone accounts for somewhere between a third and a half of all on-chain trading fees in the industry.

Numbers of that size are easy to recite and harder to interpret. The more interesting question is why two of the world’s largest derivatives exchanges have decided that a four-year-old offshore protocol now warrants a lobbying campaign in Washington.

 

A flywheel, not a feature

 

The first thing to understand about Hyperliquid is that its tokenomics are unusually clean by crypto standards. Roughly 97% of exchange revenue is routed into an Assistance Fund that buys HYPE on the open market. Cumulative buybacks from this have surpassed $1.16bn. On busy weeks, the fund absorbs more tokens than monthly emissions release.

This matters because most crypto tokens accrue value through faith. HYPE accrues it through arithmetic. Higher volume produces higher fees; higher fees produce more buying; more buying tightens float against a fixed one-billion supply ceiling. The mechanism is not unique — several protocols have attempted variations — but Hyperliquid is among the few where the underlying business actually generates enough revenue to make the loop self-sustaining at scale. In April, Hyperliquid captured roughly 42% of all on-chain trading fees in crypto. That is not a flywheel; that is something closer to a toll bridge.

The supporting infrastructure is now mature enough to justify the volumes. Sub-second block times, 200,000 orders per second throughput, gasless trading, and a user experience that traders describe as indistinguishable from a centralised exchange. HyperEVM, the Ethereum-compatible execution layer running alongside the orderbook, has accumulated more than $2bn in TVL across lending markets, AMMs, yield protocols and an increasingly active long-tail of memecoins. The two halves — HyperCore for derivatives, HyperEVM for everything else — share consensus and state, which means a lending market can liquidate against an orderbook in the same block.

 

Eating the listings business

 

The most important development of the past year is not the price action. It is HIP-3.

Launched in October 2025, HIP-3 lets anyone who stakes 500,000 HYPE — roughly $30m at current prices — deploy their own permissionless perpetual market on Hyperliquid (hypercore). The asset can be anything electronically priced: a tokenised equity, a commodity, an FX pair, a synthetic index. The deployer manages the oracle, the leverage limits, and the listing decisions. Hyperliquid provides the matching engine, the margin system, and the liquidity surface.

The economic consequences have been faster than anyone predicted. Within five months, HIP-3 markets accounted for more than 35% of all platform volume. By March, open interest in HIP-3 perpetuals had hit $1.43bn. Twenty-three of the platform’s top thirty trading pairs are now HIP-3 listings. The runaway leader is a builder called trade.xyz, which has launched 24/7 perpetuals on Tesla, Apple, Nvidia, Amazon and a synthetic Nasdaq index — and, more provocatively, a synthetic SpaceX pre-IPO contract that values the private aerospace company at $1.78trn.

The commodity story has been even more startling. Cumulative volume in HIP-3 crude-oil perpetuals went from $339m in late February to $7.3bn by mid-March. For context, that is roughly the daily volume of WTI futures on CME, executed on a protocol that did not exist eighteen months earlier and that does not require any of its users to identify themselves.

HIP-4 went live on May 2nd in testnet, applying the same logic to event contracts — fully collateralised, expiry-based markets that function as onchain prediction markets. The first live market was a daily Bitcoin price prediction deployed by Outcomexyz. The category is small for now, but it explicitly targets the territory that Polymarket and Kalshi spent years building.

What HIP-3 has effectively done is unbundle the listings business of a derivatives exchange. CME spends years getting a new product approved; Hyperliquid lets a market emerge in an afternoon. That is either a triumph of decentralisation or a regulatory accident waiting to happen, depending on which chair one occupies.

 

The institutional door creaks open

 

Until recently, the case against owning HYPE was straightforward: even if the protocol worked, mainstream capital had no clean way to access it. That changed in May.

The 21Shares Hyperliquid ETF (ticker: THYP) began trading on the Nasdaq on May 12th. The Bitwise Hyperliquid ETF (BHYP) followed on the NYSE on May 15th. Across their first seven trading sessions, the two funds gathered roughly $54m in combined net inflows, with no single day ending in net outflows. May 20th alone produced a $25.5m net inflow — a figure that, adjusted for the size of HYPE’s market capitalisation, came in faster than the equivalent ratio for the early Bitcoin ETFs.

The structural details are worth noticing. Bitwise has committed to allocating 10% of BHYP’s management fees to buying and holding HYPE on its own balance sheet — an unusually direct alignment mechanism. 21Shares is leaning into the protocol’s narrative as a 24/7 marketplace for everything from crypto to oil, framing the ETF as access not to a token but to a financial venue.

The price reaction was immediate. HYPE rallied roughly 46% over the seven sessions surrounding the launches, breaking its September 2025 high of $59 — a level it had spent more than eight months unable to recapture.

The interpretive temptation is to declare this a watershed. It is more accurate to call it a beachhead. Two ETFs from medium-sized issuers, $54m in week-one inflows, and a token that still trades primarily through its own native venue does not yet constitute institutional adoption. It does, however, constitute permission. The funds give pension allocators, family offices and registered investment advisors a regulated wrapper for an asset that, until weeks ago, they could only acquire by bridging USDC across a chain most of their compliance teams could not spell.

 

What CME wants

 

The reason Hyperliquid is suddenly a political problem is that it works.

In mid-May, CME Group and Intercontinental Exchange — between them, the operators of most of the world’s regulated commodities and equities derivatives — formally urged the CFTC and members of Congress to bring Hyperliquid under traditional financial-institution oversight. The stated concerns are real: anonymous round-the-clock trading on commodity contracts could, in principle, distort price discovery in markets where CME’s WTI and ICE’s Brent are the global benchmarks. State-linked actors operating through pseudonymous wallets could use the venue to evade sanctions. Insider coordination is harder to detect when there is no KYC layer to investigate.

The motives are also real. CME’s stake in derivatives listings is existential; ICE holds a $2bn position in Polymarket that HIP-4 directly threatens. Both exchanges are themselves under CFTC and Department of Justice scrutiny for suspiciously well-timed oil-futures trades preceding federal announcements — a fact unlikely to be lost on the policymakers they are now asking for protection. There is a long and not particularly distinguished tradition of incumbents discovering that a competitor poses systemic risk shortly after it begins taking their lunch.

Hyperliquid’s strategic options, as the Futures Industry Association’s Walt Lukken and 250 Digital’s Chris Perkins recently sketched them, reduce to three: register onshore and accept US licensing; remain offshore and keep growing on global flows; or push decentralisation further until there is no legal entity left to regulate. The protocol has hedged. A $29m policy centre opened earlier this year suggests an engagement strategy. The continued geofencing of US users suggests an offshore-first posture. The architecture itself — permissionless deployment of markets, no central listing authority — points toward door number three.

The most likely outcome is messy. A CFTC framework, if one emerges, will not look like the regime governing CME. It will look like a negotiated settlement in which Hyperliquid concedes on some surface elements (geofencing, perhaps oracle standards) in exchange for clarity on the rest. Until then, regulatory risk is the single largest discount embedded in HYPE’s price, and the only one that can be re-rated overnight by political decisions outside the protocol’s control.

 

The fault lines that matter

 

It would be unfair to the analytical record to write a piece this bullish without dwelling on what has gone wrong.

The most instructive incident occurred in November 2025, when alleged manipulation of the POPCAT token triggered cascading liquidations that absorbed roughly $4.9m of losses through the HLP vault — the protocol’s house liquidity provider. In response, a small group of validators halted withdrawals on Hyperliquid and temporarily suspended the Arbitrum bridge to prevent further outflows. Both actions were defensible in the moment. Both demonstrated that a sufficiently coordinated subset of validators can, in practice, freeze user access to assets on short notice. The 21Shares S-1 prospectus catalogues this episode with a candour that should be required reading for anyone allocating to HYPE.

A separate concern is operational security. In December 2024, suspicious wallet activity on Hyperliquid was attributed by media reports to actors affiliated with North Korea. Hyperliquid Labs maintains that the network itself was not exploited, but the platform saw approximately $250m of net outflows in a single day during the episode. The protocol has not yet been the target of a successful state-grade attack. The absence of a successful attack is not the same as the absence of risk.

A third concern is supply. HYPE’s unlock schedule continues through the rest of the decade, with the bulk of remaining emissions earmarked for future rewards and contributors. The buyback mechanism has, so far, comfortably absorbed scheduled releases. It will continue to do so only as long as fee generation holds up. A multi-quarter drawdown in crypto trading activity — entirely plausible at some point in any cycle — would expose the asymmetry.

Finally, the competition is not standing still. Several rival perpetual venues are now actively positioning against Hyperliquid, and the centralised offshore exchanges that dominate the broader perpetuals market retain structural advantages in liquidity and capital efficiency.

 

The Future 

 

Hyperliquid has solved the hardest problem in crypto exchange design, which is not just throughput or user experience but reflexivity. A protocol that captures 97 odd percent of onchain trading fees, converts almost all of that revenue into open-market token demand, and lets anyone deploy markets in any asset has built something genuinely difficult to dislodge. The buyback flywheel is real. The HIP-3 land-grab into tokenised equities and commodities is real. The institutional door, narrow as it currently is, is now ajar.

 

 

Disclaimer: Apollo Crypto holds HYPE

This report (‘Report’) has been prepared for informational purposes only and does not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to purchase any security of financial product or service. This Report does not constitute a part of any Offer Document issued by Apollo Crypto Management Pty Ltd (ACN 623 059 227, AFSL 525760) or Non Correlated Capital (ACN 143 882 562, AFSL 499882), the Trustee of the Apollo Crypto Fund. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results and no person guarantees the performance of any Apollo Crypto financial product or service or the amount or timing of any return from it. This material has been provided for general information purposes and must not be construed as investment advice. Neither this Report nor any Offer Document issued by Apollo Crypto or Non Correlated Capital takes into account your investment objectives, financial situation and particular needs. The information contained in this Report may not be reproduced, used or disclosed, in whole or in part, without prior written consent of Apollo Crypto. This Report has been prepared by Apollo Crypto. Apollo Crypto nor any of its related parties, employees or directors, provides and warrants accuracy or reliability in relation to such information or accepts any liability to any person who relies on it. You should obtain a copy of the Information Memorandum, issued by Non Correlated Capital before making a decision about whether to invest in the Apollo Crypto Fund.