TLDR: Arthur Hayes says Hyperliquid proved on-chain perpetual futures have real demand and a working product. He sees HYPE’s main risk as underperforming ETH and ZEC rather than necessarily losing money. Perpetual DEXs face rising competition as products, features, and fees become increasingly similar. Hayes sold all his HYPE and NEAR holdings just days after publicly setting a $150 HYPE price target. Arthur Hayes, the founder of BitMEX, said Hyperliquid has proven that demand exists for on-chain perpetual futures markets.
On October 16, however, he warned that HYPE has become a consensus trade, which has weakened its risk-reward profile.
According to Hayes, the main danger is not a price collapse. Instead, HYPE may trail other crypto assets, including ETH and ZEC, over the coming period. His comments came in a post that praised the product but questioned the investment case.
Why Hyperliquid Faces Tougher Competition Arthur Hayes acknowledged that Hyperliquid built a product traders actually use. Trading volume is present, and the platform works as intended. He also said he is willing to use its products as a consumer. Even so, he does not want to take part as an investor.
Arthur Hayes: HYPE Could Significantly Underperform ETH and ZEC
On October 16, BitMEX founder Arthur Hayes @CryptoHayes stated that Hyperliquid has demonstrated genuine demand for on-chain perpetual futures markets. However, as the sector has become a consensus trade, HYPE's… pic.twitter.com/HwmsjbR5QT
— Wu Blockchain (@WuBlockchain) October 23, 2026
A great product does not always translate into a strong investment, according to Hayes. Perpetual DEXs now face rising competition as their offerings become more alike.
Centralized exchanges, traditional exchanges, and a growing list of decentralized rivals all offer similar products. In this setting, features and fees are easy to match.
When rivals match features and fees, returns on capital tend to shrink. As a result, success depends on execution, distribution, incentives, and token economics.
Hayes sees this as a difficult setup for investors to underwrite. Each of these factors can shift quickly as new platforms launch.
Hayes also pointed to HYPE’s reputation as a widely recognized perp-DEX success story. Because the trade is crowded, he believes the token offers less room to re-rate. The question, in his view, is whether HYPE delivers the best risk-adjusted return from here.
Why ETH and ZEC May Offer Better Setups Arthur Hayes argued that HYPE could underperform without falling in price. Holders may lose ground simply because other assets rise faster.
This is the core risk he described, rather than a direct loss of capital. Relative performance, therefore, matters more than absolute price in his view.
ETH has the scale, security, and institutional DeFi narrative to attract capital. If the market rotates back toward large-cap crypto, it could benefit.
Hayes sees that setup as stronger than HYPE’s current position. He treats ETH as a more established option for investors seeking exposure.
ZEC offers a different kind of bet. It is a higher-risk way to express demand for privacy and scarce assets. Hayes noted that both ETH and ZEC could surprise investors if liquidity expands. He added that being early to a crowded winner may appeal less when capital chases upside.
Arthur Hayes previously set a $150 price target for HYPE. Days later, he announced that he had sold all his HYPE and NEAR holdings.
Zakladatel Hyperliquid Jeff Yan navrhuje, aby se americká regulace zaměřila na provozovatele trhů namísto blockchainů, což by platformě mohlo usnadnit legální působení v USA.
Hyperliquid founder Jeff Yan has advocated for U.S. regulatory frameworks to focus on market operators rather than the blockchain itself. The proposal aims to facilitate legal access to Hyperliquid in the United States by shifting compliance obligations to identifiable operators. This development emerges as Hyperliquid, a decentralized perpetual-futures protocol, experiences a slight decline in its HYPE token value, which is currently priced between $76 and $78. The market has been observing a 20% drop from its September all-time high of $98.04, highlighting ongoing regulatory challenges and market dynamics.
Key Takeaways
Jeff Yan’s proposal suggests U.S. regulatory frameworks should focus on market operators, not blockchain technology, potentially influencing future market sentiment.
Hyperliquid’s HYPE token has seen a 1%–3% drop over 24 hours, priced around $76–$78, with continued pressure from regulatory uncertainties.
The market for Hyperliquid reaching $100 by year-end shows a 29% YES probability, down from 37% the previous day, which appears consistent with mixed sentiment on regulatory clarity.
What to Watch
Market participants will be closely monitoring any regulatory developments that align with Jeff Yan’s proposal, as these could impact Hyperliquid’s market access and token performance. Any announcements from U.S. regulatory bodies regarding changes in compliance frameworks may alter existing market dynamics. Additionally, shifts in market sentiment could be observed if Hyperliquid announces partnerships or technological advancements that align with U.S. regulatory expectations.
Hyperliquid Strategies Inc. (NASDAQ: PURR) has increased its stock repurchase program from $30 million to $100 million, expanding its authorization as shares of the HYPE treasury company have declined more than 30% from their October high.
The company said Friday that approximately $72 million remains available under the expanded program, while its board extended the authorization’s expiration date from December 5, 2026, to October 31, 2027.
Hyperliquid Strategies said the increase reflects its board’s confidence in the company’s long term capital strategy and provides additional flexibility to repurchase shares as part of its treasury management operations.
Repurchases may be conducted through open market purchases, privately negotiated transactions or other methods permitted under federal securities laws.
The company said the timing and size of purchases will depend on market conditions, share prices and regulatory requirements. The authorization does not guarantee that the remaining funds will be used, and the program may be suspended or discontinued.
PURR shares and HYPE underperform Bitcoin in October
The announcement comes as Hyperliquid Strategies and HYPE, the native token of the Hyperliquid blockchain, have experienced steeper declines than Bitcoin this month.
PURR shares traded near $8.80 on Friday, down approximately 33% from an October 5 high of $13.05, according to Yahoo Finance data.
HYPE has also declined more than 18% from its October high near $95, trading around $77 despite Bitcoin remaining relatively stable over the same period.
Bitcoin, meanwhile, has traded largely between $80,000 and $87,000 during October, declining approximately 6% from its monthly high near $87,000.
The comparison highlights the relative weakness of HYPE and PURR, with the company’s shares recording a considerably larger decline than both the underlying token and Bitcoin.
Hyperliquid Strategies operates as a digital asset treasury company focused on accumulating HYPE and providing investors with exposure to the Hyperliquid ecosystem.
Its strategy involves generating returns through HYPE staking, yield optimization and active participation in the network, rather than relying exclusively on changes in the token’s market price.
The company describes itself as the largest digital asset treasury vehicle focused on HYPE, targeting US and institutional investors seeking exposure to the blockchain’s growth.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Estefano Gomez. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
CME Group CEO Terry Duffy has expressed skepticism about Hyperliquid’s ability to enter the U.S. market without addressing Know Your Customer (KYC) requirements. Speaking on Bloomberg’s Odd Lots podcast, Duffy stated that Hyperliquid cannot delegate regulatory responsibilities by merely providing infrastructure. The derivatives protocol, known for its high leverage and automated liquidation features, currently does not require identity verification and is not registered with U.S. regulators. Markets appear to interpret these regulatory challenges as potential obstacles to Hyperliquid’s market expansion, impacting investor sentiment.
Key Takeaways
CME Group CEO Terry Duffy’s comments suggest significant regulatory hurdles for Hyperliquid in the U.S. market.
Markets appear to reflect concerns over Hyperliquid’s lack of KYC measures and regulatory registration.
The developments may indicate a moderation in investor expectations regarding Hyperliquid’s price performance.
What to Watch
The focus will be on how Hyperliquid addresses these regulatory challenges, particularly any initiatives to implement KYC measures. Observers will be closely monitoring any announcements from Hyperliquid regarding partnerships or compliance strategies that could influence market sentiment. Additionally, regulatory actions from U.S. authorities may further impact perceptions of Hyperliquid’s potential U.S. market entry.
Grayscale has named the top 10 crypto assets by tokenholder yield and adjusted earnings yield. HYPE leads the first ranking at 8.0%, while CAKE tops the second at 14.4%.
The report argues that investors can value many crypto assets, unlike Bitcoin, using their cash flows.
Crypto valuations don’t have to rely on narratives alone. Many crypto assets can be… pic.twitter.com/up8RqIdZzx
— Grayscale (@Grayscale) October 22, 2026 Which Crypto Tokens Actually Reward Their Holders?Hyperliquid (HYPE) leads Grayscale’s ranking with an 8.0% tokenholder yield. Lighter (LIT) follows closely at 7.9%.
PancakeSwap (CAKE) comes third at 2.6%, followed by Aerodrome (AERO) and Uniswap (UNI).
But the rankings reveal something more troubling.
Five of the top 10 tokens have negative holder yields.
Curve Finance (CRV) sits at the bottom with -5.5%, while Jupiter (JUP) records -2.6%.
The reason is dilution.
Grayscale calculates tokenholder yield by adding staking rewards and buybacks, then subtracting newly issued tokens. When issuance outweighs those benefits, holders face dilution despite the protocol’s economic activity.
Can Crypto Be Valued Like Stocks?Grayscale’s second ranking reveals another surprise.
PancakeSwap leads adjusted earnings yield at 14.4%, followed by Lighter at 14.1% and HYPE at 9.8%.
Jupiter offers an interesting example. Its adjusted earnings yield reaches 3.5%, yet its tokenholder yield remains negative.
A profitable crypto protocol does not automatically make its token rewarding to hold.
Grayscale’s research head, Zach Pandl, argues that Bitcoin resembles digital gold, while many other crypto assets can be valued using cash flows.
“Crypto valuations don’t have to rely on narratives alone.”
Protocols generate earnings through trading and lending fees. Buybacks and burns can help transfer that value to holders, although token issuance may offset the gains.
The rankings offer investors a way to examine the economics behind crypto valuations.
They also expose a weakness in an industry where growing revenue can coexist with disappointing returns for tokenholders.
Tržní příkazy v hodnotě 20 milionů USD při spuštění na platformě Hyperliquid ovlivnily cenu papertrade, protokolu syntetických perpetual kontraktů v ekosystému HyperEVM.
Market orders amounting to $20 million on the Hyperliquid platform have reportedly influenced the pricing of papertrade at its launch. Jason Pagoulatos of Delphi Digital highlighted this development, indicating significant early interest in the synthetic-perpetuals protocol. Papertrade operates within Hyperliquid’s HyperEVM ecosystem, providing leveraged exposure to BTC and ETH, and it launched without an external order book or market maker. The protocol’s price determination relies solely on Hyperliquid’s best-bid/offer midpoint, reflecting substantial early activity on the platform.
Key Takeaways The substantial market orders on Hyperliquid suggest strong initial demand for papertrade, indicating confidence in its market performance. Current market pricing appears consistent with a positive outlook for Papertrade’s fully diluted valuation (FDV) reaching above $25 million one day after launch. The increase in market activity on Hyperliquid may indicate elevated interest and participation in the papertrade protocol. What to Watch Observers should monitor announcements from Papertrade regarding token transfers and market participation, which could further influence market sentiment. Key indicators of sustained interest would include official confirmations of PAPER token generation events and liquidity pool formations. Additionally, developments such as major exchange listings or collaborative initiatives with recognizable crypto platforms may provide further insights into papertrade’s market trajectory.
Term Structure
Contract Odds Δ since publish Volume 24h January 1 2028 53% +2.5¢ $1K View market → January 1 2028 50.5% -1¢ $581 View market → January 1 2028 37% 0.0¢ $3K View market → January 1 2028 24% 0.0¢ $1 View market → January 1 2028 32% 0.0¢ $1K View market → January 1 2028 30% 0.0¢ $84 View market → January 1 2028 36.5% -3¢ $7K View market → January 1 2028 17.5% +0.5¢ — View market → Updated 4min ago
Objem perpetuálních kontraktů na akcie, ETF a indexy na platformě Hyperliquid dosáhl ve třetím čtvrtletí 201 mld. USD, zatímco objem tokenizovaných akcií a ETF přesáhl 37 mld. USD.
22 October 2026 | 21:55 Stock, ETF and index perpetuals traded $201 billion on Hyperliquid in the third quarter, according to Dune, in markets that did not exist on the platform a year ago.
Key Takeaways Onchain tokenized stocks and ETFs: $37 billion traded
Tokenized stock volume up almost 18x since January
OKX-ICE venture filed to list 63 tokenized stocks
Asian names: 24% of equity perp open interest
Dune reported the figures in its October 22 announcement of real-time market data feeds, launched as tokenized U.S. stocks begin moving onchain.
A data feed timed for tokenized U.S. stocks In September, the SEC opened a path for tokenized U.S. stocks to trade onchain, according to Dune. A joint venture between OKX and Intercontinental Exchange has since filed to list 63 of them on XLayer, OKX’s network, and the new feeds support XLayer from the first day of trading.
The pitch to hedge funds, market makers and brokers rests on scale. Spot volume on decentralised exchanges more than doubled last year to $6.8 trillion, and about a quarter of spot crypto trading now happens onchain. The launch covers that market with three products: a spot feed spanning more than 200 venues on 12 chains, including Solana, Ethereum, Base, BNB Chain and XLayer; a perpetuals feed for Hyperliquid and Lighter; and reference data giving every asset, venue and market a stable identifier.
Each trade carries price, size and side and links back to the transaction that settled it. The company’s launch post says trades arrive about a second after the block containing them, unpriced trades are flagged with a reason, and blockchain reorganisations trigger correction messages. Venues are screened for liquidity, pricing integrity and registration, so some onchain activity is left out by design.
Derivatives outtraded tokenized shares about five to one In the third quarter, tokenized stocks and ETFs traded more than $37 billion across every venue Dune tracks. Stock, ETF and index perpetuals on Hyperliquid alone traded $201 billion, roughly five times as much.
Hyperliquid stock, ETF and index perpetuals, Q3
$201B
All tracked onchain tokenized stocks and ETFs, Q3
$37B+
Source: Dune, October 22 announcement.
The ratio compares unlike things. Perpetual volume is notional: leverage lets a position exceed the collateral behind it, and traders who open and close the same contract repeatedly add volume each time. Hyperliquid’s figure counts each match once, not once per side, according to Dune’s perpetuals dataset, but it still measures turnover, not money invested in companies. What the gap does show is which product traders reach for when they want stock exposure onchain.
The two products also give holders very different things.
Instrument What the holder has What keeps it tied to the stock Conventional share An equity interest, with rights set by the share class It is the stock Tokenized stock Whatever entitlement the issuer’s legal structure defines The issuer’s backing and redemption terms Stock perpetual A long or short price position, with no shares delivered Funding payments between longs and shorts Perpetuals also trade around the clock on margin and can list names that are hard to buy directly. Dune’s September 30 report found Asian stocks made up 24% of equity perpetual open interest, much of it in memory stocks.
Outside operators write most of the contracts Most of Hyperliquid’s equity, commodity, index and currency exposure sits in markets launched by outside teams under the HIP-3 framework, according to Dune. Those operators set leverage terms, supply the reference price and take a share of fees. Two contracts named after the same stock can therefore use different price sources and leverage caps, and Dune attaches a written contract specification to each market to tell them apart.
Institutions are reaching these markets through intermediaries as well. In October, Ripple Prime launched swaps referencing Trade.xyz perpetuals on Hyperliquid, giving its clients exposure linked to those markets through a swap with the prime broker.
The weekend gap The price source matters most when the stock market is closed. Hyperliquid’s pricing documentation uses a mark price for margining and liquidation, with the oracle supplying the reference. Over a weekend, the last trade, the oracle and the mark can drift apart, and how each updates depends on the contract’s specification. A Saturday trade on Dune’s feed shows what someone just paid, not necessarily the price used to liquidate positions or where the stock opens on Monday.
Dune’s September report argues that weekend trading reveals how traders are positioned while the underlying market is shut. Its enterprise perpetuals dataset rebuilds Hyperliquid’s order book every minute, so the cost of that positioning, in spread and depth, is now measurable for subscribers.
What to watch next XLayer listings
Whether onchain share volume starts closing the five-to-one gap once the 63 tokenized stocks go live.
Q4 totals
Dune’s fourth-quarter figures for stock perpetuals and tokenized stocks, measured side by side.
Weekend spreads
How far spreads widen and depth thins in HIP-3 equity markets between Friday’s close and Monday’s open.
This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Perpetual derivatives involve margin, funding and liquidation risks.
Author
Alex is Editor-in-Chief of Coindoo and co-founder of Millennial Media Group, with nearly a decade of experience covering financial markets - crypto first, then everything else. It started in 2016 with Bitcoin. Like most people at the time, he didn't fully understand it - so he kept digging. Blockchain, tokenomics, the projects, the cycles. That curiosity never stopped, and eventually pulled him into traditional markets too: equities, commodities, macro. Not because he left crypto behind, but because you can't properly understand one without the other. What drives him is straightforward: he wants to know why something is happening, not just that it's happening. Most market coverage stops at the headline - price up, price down, here's a chart. Alex finds that kind of reporting actively unhelpful. If you walk away from an article without understanding the mechanism behind the move, what did you actually learn? He holds a degree in Tourism from New Bulgarian University - not the most obvious path into financial markets, but markets have a way of pulling in people who are simply too curious to stay out. He has authored over 200 in-depth analyses and more than 10,000 articles across crypto and traditional finance. He still thinks every day in markets teaches him something new. That's probably why he hasn't stopped.
NEAR Protocol na platformě pro perpetuální kontrakty poháněné Hyperliquid spustil křížovou marži, takže pozice sdílejí jediný zůstatek pro perpetuals jako marži při zachování deklarovaného důvěrného obchodování.
NEAR Protocol has rolled out cross-margin on its Hyperliquid-powered perpetuals platform, allowing trading positions to share a single perps balance while retaining what the project describes as confidential trading.
Summary
Positions can draw collateral from a shared perps balance instead of holding separate margin. NEAR’s privacy explanation describes dedicated Hyperliquid accounts with confidential deposits and withdrawals. Hyperliquid documents account-level liquidation rules for positions that use shared cross margin. The platform advertises more than 50 markets, with U.S. persons excluded from access. NEAR Protocol announced the feature on Oct. 22, saying positions now share the user’s perps balance as margin. Its accompanying image presents cross and isolated margin alongside the platform’s confidentiality claim.
“Positions now share your perps balance as margin instead of each holding its own,” the project said.
The announcement identifies perps.near.com as the trading interface and Hyperliquid as the underlying provider. NEAR’s message says the feature is live, although it does not provide trading volume, user counts, or figures showing how much collateral customers have committed.
NEAR describes confidentiality through a dedicated trading account NEAR’s product page gives a more specific description of privacy than the short launch announcement. The service says each user receives a dedicated account for trading perpetuals on Hyperliquid, with confidential deposits and withdrawals to and from that account.
The Oct. 22 post describes positions as confidential, stating “nobody can tell they’re yours.” The product page’s explanation centers on the account and its funding flows, without establishing that every order, execution, or position record disappears from Hyperliquid’s public infrastructure.
Neither the announcement nor that explanation provides an independent assessment of whether observers could identify users through other information. The material supports reporting NEAR’s confidentiality claim, but not a guarantee that trading activity cannot be linked to a person under any circumstances.
For funding, the site says NEAR Intents converts supported assets into the required margin currency. Users can start with assets held across connected networks, while funding and settlement transactions are signed on their devices, according to the service.
Cross margin shares collateral across eligible positions Hyperliquid’s documentation describes cross margin as collateral shared among cross-margin positions. Isolated margin assigns collateral to an individual position, separating it from the collateral used elsewhere in the account.
Its rules allow unrealized profits from cross-margin positions to become available as initial margin for new trades. For isolated positions, unrealized profit instead becomes additional margin for the existing position, the documentation states.
Hyperliquid calculates initial margin from position size, mark price, and the leverage selected by the trader. Maximum leverage depends on the asset, so the platform’s advertised ceiling does not apply equally to every market.
The documentation says leverage is checked when a position opens. Afterward, users must monitor their exposure, with available actions including closing positions, adding collateral to isolated trades or depositing USDC for cross-margin positions.
Hyperliquid distinguishes how cross-margin works across different perpetual exchanges deployed on its infrastructure. Its documentation says collateral sharing across those venues depends on the account mode and collateral type. NEAR’s announcement does not specify which of those configurations its interface supports.
Hyperliquid applies account-level liquidation rules Hyperliquid’s liquidation rules say positions become subject to liquidation when account equity falls below the required maintenance margin. The platform first attempts to close positions through orders sent to its order book. Remaining collateral stays with the trader when the resulting closures restore compliance with margin requirements.
If account equity falls below two-thirds of maintenance margin and liquidation through the book has not succeeded, the documentation describes a backstop process involving the liquidator vault.
For a cross-margin backstop liquidation, Hyperliquid says the trader’s cross positions and cross collateral transfer to the liquidator. An isolated backstop liquidation transfers the affected position and its assigned margin while leaving cross-margin positions untouched.
The exchange uses a mark price for liquidations. Its pricing documentation says that measure combines external market information with Hyperliquid trading data and is used for margin calculations, unrealized profit and loss, and take-profit or stop-loss triggers.
Funding payments can change an account’s balance while positions remain open. Hyperliquid states that funding is exchanged hourly between long and short holders, with the payment direction determined by the funding rate. The exchange says it collects no fee on those transfers.
NEAR’s perps service excludes U.S. persons The product page advertises access to more than 50 perpetual markets with leverage of up to 40 times. It explicitly states that perpetuals are unavailable to U.S. persons and users in other restricted jurisdictions, alongside a warning that leveraged trading carries a substantial risk of loss.
NEAR’s relationship with Hyperliquid includes direct token trading. On Sep. 23, crypto.news reported that NEAR spot trading had become available against USDC, alongside an existing perpetual market for the token. The announcement cited in that article said inclusion on Hyperliquid’s Strict List would take several more days after deployment.
According to TradingBeats monitoring, from last night to the present, six whale addresses (each holding over $1 million) on Hyperliquid have been liquidated for a total of roughly $25.911 million, including $18.5024 million in short positions and $7.4086 million in long positions. Both long and short sides saw consecutive liquidations. Trader Aguila Trades was partially liquidated four times today, while another multi-million-dollar short whale retained a large position after multiple rounds of liquidations. Over the past half hour, trader Aguila Trades (0x1f25) has been partially liquidated four times in a row on its BTC long positions, with a total of 21.12 BTC (worth around $1.7612 million) liquidated, resulting in a loss of approximately $25,900. The account currently holds 14.65 BTC long positions, valued at around $1.2144 million, with a liquidation price of $82,695. The largest liquidation in this round stemmed from an account starting with 0x4b62. Last night, this whale’s BTC and ETH short positions were partially liquidated multiple times, with a total of 203.60 BTC and 565.16 ETH liquidated, amounting to around $18.5024 million. The account has continued trading since, and currently holds roughly $29.1877 million in BTC short positions. The remaining four addresses also faced million-dollar-level liquidations one after another. Among them, the account starting with 0x89f had its entire BTC long position of around $2.2222 million liquidated, with no perpetual positions left; the account starting with 0x3f5f had its BTC and ZEC long positions liquidated for around $1.1842 million and $116,900 respectively, while still holding remaining positions. Additionally, the account starting with 0x7c1 had around $1.117 million in BTC long positions liquidated over the past half hour; the account starting with 0x9bb had around $1.0072 million in BTC long positions liquidated over the past hour.
PaperTrade uznal zprávy o pokusech o manipulaci s kotacemi ETH v rámci BBO platformy Hyperliquid, kterou používá pro referenční ceny při exekuci BTC a ETH. V reakci zpřísnil limity otevřeného zájmu on-chain i prostřednictvím relayerů.
PaperTrade has acknowledged reports of manipulation attempts on Hyperliquid’s best-bid/offer (BBO) used for synthetic execution. The incident involves attempts to shift Hyperliquid’s ETH quotes, impacting the reference prices used by PaperTrade for its BTC and ETH execution. PaperTrade has responded by tightening open-interest limits on-chain and through relayers. The situation highlights concerns over PaperTrade’s reliance on external price feeds and its exposure controls, although there is no indication of a breach in Hyperliquid’s native system.
Key Takeaways Reports suggest manipulation attempts on Hyperliquid BBO, which PaperTrade uses for reference pricing. PaperTrade is addressing the issue by tightening open-interest limits and enhancing controls. Market pricing suggests a decrease in confidence, reflected in reduced odds for PaperTrade’s FDV exceeding $25M. What to Watch Market participants will closely monitor any further measures PaperTrade implements to enhance security and control. The upcoming launch of PaperTrade’s token and its market reception will be key indicators of investor confidence. Developments in the Hyperliquid platform’s stability and any official announcements regarding improvements or partnerships will also be pivotal in shaping market sentiment.
Term Structure
Contract Odds Δ since publish Volume 24h January 1 2028 50% — — View market → January 1 2028 44.5% — — View market → January 1 2028 36.5% — — View market → January 1 2028 24% — — View market → January 1 2028 29% — — View market → January 1 2028 23.5% — — View market → January 1 2028 46% — — View market → January 1 2028 17% — — View market →
Podle ZachXBT bylo více než 87 % příchozích prostředků služby FreedomXMR přímo spojeno s nelegální činností; dohledal prostředky v hodnotě přes 20 milionů USD.
On-chain investigator ZachXBT published a report stating that a centralized money laundering service called FreedomXMR (FXMR) emerged on Hyperliquid Core in August 2026, with over 87% of its inflow volume directly linked to illegal activities. ZachXBT manually reviewed FXMR’s historical inflow transactions exceeding $10,000 each, tracing more than $20 million in funds directly to ransomware, exploit attacks, malware, and social engineering incidents. These include attacks targeting DCENT Wallet, Fetch.ai, and Axelar in September 2026, unnamed ransomware payments, and the Gamdom attack in October 2026. ZachXBT also noted that FXMR operators source Monero (XMR) liquidity via KuCoin, with associated addresses making over 3,000 cumulative deposits to the exchange, and its operating model may mirror that of Wagyu’s mixing service. The FXMR token contract was acquired via a Hyperliquid auction on July 27, 2026, for 518.28 HYPE tokens, valued at roughly $28,000 at the time. ZachXBT added that Hyperliquid Core has previously hosted other centralized money laundering services like b1exch, which leverage the blockchain’s permissionless mechanisms to operate, and confirmed he has shared a spreadsheet containing relevant data with the Hyperliquid team. The fund tracing and illegal association ratios referenced are conclusions from ZachXBT’s investigation.
Silhouette opened its HyperCore perpetuals RFQ service on October 19, 2026, with $BTC and $HYPE markets and an initial cap of $100k per quote. The launch announcement says accepted trades print on Hyperliquid’s order book. Margin and positions stay in the trader’s own Hyperliquid account.
The service is public, with no waitlist or invitation requirement. In its longer announcement, Silhouette says working a large order in slices exposes the trader’s intent before execution is complete. Its RFQ asks competing makers to quote the full size before the trader chooses a price. The trade then uses Hyperliquid’s existing book and margin system.
A signed quote still goes through the book
The perpetuals documentation describes a request in which the taker selects a market, side, size and price limit. Makers respond for the requested size. To accept a quote, the taker must sign an order at that price and size; a quote cannot win automatically. If nobody quotes, or the taker accepts none before the window closes, there is no trade.
Silhouette first places the winning maker’s order on the book. It sends the taker’s order only if the maker’s order rests there. If the market has moved through the maker’s price and the order is rejected, the process stops before Silhouette sends the taker’s order. A stale quote can also fail. A maker that reprices requires a fresh acceptance, and cancellation ends once Silhouette starts placing the orders.
Silhouette sends the taker’s order once, as signed. It cannot fill above the accepted size or execute at a worse price before fees. The taker’s order never rests on the book. If better-priced liquidity sits ahead of the maker, the taker keeps the price improvement.
Full-size quotes do not guarantee full-size fills. Another trader can take the maker’s order before the taker’s order arrives. With no remaining liquidity at the agreed price or better, the request fails without a fill. If only part of the requested size is available, that part can execute and the request still displays as settled. Traders need to check the filled quantity to see how much exposure they added.
Fees sit outside the signed price
Silhouette’s fee schedule lists a 1.4 bps builder fee for HyperCore perpetuals. Hyperliquid charges it to the taker’s account on the fill. The maker’s order carries no Silhouette builder fee. Hyperliquid’s own taker fee applies separately at the trader’s fee tier, and funding continues to accrue on the position.
The published example uses a fill of 100,000 USDC notional: the builder charge is 14 USDC, before Hyperliquid’s own fee. If only 60,000 USDC fills, the builder charge is 8.40 USDC. Silhouette takes no additional spread on the perpetuals fill. The charge follows executed notional, including when execution covers less than the original request.
Neither the quote nor its price limit includes these fees. After fees, a buy can cost more per unit than the signed price, while a seller can receive less. Silhouette’s HyperEVM spot trades settle directly with makers; the perps trades pass through the Hyperliquid book. The perps service leaves funds in the Hyperliquid account and collects its charge through Hyperliquid’s builder mechanism.
Traders must approve the builder fee in their Hyperliquid account before using the service. If the rate rises above their existing allowance, they must approve it again. An approval below the required rate prevents Silhouette from sending the trade. Insufficient margin can separately cause Hyperliquid to reject the taker’s order.
Account permissions and closing exposure
The app requires a funded Hyperliquid account with $USDC margin, unified account mode and an approved signing key. The main wallet signs the setup actions: switching account mode, authorizing the key and approving the builder fee. After setup, the key signs orders when the trader accepts quotes, without a new main-wallet prompt. Those orders book to the main account. A key that stops working must be approved again from the main wallet.
The RFQ itself carries no leverage or margin-mode setting. Execution uses the settings already held for that market in the Hyperliquid account. The app shows leverage and margin mode on the request ticket, but those controls change the underlying account settings. The RFQ service has no separate margin account or independent position parameters.
Hyperliquid nets positions by market. To close a position, the app sends an ordinary order on the opposite side, and Silhouette does not cap that request at the size of the open position. A larger trade can close the existing position and open exposure in the opposite direction. The documentation tells traders to check their current size on Hyperliquid and keep the closing request at or below it.
API users can instead sign a reduce-only order. Hyperliquid checks that instruction against the position when execution occurs. The order can fill partially or not at all, but it can only shrink the position. The ordinary closing order submitted through the app lacks that protection.
Check Hyperliquid after a failed request
The RFQ result reports the filled quantity and average price before fees. Silhouette returns neither a Hyperliquid order ID nor a transaction hash. Hyperliquid holds the fill record and position, and traders can check the fill in their Hyperliquid trade history.
A position may exist even when Silhouette cannot confirm execution. The documentation says an unconfirmed request is final and will not be updated later. It instructs traders to check their Hyperliquid position after any failed perpetuals request before trading the same market again.
The launch announcement names HIP-3 markets and higher quote caps as planned additions. It gives no date for either expansion.
HYPE has slipped below its short-term moving averages after pulling back from its September high. A bearish crossover between the two averages is forming but has not been confirmed. Hyperliquid’s CEO wants US rules to target market operators instead of the blockchain itself. A regulated route for American traders through Kraken’s parent company still awaits approval. HYPE price is hovering near $79.30 on Monday, down about 8.5% over the past week and roughly 19% below the $98.16 peak it reached in September, after sellers pushed the price under both its 20-day and 50-day exponential moving averages. The pullback lands in the same week Hyperliquid Labs CEO and co-founder Jeff Yan used an interview on Bloomberg’s Odd Lots podcast to explain how the platform could legally serve American traders, which matters for HYPE because the token’s buybacks are funded by trading fees on the network.
Two averages close to crossing The 20-day EMA sits at $83.60 and the 50-day EMA at $82.85, a gap of less than $1 that keeps shrinking as the faster line turns lower. If the 20-day average drops beneath the 50-day, traders would read it as a bearish crossover, meaning the average price of roughly the last month has fallen below the average of the last two and a half months, and that the October selling has started to outweigh the uptrend HYPE built from early August. That signal is still pending, although the price has already spent several sessions below both lines, so the $82.85 to $83.60 band now works as a ceiling buyers would need to break through before the short-term trend can be called healthy again.
Hyperliquid (HYPE) daily chart. Source: Alexander Stefanov / TradingView. HYPE also lost the 0.382 Fibonacci retracement at $80.21. These levels measure how much of the August to September rally, which took the token from $51.15 to $98.16, has been given back, and the 0.382 line marks the point where about 38% of that gain has been erased. A return above $80.21 would be the first sign of repair, while the 0.5 retracement at $74.66, where half of the rally would be gone, is the next support buyers have to defend.
Level Role $87.07 (0.236 Fib) Upper resistance $83.60 / $82.85 (EMAs) Trend ceiling $80.21 (0.382 Fib) First resistance $74.66 (0.5 Fib) First support $69.11 (0.618 Fib) Deeper support Key HYPE levels on the daily chart.
The Relative Strength Index reads 39.67, below the neutral 50 mark and under its own signal average of 43.77, which shows sellers have held the upper hand for most of the past two weeks. The reading is still above 30, the zone where a token is usually considered sold heavily enough to attract bargain hunters, so the chart still leaves room for more weakness before the token reaches levels that have historically drawn buyers back in. Volume during the October decline has also stayed well below the levels seen during the August breakout, a sign that the selling so far lacks the force of the rally that preceded it.
Yan’s case for regulating deployers Yan said Americans who reach Hyperliquid through a VPN are breaking its terms of service, and argued that compliant US access depends on regulators understanding onchain technology well enough to judge whether it meets the CFTC’s core principles. His proposal treats the Hyperliquid blockchain like an internet protocol and places compliance duties on the firms that deploy and run markets on top of it, since those firms control listings, margin rules and who can trade. As an example of what the technology offers supervisors, he noted that anyone can verify that total user balances equal the USDC held at a given address, a live proof of funds that customers of a traditional exchange cannot check for themselves.
How the US route is being built The pieces Yan described already exist on paper. HIP-3 lets outside builders launch their own perpetual futures markets on Hyperliquid, and on September 16 Payward, the parent company of Kraken, said it intends to deploy onchain perpetual futures for US clients starting with HIP-3* markets, a permissioned version of HIP-3 where the market operator decides who is allowed to trade. Under that plan, Bitnomial, a CFTC-regulated exchange that Payward acquired this year, would create and administer the markets and clear the contracts, while NinjaTrader Clearing would hold client accounts. American users would trade newly created contracts listed under Bitnomial’s rules, without any access to Hyperliquid’s existing order books, and the whole structure remains subject to regulatory approval.
Hyperliquid’s path toward US markets
Feb 2026 – Hyperliquid Policy Center opens in Washington
May 29 – CFTC approves Kalshi’s bitcoin perpetual as a futures contract
Jun 18 – CME sues the CFTC, arguing perpetuals are swaps
Aug 19 – Trump says the CFTC chair is working to bring Hyperliquid onshore
Sep 16 – Payward unveils US perpetuals plan via Bitnomial
Oct 15 – Yan sets out deployer-level regulation
Political backing arrived in August, when President Donald Trump said at a White House meeting that CFTC Chair Mike Selig was working to bring Hyperliquid into the United States in a fully compliant and legal fashion. The legal ground is less settled. CME Group sued the CFTC in June over its approval of perpetual futures, arguing they should be regulated as swaps under the Dodd-Frank Act, and the Hyperliquid Policy Center hired former US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar to file a brief asking the court to throw the case out.
Why US access matters for HYPE The link between regulation and the HYPE price runs through fees. Most of the trading fees Hyperliquid collects go toward buying HYPE on the open market, and builders who launch HIP-3 markets have to stake HYPE, so regulated American volume would feed both mechanisms. Ki Young Ju, founder and CEO of on-chain analytics firm CryptoQuant, shared a ranking that put HYPE first among major crypto assets by analyst sentiment, about 2.3 standard deviations more bullish than the average reading, with fee-driven buybacks named as the main reason. That optimism has not stopped the token from sliding this month, and the US channel would initially cover only a subset of new contracts on Bitnomial, which limits how quickly any approval could show up in fee revenue.
The most bullish crypto asset by analyst sentiment is $HYPE. pic.twitter.com/VtqsqWSsiD
— Ki Young Ju (@ki_young_ju) October 18, 2026
Bitnomial approval and the CME case On the chart, a daily close above $80.21 followed by a move through the EMA band would neutralize the crossover threat, while a break under $74.66 would open the way toward $69.11. On the regulatory side, the CFTC still has to clear Bitnomial’s listing, and a ruling in CME’s favor could push perpetual contracts into the heavier swaps regime, raising compliance costs for every venue planning to offer them. Hyperliquid keeps expanding offshore in the meantime: EQX Labs said on October 14 it plans to launch 11 tokenized US stock and ETF markets on the platform, including SPY, QQQ and NVIDIA, and US persons are explicitly barred from buying them.
Alex is a financial markets journalist and co-founder of Millennial Media Group, and he's spent close to ten years trying to answer one stubborn question: what's really driving this? It started in 2016, when Bitcoin refused to make sense to him - and rather than shrug, he stayed with it until it did. That patience became his method. He's less interested in what an asset is doing today than in the plumbing behind it: how liquidity flows, where risk hides, what a chart is quietly telling you that the headline isn't. That lens eventually stretched well past crypto into traditional markets, because the same forces - fear, leverage, incentives, timing - show up everywhere once you know how to look. Most coverage, in his view, insults the reader by stopping at the surface. Price up, price down, moving on. He'd rather leave someone genuinely understanding a move than merely informed that it happened. His path into markets ran through a Tourism degree at New Bulgarian University - proof, maybe, that curiosity beats credentials. With more than 200 deep analyses and over 10,000 articles behind him, he still walks away from most trading days having learned something he didn't know that morning.
Kinetiq 9. listopadu spustí mainnet Elysium, první síť druhé vrstvy v ekosystému Hyperliquid, která se vypořádává na HyperEVM a používá $HYPE k úhradě poplatků za plyn.
Kinetiq (@Kinetiq_xyz) will launch the Elysium mainnet on November 9, a Layer 2 network for @HyperliquidX that settles to HyperEVM and uses $HYPE for gas.
Kinetiq (@Kinetiq_xyz) has set November 9 as the mainnet launch date for Elysium, a Layer 2 network built for the @HyperliquidX ecosystem. TechFlow reported on October 19 that, according to official announcements, Elysium is the first L2 network in the Hyperliquid ecosystem.
What Elysium is designed to doElysium is a general-purpose, high-performance L2 built specifically for Hyperliquid. ChainCatcher reports that it settles to HyperEVM, is co-located with HyperCore, and uses $HYPE as its native gas token. It runs Conduit's G2 sequencer on an architecture that meets SOC 2 Type 2 standards, according to the same report.
Kinetiq first unveiled the project on August 24. Crypto.news reported that the network is meant to increase transaction capacity within the Hyperliquid ecosystem, with 50% of sequencer fees allocated to buybacks and burns of Kinetiq's $KNTQ token.
The team has pointed to limits in the existing HyperEVM environment as the motivation. CoinTurk reported that Kinetiq cited HyperEVM's dual-block architecture, restricted throughput and high fees during congestion, including basic swaps costing as much as $20. Elysium is intended to be more deeply integrated with HyperCore, the liquidity engine behind Hyperliquid, and to offer faster block times.
Technically, Chainstack's overview describes Elysium as an Arbitrum Orbit chain that executes on its own fast chain and settles to HyperEVM, with high-frequency trading and market making as the stated target workload. The testnet has been live since September 22, 2026.
Why it matters for HyperliquidKinetiq is best known as the protocol behind kHYPE. OAK Research describes it as a non-custodial liquid staking protocol on Hyperliquid, where users deposit $HYPE and receive kHYPE in return. Elysium extends the company beyond staking into trading infrastructure.
Analysts have framed the launch as a test of execution. MEXC News noted that Elysium must show it adds meaningful functionality rather than fragmenting liquidity, and that performance, liquidity and developer adoption can only be measured after launch.
Kinetiq's documentation still describes Elysium as pre-launch, with specifications and parameters subject to change before mainnet, according to Chainstack.
SourcesTechFlow: Elysium to launch mainnet on November 9
ChainCatcher: First Hyperliquid L2 Elysium mainnet launch
Chainstack: What is Elysium?
Hyperliquid Policy Center vyzvalo americkou Komisi pro cenné papíry a burzy (SEC) k pěti úpravám navrhovaných pravidel pro kryptoaktiva, včetně jasnějších pravidel pro airdropy, obchodování na sekundárním trhu a zpětné odkupy tokenů.
The Hyperliquid Policy Center has urged the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to revise its proposed Regulation Crypto Assets framework, submitting five recommendations covering token airdrops, secondary trading, developer protections, buybacks and state securities requirements.
Summary
Hyperliquid Policy Center says it has submitted five recommendations concerning the SEC’s proposed Regulation Crypto Assets framework.
The proposals seek clearer legal treatment for airdrops, secondary token trading, buybacks and developing blockchain networks.
SEC exemptions would permit qualifying token offerings of up to $5 million or $75 million under different conditions.
The group wants regulators to distinguish automated token repurchases from buybacks directed by centralized project operators.
The SEC’s public consultation closes October 20, while the proposed regulations remain subject to review and revision.
According to the policy organization’s October 19 announcement, it filed a comment letter supporting the SEC’s proposed rules while requesting changes intended to address how decentralized cryptocurrency networks operate. The group argues that the current draft leaves important questions unresolved for developers and token holders, particularly while networks are still being built.
The submission comes one day before the SEC’s October 20 deadline for public comments on Regulation Crypto Assets. The agency proposed the framework in August 2026 to establish specific registration exemptions for certain investment contracts involving cryptocurrencies.
Under the draft, qualifying projects could raise up to $5 million over four years through a startup exemption or up to $75 million within a 12-month period through a separate fundraising exemption. Neither provision is currently an approved exemption under Regulation Crypto Assets, and the final rules may differ from the published proposal.
Hyperliquid Policy Center seeks clearer rules for token airdrops
One of the group’s central recommendations concerns how free token distributions should be treated under U.S. securities laws.
The Hyperliquid Policy Center wants the SEC to write its existing airdrop interpretation directly into the final regulation. The group argues that receiving tokens without providing payment or another form of consideration generally does not satisfy the investment-of-money requirement associated with an investment contract.
BIG UPDATE: Hyperliquid Policy Center (@HyperliquidPC) has officially submitted a comment letter to the SEC, supporting Regulation Crypto Assets and proposing five key refinements.
The proposed regulatory framework includes:
– Up to $5M in token offerings over four years under… https://t.co/a9lq0Jcca9
— HypedLaunches (@HypedLaunches) October 19, 2026
In March, the SEC and Commodity Futures Trading Commission issued a joint interpretation addressing the application of federal securities laws to several cryptocurrency activities. The joint crypto classification guidance covered airdrops, staking and other blockchain activities while examining the circumstances under which tokens may be connected to investment contracts.
The policy center’s proposed change would provide specific regulatory language for qualifying token distributions. It wants the rule to focus on whether recipients provided tangible and definable consideration in exchange for the assets.
The group identifies wallet connections, sanctions screening and other routine delivery procedures as activities that should not automatically turn a free distribution into a securities transaction. Such requirements may be necessary before a user can receive tokens, even when the recipient has not paid the issuing project.
Its recommendation distinguishes administrative steps from activities performed as compensation for tokens. A project requiring participants to provide services after announcing a distribution could raise different legal questions under the existing interpretation.
The organization argues that formalizing this distinction would give developers and recipients clearer expectations when distributing tokens to network participants.
SEC proposal leaves secondary crypto trading questions unresolved
Secondary market trading forms another significant part of the Hyperliquid Policy Center’s submission.
The organization wants the SEC to explain whether tokens originally distributed through the proposed registration exemptions can subsequently be traded through decentralized protocols and other intermediaries.
The August proposal addresses certain cryptocurrency offerings and contains provisions concerning resale and state registration requirements. However, it does not establish a complete regulatory regime for every person or protocol facilitating transactions after tokens reach investors.
Earlier, crypto.news examined the proposed exemptions, including the separate fundraising limits and proposed safe harbor. The SEC’s announcement emphasized capital raising and disclosures, leaving the legal treatment of certain secondary-market activities to other regulatory requirements.
The policy center argues that the usefulness of the offering exemptions depends partly on whether recipients have a functioning market in which to transfer or sell their tokens.
Its comment refers to the SEC’s own economic analysis, which discusses how limited secondary-market liquidity could reduce the expected benefits of the proposed framework. The organization wants the agency to address this issue when adopting the final regulation.
The recommendation specifically includes blockchain protocols and people who facilitate trading without being registered as traditional securities intermediaries. The group has not argued that every platform should receive unconditional relief from applicable securities laws.
Existing requirements for securities exchanges, brokers and dealers remain relevant when an activity falls within their statutory definitions. The proposed offering exemptions would not automatically exempt all trading services from those obligations.
Hyperliquid group challenges the proposed developer safe harbor
The SEC’s draft includes a conditional safe harbor intended to address when a cryptocurrency is no longer tied to an investment contract.
Under the proposed framework, an issuer generally must complete or permanently cease the essential managerial efforts it previously represented or promised to investors. Meeting the specified conditions could allow the related token to be treated as no longer subject to that investment contract for federal securities law purposes.
The Hyperliquid Policy Center argues that the certification requirement could create difficulties for projects that have maintained that their tokens were never sold through investment contracts.
Its submission says developers might view the required certification as an implicit admission that a securities relationship previously existed. The group wants projects to be able to certify that their tokens were never tied to an investment contract without making a contrary declaration.
A second objection concerns timing. The organization believes the safe harbor should provide protection while essential managerial work is still underway, because projects face regulatory uncertainty during development.
The current proposal is more limited, with the safe harbor linked to the completion or permanent cessation of the promised managerial activities. Extending protections to unfinished projects would require the SEC to change the conditions described in its August release.
In a previous analysis of the regulatory framework, the proposed safe harbor was identified as distinct from the two fundraising exemptions. The safe harbor concerns the legal relationship between a token and an investment contract, while the exemptions address qualifying offers and sales.
The group has not received approval for its proposed changes. The SEC must consider the public consultation and any subsequent revisions before determining the contents of a final regulation.
Automated token buybacks draw a separate SEC recommendation
Token repurchases are another area where the Hyperliquid Policy Center wants more precise legal language.
The group is asking the SEC to distinguish buybacks that occur automatically under published blockchain rules from purchases made at the discretion of a centralized company or project operator.
Some cryptocurrency protocols use predetermined mechanisms to allocate trading fees or other network revenue toward purchasing tokens. In other arrangements, a company or foundation decides when to buy tokens, how much to spend and whether to change the program.
The policy organization argues that those arrangements should not automatically receive identical treatment when regulators assess whether a central party is directing the economic activities associated with a cryptocurrency.
It wants the SEC to incorporate its staff’s token buyback guidance into the final regulation or the accompanying explanation. The submission requests consistent use of the term “central party” and cautions against treating validators and other independent participants as one controlling group solely because they share economic incentives.
The distinction is relevant to Hyperliquid’s ecosystem, where token buybacks and transaction-driven mechanisms have attracted attention from market participants. However, the group’s request does not establish that any particular Hyperliquid token or program has received a regulatory exemption.
The policy center’s interpretation remains an interested-party recommendation. Whether a particular buyback is associated with an investment contract depends on the facts of the arrangement and the applicable law.
Federal protections could expire under the SEC’s draft
The group’s fifth recommendation addresses how long federal protections against certain state securities registration requirements should remain available.
Regulation Crypto Assets proposes federal preemption for qualifying securities offerings and some subsequent transactions. The provision would limit specified state registration requirements while preserving other applicable legal obligations.
The Hyperliquid Policy Center argues that those protections should remain effective after a project satisfies the proposed safe harbor. It is concerned that losing federal preemption at that stage could expose developers or token holders to a new set of state-level registration questions.
The comparison with congressional legislation has identified differences between the SEC’s proposed regulatory exemptions and the treatment of decentralized networks under the CLARITY Act. The SEC proposal concerns particular securities law requirements, while legislation could establish a more extensive statutory framework.
Federal preemption under the draft would not eliminate every state law affecting cryptocurrency businesses. State antifraud provisions and requirements governing activities beyond the covered securities offerings may continue to apply.
In its August proposal, the SEC established file number S7-2026-27 and set October 20 as the deadline for written comments. The rulemaking remains open for public input, and the agency has not adopted the Hyperliquid Policy Center’s five requested changes.
Perpetuální kontrakt TSLA na platformě Hyperliquid po představení Roadsteru během několika hodin vzrostl o 4,9 % na zhruba 378 USD, zatímco hodinový objem vyskočil o 1 580 % na 47 milionů USD.
After Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) and Elon Musk presented a next-generation Roadster prototype incorporating SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX) derived thruster technology at a demonstration on October 15 at SpaceX’s McGregor, Texas facility, trading activity in instruments tracking Tesla’s share price accelerated sharply on always-open crypto platforms.
The event, which included the vehicle performing aerial maneuvers and flips using cold-gas thrusters and suction systems, occurred after regular US equity markets had closed, with Tesla shares finishing the session at $362.44.
On Hyperliquid, the TSLA perpetual futures contract (listed via Trade.xyz) rose roughly 4.9 percent to around $378 in the hours after the reveal.
Hourly trading volume on the contract increased approximately 1,580 percent, climbing from $2.8 million to $47 million within a single hour.
With the daily candle only about nine hours old at the time of the peak activity, the session ranked as the product’s second-busiest day since listing roughly a year earlier.
Data aggregated by RootData showed Binance leading overall 24-hour volume in Tesla-related derivatives at approximately $279 million, ahead of Hyperliquid’s roughly $159 million.
Hyperliquid nonetheless held the largest open interest, near $99 million.
Tesla’s actual shares indicated roughly 4.5 percent higher in premarket trading the following morning.
SpaceX has used thrusters to position spacecraft for decades.
Making them work in a vehicle instead of a vacuum took all-new hardware & controls.
Every usable void in the car is packed with Carbon Fiber Overwrapped Pressure Vessels (COPVs)
More compressed gas on board = more… pic.twitter.com/IyFDx26yEf
— Tesla (@Tesla) October 16, 2026
The Hyperliquid instrument is a perpetual futures contract that tracks the price of Tesla stock.
It settles in USDC, permits leverage of up to 20 times, and operates continuously without a traditional brokerage account.
This structure allowed market participants to take positions on Tesla’s valuation immediately after the prototype demonstration while the Nasdaq remained closed.
Tesla is scheduled to report third-quarter earnings on October 21.
The episode highlights how round-the-clock crypto derivatives platforms can serve as an initial reaction venue for corporate news that emerges outside conventional equity market hours.
It is important to note that products of this type are frequently mislabeled in headlines and commentary as “tokenized stocks.”
In reality, not all instruments described as tokenized stocks constitute digital securities.
Conflating the two categories reflects a basic lack of understanding of how these financial instruments function.
A genuine digital security representing equity would ordinarily carry ownership rights, potential dividend claims, and the regulatory framework applicable to securities.
Many products marketed as tokenized stocks in crypto markets, including the Hyperliquid TSLA contract, are instead synthetic derivatives or price-tracking perpetuals.
They deliver economic exposure to price moves without conveying ownership in the underlying company, without voting rights, and without the legal character of a security in most jurisdictions.
Treating them interchangeably overlooks material distinctions in counterparty risk, settlement, regulatory status, and holder rights.
These are price-tracking derivatives, not tokenized equity securities.
Many industry professionals and commentators continue to treat every blockchain-based product that references a stock ticker as a form of tokenized equity, often without examining the actual contractual terms, settlement mechanics, or regulatory status.
This habit stems in large part from a failure to read the fine print that defines the instrument.
In the case of the Hyperliquid TSLA contract and similar products listed through platforms such as Trade.xyz, the documentation and market specifications make clear that the offering is a cash-settled perpetual futures contract whose value is derived from an external price feed.
It does not represent a claim on Tesla shares, does not confer shareholder rights, and does not involve the transfer or custody of any underlying securities.
Professionals who overlook these distinctions frequently default to the language of “tokenized stocks” because it is familiar and marketable, even when the product’s structure is that of a leveraged synthetic derivative.
The result is a persistent category error in which price-tracking contracts are discussed as if they were digital representations of equity ownership.
This confusion also reflects a broader shortfall in basic financial literacy among some participants in crypto markets.
Traditional equity ownership, whether in certificated or digital form, is defined by legal rights—including residual claims on assets, potential dividends, voting power, and protections under securities law—rather than by the mere ability to bet on a price.
Perpetual futures and other synthetic instruments, by contrast, are contractual agreements between counterparties (or against a protocol’s risk engine) that expire only when closed, settle in a stablecoin such as USDC, and carry funding rates, liquidation risk, and no ownership interest.
When industry voices blur these categories, they obscure material differences in counterparty exposure, regulatory treatment, and the nature of the claim being traded.
Accurate differentiation requires only the willingness to consult the product specifications and to apply elementary distinctions between ownership of a security and a derivative that tracks its price—distinctions that have long been standard in conventional finance.
Have a crowdfunding offering you'd like to share? Submit an offering for consideration using our Submit a Tip form and we may share it on our site!
HYPE se stal největší pozicí hedgeového fondu Multicoin Capital, jehož velikost firma nezveřejnila. Multicoin zároveň potvrdil, že se nadále zaměřuje na kryptoměny.
Hyperliquid’s HYPE has become Multicoin Capital’s largest hedge-fund position as the investment firm has reaffirmed its focus on crypto over standalone artificial intelligence investments.
Summary
HYPE ranks as Multicoin’s largest hedge-fund holding, with its position size undisclosed. Multicoin’s June research already identified HYPE among its largest liquid-fund investments. September wallet reports tracked Multicoin-linked transfers to Coinbase Prime without confirming completed sales. Paradigm’s expanded investment mandate retains crypto alongside artificial intelligence and robotics. Bloomberg reported that Spencer Applebaum, Multicoin’s general partner and co-head of venture investments, identified HYPE as the fund’s largest holding without disclosing its size.
Multicoin’s largest HYPE position follows months of ownership Applebaum told Bloomberg that Multicoin bought its HYPE exposure on public markets and generally holds publicly traded assets for several years. He declined to disclose the position’s size.
During the interview, Applebaum said Multicoin would keep investing in digital assets, citing the firm’s expertise in crypto. He questioned attempts to force connections between blockchain and artificial intelligence.
Multicoin’s own June 25 investment post establishes an earlier ownership disclosure. The firm said it had initiated a large position early in 2026 and continued accumulating, calling HYPE “one of the largest positions in our liquid fund.”
Written by Applebaum, Shayon Sengupta and Tushar Jain, the post described Hyperliquid as a blockchain and decentralized exchange designed for high-speed trading. Its investment argument centered on expanding the platform beyond cryptocurrency derivatives into other financial markets.
As crypto.news previously reported, Multicoin’s June valuation model projected a $319 HYPE price by 2028 under its base case. The coverage identified accumulation beginning in February and a three-day no-trade policy following publication of the research.
The June coverage tied that forecast to Hyperliquid’s earlier operating results, citing Multicoin’s estimate of $873 million in revenue on $2.9 trillion in trading volume during 2025. It recorded user growth from approximately 301,000 to 923,000 over that year, with open interest reaching $6 billion. Those were historical figures used in the investment case.
In June, Multicoin described HYPE as one of its largest liquid-fund positions. Applebaum identified it as the largest in the Bloomberg interview without disclosing its portfolio weight or how the allocation changed.
Multicoin’s $319 forecast rests on earnings and supply assumptions In its full June research report, Multicoin modeled approximately $8 billion in annual earnings by 2028 and applied a 20-times multiple. Its calculation produced a $160 billion valuation, which it divided by an adjusted supply of 502 million tokens to derive a price above $319.
The report presented a $109 bear case and a $689 bull case using different assumptions about derivatives-market growth and decentralized exchanges’ market share. All three figures were investment scenarios published in June, not realized returns or newly issued October forecasts.
Among the risks, Multicoin identified decentralization and governance, regulation, competition, interoperability between HyperCore and HyperEVM, token dilution, and bad debt. In its bad-debt discussion, the firm warned that illiquid markets and gaps through liquidation levels could leave the protocol with losses.
The shorter investment post linked its expansion thesis to HIP-3 markets covering assets such as commodities and equity indexes. It described prediction markets, options and portfolio margining as further growth opportunities, while acknowledging that the investment faced regulatory and technical risks.
Multicoin-linked transfers do not establish HYPE sales September reporting documented Multicoin-linked transfers to Coinbase alongside the firm’s public investment thesis. Lookonchain attributed a Sept. 24 deposit of 130,331 HYPE, valued at $12.15 million, to the investment manager.
The analytics firm put cumulative deposits into Coinbase Prime since July 28 at 4.23 million HYPE, worth approximately $285 million at the recorded transfer prices. Coinbase Prime provides institutional custody and execution services, so the deposits did not establish whether Multicoin sold the tokens afterward.
The available transfer reporting does not provide a complete hedge-fund balance sheet or a reconciliation of purchases, withdrawals and remaining holdings. A claim that Multicoin has continuously expanded its position would therefore go beyond the disclosed evidence.
Separate institutional buying appeared in a Sept. 25 report on Hyperliquid Strategies’ purchases. Lookonchain linked a wallet to the Nasdaq-listed treasury company and said it bought 494,200 HYPE worth $45.8 million over 16 hours.
The same wallet had accumulated 5.51 million HYPE worth roughly $476 million over the preceding month, according to that reporting. Those purchases concerned a public treasury company, not a disclosed reallocation by Multicoin’s venture-fund peers.
The company had reported approximately 29.3 million HYPE worth $1.9 billion as of June 30 after raising $647 million in equity capital, according to the September coverage.
Paradigm’s AI expansion retains a crypto mandate Paradigm raised its fourth fund with $1.2 billion in commitments, according to July 9 coverage of its announcement. Co-founder Matt Huang and managing partner Alana Palmedo announced the vehicle on July 8.
The firm said the fund would invest across crypto, AI, robotics and other technology fields while continuing to back companies developing markets and financial systems. Its announcement named Hyperliquid, Kalshi and Tempo among examples connected to that strategy.
The same coverage recorded Framework Ventures’ $400 million fourth fund in June for crypto, AI, robotics and energy startups. Haun Ventures raised $1 billion in May for crypto infrastructure, tokenization and AI agents.
Justin Sun označil Hyperliquid za jeden z největších průlomů tohoto cyklu. Budoucnost soupeření mezi DEX a CEX podle něj určí regulační rámec, který USA pro Hyperliquid nastaví.
TRON founder Justin Sun recently discussed Hyperliquid during a 3.5-hour offline conversation with Jin Ming, calling it one of the biggest new breakthroughs to emerge in this cycle. The U.S. stock perpetual contracts it launched have opened up new horizons for the industry. However, as more projects enter the U.S. stock perpetual contract space, Hyperliquid is facing intensifying competition. Sun also noted that the future competition between decentralized exchanges (DEXs) and centralized exchanges (CEXs) hinges on how U.S. regulators define Hyperliquid’s regulatory boundaries. If Hyperliquid can secure regulatory exemptions similar to Uniswap, a large number of CEXs could shift to the DEX model to cut compliance costs and gain broader global operational room, which would likely squeeze CEXs that fail to transition. Conversely, tighter regulatory requirements would also put significant pressure on Hyperliquid. Hyperliquid’s maturity in regulatory affairs and U.S. domestic operations still lags behind onshore compliant firms like Circle. Thus, the long-term competitive landscape between DEXs and CEXs largely depends on regulators’ stance toward new trading models and the compliance boundaries they establish.
Hyperliquid (HYPE) holders have lost 15% in a month as the token fell harder than Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana. Yet analysts are more bullish on it than on any other major cryptocurrency, according to CryptoQuant’s ranking of analysts.
HYPE traded at $76.55 on Sunday, about 22% below its September 23 record of $97.96. The token is worth roughly $17 billion.
Hyperliquid (HYPE) Price Performance. Source: BeInCryptoWhy is HYPE Falling Harder than the Market?Over the same 30 days, Bitcoin (BTC) was flat, while Ethereum (ETH) and Solana (SOL) each lost about 9%.
One cause is specific to HYPE. On October 6, Hyperliquid’s team received 3.75 million HYPE, then worth about $340 million, in a scheduled payout, according to unlock tracker Tokenomist.
A co-founder said the batch would be sold off-exchange to one institutional buyer. Neither the buyer nor the price was disclosed.
That payout was worth nearly five times the $71 million Hyperliquid generated for buybacks over the past 30 days, DefiLlama data shows.
The platform, a venue for trading crypto futures, routes about 99% of trading fees into daily HYPE purchases, according to CoinShares.
Traders betting on higher prices with borrowed money lost $688.56 million to forced closures in one day this month, BeInCrypto reported in its Hyperliquid whale coverage.
How Bullish are Analysts on HYPE?CryptoQuant scores how strongly analysts lean bullish against each coin’s own recent history. HYPE topped its ranking at 2.3 standard deviations above normal. BNB, Solana, Bitcoin, and Cardano (ADA) followed.
Analysts Are Most Bullish on Hyperliquid. Source: Ki Young Ju/X “The most bullish crypto asset by analyst sentiment is $HYPE,” noted Ki Young Ju, founder and CEO of CryptoQuant.
The leading call on the firm’s chart targets $100 to $120.
By raw share, HYPE is not the most backed. CryptoQuant’s page shows 90% of tracked analysts bullish on HYPE, against 100% for ADA and 92% for Uniswap (UNI).
HYPE Becomes Crypto’s Most Bullish Bet as Price Drops 15% in a MonthHistory offers a contrast. HYPE’s last big pullback, from about $75 in early June to near $52 in August, came as analyst sentiment turned bearish on CryptoQuant’s chart. This time, sentiment has stayed bullish through the drop.
For holders, two figures now test the bull case. One is whether daily buybacks can absorb selling. The other is $75.14, a support level flagged in BeInCrypto’s weekend analysis.
HYPE trades less than $1.50 above it, per the Hyperliquid price page.
Hyperliquid na testnetu navrhl minimální požadavek na delegaci ve výši 10 HYPE pro prioritní poplatky u příkazů IOC a ALO. Termín nasazení na mainnet zatím nepotvrdil.
Hyperliquid has introduced revised order priority rules on its testnet, including a reported 10 HYPE delegation requirement for traders seeking faster order handling through its priority fee system.
Summary
Hyperliquid has introduced proposed changes to its order priority rules on testnet following trader feedback. The reported changes require at least 10 HYPE in delegated balance for certain priority fee features. New restrictions concern Standard accounts, CoreWriter transactions, order placement and changes to existing orders. Official documentation distinguishes IOC execution speed from ALO order positioning within the trading queue system. HYPE traded near $79 in the supplied market snapshot, falling over the preceding seven days overall. In an October 18 announcement circulated through its community channels, the decentralized derivatives platform outlined changes to write priority fees following feedback from users. The proposed rules concern traders who depend on low delays when placing, modifying or canceling orders.
The announcement identifies four changes involving account settings, transaction processing and eligibility for priority fees. Hyperliquid’s existing technical documentation confirms how its priority fee system operates, although the newly reported delegation threshold has not yet appeared in the publicly accessible documentation reviewed for this report.
The changes are described as live on testnet. No confirmed date has been announced for applying the revised requirements to mainnet trading.
Hyperliquid introduces a 10 HYPE priority fee rule The October 18 update introduces a minimum delegated balance of 10 HYPE for accounts seeking to use IOC and ALO priority fees, according to the announcement.
IOC, short for immediate-or-cancel, refers to an order that attempts immediate execution and cancels any portion that cannot be filled. ALO, or add-liquidity-only, is used to place orders that join the order book without immediately taking available liquidity.
Both types can use priority fees under Hyperliquid’s existing system, although the benefits work differently. The latest announcement introduces a staking-related eligibility requirement for the priority features. It does not establish that all traders must delegate 10 HYPE to place ordinary orders.
At the supplied HYPE price of $78.98, 10 tokens had a market value of $789.80. The value is a market-price comparison, not a newly announced fixed dollar fee.
Hyperliquid’s existing priority fee documentation states that eligible fees are charged from the user’s undelegated staking balance. The October announcement refers separately to a minimum delegated balance.
The distinction is important to the technical description of the proposal: the delegated balance would determine eligibility under the reported new rule, while the documentation describes an undelegated staking balance as the source used to pay priority fees. The publicly accessible documentation does not yet confirm whether the platform intends to change either balance requirement before a mainnet release.
New rules change how Hyperliquid handles orders Hyperliquid’s announcement restricts mempool priority to accounts using Standard abstraction. The platform’s account abstraction documentation describes Standard mode as the recommended option for market makers, high-volume automated users and developers.
Standard accounts maintain separate balances for spot markets and perpetual futures, including individual balances across independently deployed markets. By comparison, Unified accounts combine eligible balances to support cross-margin trading. Under the proposed rule, transaction priority within the mempool would apply only to Standard abstraction accounts.
The announcement identifies a second restriction concerning HyperCore operations. Account activity outside cancellations, order placements and order modifications would reduce the relevant account’s transaction priority until confirmation.
The reported behavior concerns the ordering of account operations before confirmation. The announcement does not provide a numerical estimate of the additional delay affected accounts might experience.
A separate provision lowers mempool priority for accounts that have directly submitted CoreWriter operations. CoreWriter connects smart contracts running on HyperEVM with actions on HyperCore, where Hyperliquid maintains its native trading functionality.
The rule would therefore affect certain accounts using transactions that pass through HyperEVM to interact with the exchange’s core trading system.
Hyperliquid has not provided a complete list of CoreWriter activities that would trigger the reported priority treatment.
IOC and ALO priority fees work differently Hyperliquid introduced write priority fees to give advanced trading users a way to pay for improved order handling without relying entirely on faster connections to exchange infrastructure.
Its official documentation separates read priority from write priority. Read priority concerns how quickly users receive market information from participating nodes. The system uses two independent Dutch auctions running on a three-minute schedule.
Write priority concerns the submission and processing of orders. Hyperliquid supports priority fee settings for eligible IOC and ALO order groups, with the fee rate included in the order submission.
For IOC orders, priority fees can reduce the time between order submission and processing. The documentation reports an empirical improvement of approximately 45 milliseconds for each basis point of priority fee, up to an eight-basis-point range.
It describes additional priority rates above eight basis points as a method for ordering certain transactions received within closely spaced periods. Cancellation requests retain priority over immediately executable orders, even when those orders carry priority fees.
ALO orders use a different arrangement. Priority fees affect the order’s position within a price-level queue during a continuous 400-millisecond eligibility period. An ALO priority fee is charged when an eligible order is placed, whether or not the order eventually fills.
Unlike IOC fees, ALO priority payments do not provide faster mempool processing. Their documented purpose is to improve queue position among qualifying orders. The platform burns priority fees collected through the mechanism, according to its technical documentation.
Hyperliquid trading activity remains closely watched The proposed testnet changes follow several months of growing activity across Hyperliquid’s perpetual futures markets.
In September, the platform’s open interest reached $18 billion, setting a record for outstanding derivatives positions across its trading markets. The reported figure included activity from the platform’s original perpetual futures exchange and HIP-3 markets created by independent deployers.
Hyperliquid subsequently introduced a HIP-3 permissioned market upgrade on testnet, allowing deployment teams to restrict access to selected trading venues through on-chain permission lists. That update gave market operators more control over which wallets could participate in their contracts. Existing HIP-3 markets were not automatically required to adopt the permissioning feature.
In October, select Hyperliquid perpetual prices became available through Bloomberg Terminal, allowing professional users to monitor around-the-clock markets covering cryptocurrencies and other assets. The Bloomberg Terminal data integration provided market information without adding direct trading execution through the terminal.
Meanwhile, HYPE traded at $78.98 in the October 18 market snapshot supplied with the announcement, down 1.12% over 24 hours and 6.97% during the preceding week.
The snapshot placed HYPE’s 24-hour trading volume at approximately $425.84 million and market capitalization at $17.56 billion. The data did not establish that the priority fee announcement caused the token’s price movement.
Earlier in October, Hyperliquid’s HYPE buyback activity had attracted attention after the Assistance Fund’s cumulative purchases reportedly surpassed 48 million tokens, worth approximately $1.36 billion.
That October 13 report recorded HYPE near $81.20 following a daily decline of almost 5%. For the priority fee proposal, the next operational step is a decision on whether and when to apply the testnet rules to mainnet. Hyperliquid has not supplied a confirmed activation date or a published test result measuring their effect on live order processing.
Disclosure: This article does not represent investment advice. The content and materials featured on this page are for educational purposes only.
Po představení létajícího prototypu Roadsteru Elonem Muskem vzrostl během hodiny objem obchodů s kontraktem Tesla na Hyperliquid z 2,8 milionu USD na 47 milionů USD.
Trading in Hyperliquid’s Tesla contract rose from $2.8 million to $47 million in a single hour overnight. It is already the contract’s second-busiest day since launch.The contract’s price rose about 5% to roughly $378. Binance’s Tesla contract was still the largest, with $279 million in 24-hour volume against Hyperliquid’s $159 million, according to RootData.The contract tracks Tesla’s stock price but is not a tokenized share. It trades around the clock and allows up to 20x leverage.Traders rushed into Tesla-linked crypto markets overnight after Elon Musk unveiled a flying version of the Roadster, with trading on Hyperliquid jumping while U.S. stock markets were closed.
The surge shows how crypto exchanges that never close are becoming the first place investors react to news about traditional companies.
Musk demonstrated the prototype, which uses SpaceX thruster technology, on Oct. 15, after Tesla TSLA$351.98 shares closed at $362.44. Hyperliquid’s TSLA perpetual contract rose about 4.9% to roughly $378, and hourly trading volume leapt about 1,580%, from $2.8 million to $47 million.
TLSA market on Hyperliquid (Hyperliquid)It is already the contract’s second-busiest day since listing a year ago, with the daily candle only nine hours old. Binance remained the largest venue, with $279 million in 24-hour volume versus Hyperliquid’s $159 million, according to RootData, but Hyperliquid held the most open interest, at $99 million. Tesla shares were up about 4.5% in premarket trading.
Hyperliquid’s contract, listed through Trade.xyz, is a perpetual future that tracks Tesla’s stock price rather than a tokenized share. It settles in USDC, allows up to 20x leverage and requires no brokerage account. The contract trades around the clock, so it was one of the few ways to bet on Tesla’s price while Nasdaq was closed. Tesla is due to report third-quarter earnings on Oct. 21.
Pump.fun built its name as the place where memecoins are born. Now it wants a piece of the leveraged trading business, too.
A post on X announced that Pump.fun is launching crypto perpetual futures trading powered by Hyperliquid. API data shared around October 9, 2026, shows the platform pulling funding rates and open interest for BTC and ETH perpetuals directly from Hyperliquid’s HyperCore mainnet.
What Pump.fun is actually plugging into
Perpetual futures are a type of derivative contract. They let traders bet on an asset’s price without owning it, and with no expiration date.
The funding rate is a periodic payment between long and short traders that keeps the contract price tethered to the real market price. Open interest measures how many contracts remain open at a given time.
Both figures are being sourced from HyperCore, Hyperliquid’s core trading layer. Rather than building its own derivatives engine from scratch, Pump.fun is borrowing Hyperliquid’s order book and liquidity.
The leverage on offer is substantial. According to the research findings, traders can access up to 40x margin on BTC and 25x on ETH.
A partnership that has been building for months
This is not Pump.fun’s first integration with Hyperliquid’s stack. On August 26, 2026, the platform added support for HyperEVM, Hyperliquid’s smart contract environment, enabling USDC-denominated spot trading with near-zero fees.
Hyperliquid’s perpetual market recorded $12.43 billion in daily trading volume in late August 2026. That is the liquidity pool Pump.fun users will effectively be tapping.
By early October 2026, Pump.fun had surpassed Hyperliquid in 30-day revenue.
Background: from memecoin factory to trading venue
Pump.fun launched in January 2024 as a memecoin launchpad, becoming a central hub in the memecoin sector.
Rival platform FOMO introduced Hyperliquid-based perpetuals trading in June 2026, broadening the range of assets its users could trade. Pump.fun is entering a lane a competitor already occupies.
What this means for traders and the platforms
Hyperliquid is becoming backend infrastructure for consumer-facing crypto apps. FOMO uses it. Pump.fun now uses it for both spot and perpetuals.
The risks deserve equal billing. Leverage of 40x on BTC and 25x on ETH can turn modest price swings into total losses. Liquidation on a leveraged position is a different and less forgiving experience than spot trading.
There is also concentration risk at the infrastructure level. If multiple consumer platforms rely on HyperCore for pricing and execution, any disruption on Hyperliquid could ripple across all of them at once.
Key metrics to track from here include open interest on Pump.fun’s perpetual markets, whether its 30-day revenue lead over Hyperliquid holds, and how FOMO responds to a larger rival entering its lane.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Vivian Nguyen. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
Tesla-linked perpetual futures have retreated to around $357 on Hyperliquid, reversing an overnight climb toward $380 following Elon Musk’s demonstration of a thruster-equipped Roadster.
Summary
Hyperliquid’s Tesla contract reversed its climb toward $380 and traded down 0.95% over 24 hours.
Binance led daily Tesla-linked trading with $564.49 million in turnover, according to RootData.
Hyperliquid held approximately $80 million in open interest, ahead of Binance’s $64.96 million.
Tesla will release third-quarter financial results after market close on Oct. 21.
Hyperliquid showed its TSLA-USDC contract at a mark price of $356.66, down $3.42 over 24 hours, with approximately $247.8 million in daily trading volume and $80.05 million in open interest, the value of outstanding contracts.
Tesla futures give back their climb toward $380
On Hyperliquid’s 1-hour chart, the Tesla contract rose from around $360 to $380 on Oct. 16 before retreating to approximately $357. The reversal carried the price below the level where the overnight advance began.
The same chart showed the contract trading near $385 earlier in the week before declining toward $360 ahead of Thursday’s Roadster presentation. Friday’s rebound approached $380 but stopped below those earlier highs, according to the displayed price history.
Across the exchanges listed in RootData’s stock-contract comparison, Tesla-linked markets showed negative 24-hour returns. Binance’s TSLAUSDT contract traded at $357.26, down 0.85%, while the displayed declines ranged from 0.84% on OKX to 1.30% on Lighter.
Binance leads turnover as Hyperliquid holds more open positions
RootData listed $564.49 million in daily Tesla-linked trading on Binance, compared with $246.64 million on Hyperliquid. Bitget and OKX followed with $78.35 million and $68.46 million, respectively.
The same table showed $45.95 million in turnover on Bybit and $23.37 million on Lighter.
RootData placed Hyperliquid first with $80.12 million in open interest, ahead of Binance’s $64.96 million, Bitget’s $18.04 million and OKX’s $14.87 million.
RootData listed liquidity within 2% of the quoted price at $6.73 million on Hyperliquid and $4.52 million on Binance. Binance nevertheless showed the narrower quoted spread at 0.0028%, compared with Hyperliquid’s 0.0084%.
Hyperliquid identifies TSLA-USDC as a perpetual market independently deployed by xyz. Trade.xyz’s specification index states that the contract references one Tesla common share quoted in US dollars and permits leverage of up to 20 times.
According to the operator’s specifications, the market uses cross-margin treatment. Hyperliquid’s trading interface warns users about low liquidity, high volatility, and elevated liquidation risk in the independently deployed contract.
The instrument provides price exposure without transferring Tesla stock ownership. A separate Anthropic-linked perpetual contract examined by crypto.news on Oct. 15 similarly granted no shares, company earnings claims or right to redeem positions for equity.
Trade.xyz’s stock-linked markets previously encountered a pricing disruption in July, when the operator agreed to cover eligible liquidation losses involving its SK Hynix contract.
In a statement described in the July 29 coverage, Trade.xyz said multiple independent data providers relayed an executed external-market trade. The contract’s mark price fell 18.7%, from $1,127.90 to $917.25, triggering liquidations of leveraged long positions.
The operator characterized reimbursement as a one-time discretionary decision and said it would review how external venue prices entered its pricing system, according to the same account.
Musk’s Roadster demonstration carries a 2028 production target
At SpaceX’s McGregor test facility in Texas on Oct. 15, Musk presented the redesigned Roadster using technology developed by Tesla and SpaceX engineers, Reuters reported.
AP described cold-gas thrusters and a suction system that enabled short aerial movements and midair spins. Musk named 2028 as the production target, while Tesla had not immediately announced a price, according to the agency.
Tesla’s website labels the rocket feature “Not approved for public road use,” AP reported.
Reuters traced the second-generation Roadster to a prototype unveiled in 2017, when Tesla promised deliveries in 2020. The production target announced on Thursday falls eight years after that original delivery schedule.
During the presentation, Tesla vehicle engineering chief Lars Moravy claimed acceleration from zero to 60 mph in less than one second and a top speed above 230 mph, Reuters reported. The company claimed a driving range exceeding 300 miles.
Tesla earnings follow deliveries of 486,532 vehicles
Tesla’s Oct. 2 operating release reported third-quarter deliveries of 486,532 vehicles against production of 464,391. Model 3 and Model Y accounted for 478,237 deliveries, with 8,295 vehicles listed under other models.
Calculated from Tesla’s figures, deliveries exceeded production by 22,141 vehicles during the quarter. Model 3 and Model Y represented approximately 98.3% of total deliveries.
Tesla reported energy-storage deployments of 13.7 gigawatt-hours over the same period. Its release cautioned that deliveries and storage deployments were only two measures of financial performance, with results dependent on selling prices, costs, foreign-exchange movements and other factors.
The company scheduled its financial results for after market close on Wednesday, Oct. 21, followed by management’s question-and-answer webcast at 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time. Tesla said net income and cash-flow figures would accompany the earnings release.
During the previous quarter, Tesla kept its Bitcoin reserve unchanged at 11,509 BTC, according to July 22 coverage of its shareholder update. The company recorded a $112 million after-tax digital-asset loss without buying or selling Bitcoin during the reporting period.
Hyperliquid [HYPE] faced strong downward pressure as the broader market weakened following lower-than-expected Consumer Price Index (CPI) data.
HYPE breached $80 support and fell to $78 before bouncing back. At press time, Hyperliquid traded around $79, down 1.7% over the past day.
Yet one whale chose to stake over $100 million in HYPE, taking a longer view as derivatives selling persisted.
Why did a Hyperliquid whale stake $100M?
With Hyperliquid below the $98 recorded three weeks earlier, some investors turned to staking for yield.
According to Onchain Lens, three new wallets linked to one whale staked 1.255 million HYPE, worth $100.43 million.
Source: Hypurrscan
The move suggested a willingness to keep those tokens committed to staking rather than immediately available for sale.
And the whale had company. Hyperscreener data showed over 439.9 million HYPE staked, worth $35.2 billion and representing roughly 44% of supply.
Source: Hyperscreener
Reported average Daily Staking stood at roughly 120,000 HYPE. Staking can limit immediately available supply, although it does not guarantee stronger prices.
Spot Exchange Netflows offered another sign of tokens moving away from trading venues..
Source: CoinGlass
At press time, Spot Netflow stood around -$2.4 million, compared with -$11 million the previous day. Outflows continued, but their net value narrowed considerably. These withdrawals coincided with staking activity, although the figures did not establish a direct connection.
Derivatives Remain a Thorn
Although staking continues to reduce the supply available for immediate sale, derivatives markets have turned stubbornly bearish.
Over the past day, for example, Hyperliquid saw $673.4 million in Futures Outflows and $592 million in inflows. Over this period, Netflow fell to- $80 million, suggesting that more capital flowed out of the futures market than entered it.
Source: Coinglass
For perpetuals, especially on Binance, sell volume rose to 2.02 million, with Net Buying at -3.5 million. High sell volume suggested that more sell orders were executed on Binance.
Source: Coinalyze
These two metrics suggest that the derivatives market is currently contributing to the selling pressure.
What’s Next for HYPE?
Although whales are turning to staking, it remains insufficient to absorb the pressure from derivatives.
For that reason, the market still leans bearish. A look at the Relative Strength Index (RSI) confirms this observation.
Source: Tradingview
The RSI fell deeper into the bearish zone, reaching 39 and reflecting increased bearish pressure. When this indicator sits at such low levels, it signals that weakness may persist.
If selling pressure continues, Hyperliquid is likely to extend its decline and fall to $75 in the short term. However, if staking manages to absorb the selling pressure, HYPE could defend $80 and target a move to reclaim $88 in the short term.
Final Summary
Hyperliquid whale staked 1.255 million HYPE, worth $100.43 million.
Hyperliquid [HYPE] breached the $80 support and fell to a low of $78 before slightly rising to $79.
President Trump stated in August that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is working to integrate the crypto platform Hyperliquid into the U.S. market in a compliant manner. Hyperliquid, known for its Layer-1 blockchain and decentralized platform, runs on-chain order books supporting both spot and perpetual-futures markets. Despite its current exclusion of U.S. persons, the CFTC’s involvement suggests efforts to channel Hyperliquid’s activities through regulated U.S. intermediaries. This development could indicate a significant step towards broader regulatory acceptance of novel crypto platforms in the U.S.
Key Takeaways
President Trump’s statement suggests the CFTC is facilitating Hyperliquid’s integration into the U.S. market within regulatory frameworks.
Pricing indicates potential increased confidence in Hyperliquid, with implications for its native asset, HYPE.
The initiative may reflect a broader regulatory trend towards accommodating innovative blockchain platforms under U.S. law.
What to Watch
Observers should monitor the CFTC’s actions regarding Hyperliquid’s integration, as regulatory approvals or delays could impact market perceptions. Developments in U.S. regulatory policy towards blockchain platforms could influence future market scenarios, especially if Hyperliquid gains significant approval or faces setbacks. Market reactions to any formal announcements from the CFTC or Hyperliquid itself will be crucial in assessing the long-term implications for the crypto market.
Hyperliquid founder Jeff Yan outlined a regulatory approach that would shield his fast-growing cryptocurrency trading platform from direct US exchange oversight, as American authorities consider how to bring offshore venues into the domestic financial system.
In an interview with Bloomberg’s Odd Lots podcast, Yan argued that regulatory obligations should fall on financial firms operating markets on Hyperliquid’s blockchain rather than the network itself. The distinction would allow the company to expand its reach into Wall Street without assuming the full compliance burden of a traditional exchange.
Traders and market watchers around the world started talking about a crypto platform called Hyperliquid earlier this year, when speculators used markets built on top of it to trade crude oil after war broke out in Iran. What Hyperliquid allowed for was a 24/7 market on the blockchain. Then in August, President Trump said the CFTC was working on bringing “Hyperliquid into the United States in a fully compliant and legal fashion.” Hyperliquid currently operates outside the US, but that hasn’t stopped it from growing prodigiously in the last year. Jeff Yan, CEO and co-founder of Hyperliquid Labs, joins us today to explain how exactly the platform — works: He walks us through the protocol he and his co-founders built, the ecology of actors and assets that are tied to Hyperliquid (like the platform’s cryptocurrency HYPE), how perps are bought and sold on the platform, he explains what a blockchain oracle is, and he discusses what has to happen for Hyperliquid to start operating in the US.
Hyperliquid is best known for offering perpetual futures, which allow traders to make leveraged bets on cryptocurrencies and other assets without the expiry dates of conventional futures. Yan, 31, is the co-founder of Singapore-based Hyperliquid Labs, which is the main developer of the trading venue’s underlying blockchain. Hyperliquid remains off-limits to US customers, although Kraken parent Payward has announced plans to offer American investors derivatives using its technology through a regulated exchange.
Read: The Little-Known Crypto Powerhouse Behind Billions in Trading
Yan compared the proposed division of regulatory responsibilities to internet infrastructure, which supports financial services without itself being subject to the same oversight. His broader ambition is to provide the underlying trading technology for established Wall Street institutions rather than displace them, drawing a parallel with Amazon Web Services and its role in corporate computing.
Jeff Yan, chief executive officer of Hyperliquid Labs, during the Token2049 conference in Singapore, on Wednesday, Oct. 7, 2026. — Photographer: Ore Huiying/Bloomberg
“The regulation sits at the layer where there are controls, and indeed the deployers are the ones that exercise these controls,” Yan said. “And so it’s a very natural way for the protocol to continue playing its role as a networking liquidity infrastructure layer.”
Hyperliquid, once a little-known startup, is gaining mainstream popularity especially after President Donald Trump said in August that US regulators are working to bring the exchange into the country. Yan noted that while US regulators are conservative, they are willing to move fast with new technologies.
Regulators “want to embrace innovation, but there’s a very heavy responsibility with that because there’s an existing system that by and large works well, serves many people, and has protections built in place,” said Yan. “So I think there’s very naturally this gap of wanting to understand, ‘is this technology truly compatible with our core principles?’”
The question of how to regulate Hyperliquid has also drawn scrutiny from established exchange operators, including CME Group Inc. and Intercontinental Exchange Inc., Bloomberg has previously reported. In the Odd Lots interview, Yan pushed back on calling traditional finance players as “legacy,” as he believes that Wall Street institutions will also want to come and build on Hyperliquid eventually.
Read: The $500 Billion Experiment to Build 24/7 Markets on Blockchain
“We’re not trying to displace anything,” Yan said. “In fact, I think the technology can benefit everyone who currently operates markets in a more traditional setting. And whether these markets are perpetual markets or settled dated futures is irrelevant because ultimately what you really need is an order book, clearing system and global distribution, concentration of liquidity.”
On Hyperliquid’s ambition to be the“house of all finance,” Yan said his team is “very serious” about it.
“Ultimately, the thinking is that the financial system is there to better serve as many people on this planet as possible,” said Yan. “I think many layers are moved, but this sort of permissionless employment system ultimately is accomplishing that goal.”
Before he moved to Singapore to start Hyperliquid Labs, Yan lived in Puerto Rico and ran a crypto fund called Chameleon Trading. Yan also worked at Hudson River Trading after he graduated from Harvard University.
Trader Machi Big Brother byl 15. října po sérii obchodů s pákovým efektem plně zlikvidován; zůstatek jeho účtu na Hyperliquid klesl z maxima 12,25 milionu USD na 21 787,78 USD.
Crypto trader Machi Big Brother has seen his Hyperliquid trading account fall to just $21,800 after building a $56,000 stake into more than $12 million over four months.
Summary
Machi Big Brother’s Hyperliquid trading account fell from a reported peak of $12.25 million to approximately $21,800 following liquidation.
Lookonchain said the trader had turned an initial $56,000 into more than $12 million over four months before losing nearly all of those gains.
The liquidation occurred as Bitcoin dropped below $81,000 and Ethereum approached $2,380 amid heavy selling across the crypto market.
Machi reportedly returned to trading shortly afterward, opening another Ethereum long position with 25x leverage.
According to blockchain analytics platform Lookonchain, the trader, whose real name is Jeffrey Huang, was fully liquidated on October 15 after a series of leveraged trades went against him.
In an October 15 X post, the platform said Machi had grown his initial $56,000 into $12.25 million through trading before his account balance dropped to $21,787.78.
The decline represents a loss of more than 99% from the account’s reported peak, effectively wiping out the gains accumulated over the preceding four months.
The account had been used to trade perpetual futures on Hyperliquid, where traders can borrow exposure to take positions larger than their available collateral.
Reports indicated that Machi returned to trading shortly after the liquidation, opening another leveraged Ethereum long position with 25x leverage.
Crypto market downturn triggers heavy liquidations
Machi’s losses occurred as Bitcoin and Ethereum faced renewed selling pressure, with BTC falling below $81,000 and ETH approaching $2,380.
The latest downturn followed several days of heavy liquidations across cryptocurrency derivatives markets.
On October 14, crypto.news reported another liquidation wave that erased approximately $811 million in leveraged positions. Open interest remained near $140.9 billion after the selloff, according to Bitget Research.
Bitcoin had already fallen below $82,000 following the release of hotter than expected U.S. inflation data. Annual inflation reached 3.7% in September, above the 3.6% market forecast.
Selling pressure had been building since the previous week, when crypto liquidations reached $1.09 billion in the 24 hours leading to October 9. Long positions accounted for approximately $1.05 billion of that total.
Ethereum faced similar pressure as U.S. spot Ether ETFs recorded $542.2 million in weekly outflows during the week ending October 9.
Machi’s reported decision to reopen a 25x leveraged Ethereum position followed the liquidation, leaving the trader exposed to further price movements in the cryptocurrency.
Perpetuální kontrakt io:ANTH na platformě Hyperliquid implikoval valuaci společnosti Anthropic na 1,95 bilionu USD při 24hodinovém objemu téměř 21 milionů USD. Nejde o akcie ani podíl ve společnosti.
A Hyperliquid perpetual linked to Anthropic’s implied value traded after the company’s investor briefing this week, with a reported $1.95 trillion mark and almost $21 million of turnover in the previous 24 hours. The contract is a wager settled between traders. It grants no Anthropic stock, no claim on company earnings and no ability to redeem for a share. Its most important unresolved question is how a market sets a reference price for a company whose shares do not trade publicly.
Summary
MarketWatch reported an Anthropic linked Hyperliquid contract near $1.95 trillion on October 15.
Its reported 24 hour trading turnover was almost $21 million at that snapshot.
The io:ANTH market is a builder deployed perpetual operated by Entropy, not an Anthropic share.
HIP 3 puts oracle selection and market parameters in the hands of the deployer.
A $1 move in io:ANTH’s quoted price represents $1 billion of implied company value.
MarketWatch’s October 15 observation said the indicative contract fell 4%. The name of a private company on a trading screen can make the instrument look like a share. In Entropy’s io:ANTH market it is a cash settled derivative built under Hyperliquid’s HIP 3 framework. Anthropic neither issued it nor received proceeds when one trader bought from another.
Prior coverage of Hyperliquid’s pre IPO markets explained the rise of synthetic company exposure. Today’s hook is sharper because Anthropic has been discussing its financials with prospective investors while the derivative generates a price minute by minute. The way that price is produced deserves more attention than whether its last tick was green or red.
A market cap quote is not a share price
The io:ANTH instrument is quoted in units of implied billions of dollars of Anthropic value, according to FalconX’s examination of its contract design. A displayed price around 1,950 corresponds to an indicative $1.95 trillion company valuation. A move from 1,950 to 1,900 is a 50 point fall, or $50 billion in the convention used by this market. It does not mean $50 billion left Anthropic or that investors sold $50 billion of its shares.
MarketWatch’s nearly $21 million is gross notional trading turnover in a day, not the amount of equity exchanged. Dividing $1.95 trillion by $21 million gives roughly 92,900. The ratio is a deliberately simple scale comparison, not a liquidity metric: the valuation mark is roughly 93,000 times the reported daily derivative turnover. It shows why a small market can display a very large implied company value without buying anything close to that value in underlying shares.
The market does not know an authoritative public share count and a continuously traded share price from which to calculate an ordinary equity market capitalization. Its quotation convention bypasses that problem by expressing the view as a valuation number directly. Another venue could quote an expected share price using its own assumed capitalization and share count. The two numbers are not directly comparable until those assumptions are reconciled.
An Anthropic employee or early investor holding actual shares would have a different legal position. Private share transfers can require approval and may be subject to restrictions. A perp trader has an exchange position with collateral, funding and liquidation terms. It can move in the same direction as an eventual IPO price, but it is not a substitute for a shareholder vote, distributions or a legally enforceable claim on Anthropic’s assets.
Entropy defines the market that appears on Hyperliquid
Hyperliquid’s HIP 3 documentation says an independent deployer sets a market’s definition, oracle and specifications and operates its oracle prices, leverage limits and settlement. The base platform supplies an order book and margin infrastructure. For io:ANTH, Entropy is the deployer. Calling it simply a Hyperliquid listing can hide the company that chooses the key contract terms.
The documentation says a deployer must maintain 500,000 HYPE staked and can be slashed through validator voting for certain irregular actions affecting protocol operation. That mechanism is relevant to malicious or disruptive deployer behavior; it is not a guarantee that the Anthropic valuation is accurate. Hyperliquid’s own guidance cautions that an oracle is most suitable when there is a well defined external price hard to manipulate. A private company’s value is precisely the case where external observations are sparse.
Entropy’s interface terms describe perpetual futures as synthetic and warn that oracle feeds can be stale or manipulated, that funding changes, and that a leveraged position can lose its collateral through liquidation. The terms do not promise best execution. Such provisions should be read as actual product conditions, not dismissed as generic crypto boilerplate when the underlying company has no public stock price.
The operator can run a market before an IPO because buyers and sellers can take opposing positions in a collateralized contract. No Anthropic employee needs to sell a share into the venue. The system only has to keep those positions margined and define how gains, losses and a possible final settlement are calculated. The hard part is choosing a credible price path when no public underlying trade resolves the disagreement.
BREAKING: Anthropic picks Nasdaq for IPO at a potential $2T valuation
The move would put Anthropic above SpaceX’s reported $1.75T valuation, as the AI company heads toward a major public debut amid renewed debate over AI safety and extinction risks. pic.twitter.com/Oio2oho0Yh
— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) September 13, 2026
The oracle has to use the market it helps govern
The FalconX analysis describes Entropy’s pre IPO oracle as a blend of external private market information and the contract’s own order book. The weight given to the local market depends on executable two sided depth near the midprice, while an external component remains. Private transactions and funding round marks can be intermittent, and their economic rights may differ from those of ordinary common shares.
This creates a feedback problem. A deep order book can be a useful price discovery venue, but if the oracle starts to rely more on that book, its own participants have a greater role in the reference used for funding and margin. Liquidity around the midprice must be executable, not just displayed orders that vanish before a trade. The deployer’s methodology, parameter updates and market data matter more than a one day percentage move.
The Hyperliquid developer rules describe oracle submissions and the mark calculation, including order book inputs and limits on update frequency and abrupt mark changes. The platform’s ordinary BTC spot oracle, described elsewhere in its docs, is not automatically the oracle for an independently deployed private company perp. Confusing those designs would give io:ANTH a false aura of external exchange price verification.
If a thin book pushes the displayed trade far from a private market reference, funding payments and risk rules can pull positions toward the contract’s mark over time. They cannot prove the mark equals what a buyer would pay for actual private shares. A prospective IPO may eventually supply a public trading reference, but there can be important differences between the contract’s settlement formula and the first listed share price.
Anthropic’s briefing supplies news, not a settlement price
Reuters reported on the investor presentation, citing people who attended. The report said Anthropic disclosed third quarter revenue growth of 45% from the preceding quarter. Prospective investors can use such figures in negotiations, and perp traders can react to the report. A presentation does not produce a continuous stock price or an obligation for Anthropic to honor the perpetual market’s valuation.
Different interpretations of the financials can justify very different implied company values. Revenue is not profit; quarterly growth does not automatically continue for years; capital spending, competition and share terms matter. A private round may give investors preferences that ordinary shares or a synthetic perp do not have. A headline valuation can be a negotiation outcome for a particular security class, not a universally executable price for all company ownership.
Markets can sometimes anticipate a public valuation. Traders who follow the company closely may aggregate information faster than a static funding round mark. FalconX argues that pre IPO derivatives can contribute to price discovery around a listing. The opposing case is serious: a liquid, competitive book can be more current than a months old private transaction. Its strength depends on depth, independent participants and how closely the eventual settlement mechanism is tied to a real public market.
The October 15 turnover is evidence of trading interest, not proof of pricing accuracy. A market can trade frequently at a price that later looks wrong. Some participants may be hedging exposure elsewhere, some expressing a directional view, and others trading funding or volatility. Public notional turnover does not reveal their identities or whether a single position is being repeatedly opened and closed.
Earlier Anthropic markets make the distinction important
Crypto.news’s report on the Ventuals team’s move noted that a previous Hyperliquid based Anthropic and OpenAI market experiment had been shut down. The current io:ANTH contract is operated by Entropy under its own specifications. The existence of one market in the past does not preserve its quotes, open interest or settlement terms in a later deployer’s product.
The HIP 3 product explainer explains that outside teams can create perps. Such openness expands the range of tradable exposures, but means a user must identify which team deployed the particular market. Different Anthropic contracts on different platforms may use a different unit, oracle, leverage cap or resolution rule while sharing a company name.
An investor buying a tokenized private share through a regulated special purpose structure would have yet another claim: potentially a contractual interest in an entity holding shares, with custody and transfer restrictions. That is not what io:ANTH represents. The phrase tokenized Anthropic can blur equity backed exposure and a cash settled forecast. Product documents, not the ticker, determine what the holder owns.
If Anthropic does list, a perp may transition toward a listed market reference or settle under its rules. The timing, share class, first trading session and final reference could all matter. No October 15 MarketWatch price is a promise that future public investors will pay the same valuation. The operator’s current specifications and any later notices should be checked before claiming a one to one conversion.
Leverage turns a small valuation move into a large account move
A trader posts collateral for exposure larger than the cash committed. If a position has three times exposure, a 5% adverse move in its reference price corresponds to about 15% of initial collateral before funding, fees and maintenance margin. Liquidation can arrive before an eventual recovery or a future IPO clarifies the company’s value. That example uses simple arithmetic, not the live terms of a particular user’s position.
Funding payments can accumulate even if the indicative company value does not change. Long and short traders exchange payments under a formula designed to keep a perpetual market aligned with its reference. A thin or uncertain external anchor can alter that relationship. The trade is therefore about the path of the market, not only the final belief about Anthropic’s eventual public valuation.
A sharp news event can strain a book with relatively modest executable depth. A stop or liquidation is governed by the mark and margin system, and the price at which a trader can exit depends on actual bids and offers. Turnover of $21 million over a day says nothing precise about the amount available within 1% of the current price for a large order. Order book depth and slippage should accompany any claim that the market is a reliable valuation signal.
Earlier reporting on a SK Hynix perp dislocation illustrates how a synthetic company market can produce contentious marks and liquidations. It concerns a different asset and operator. It is relevant as a mechanical warning, not evidence that the same error occurred in io:ANTH today. No incident is showed by the October 15 decline alone.
What the price can and cannot tell an IPO investor
The $1.95 trillion mark reports a marginal price within Entropy’s Anthropic contract at a particular time. It is an observable expression of the traders participating there. It cannot show Anthropic’s issued share count, its enterprise value after debt and cash, the terms of a future offering or the price at which actual shareholders can sell. A valuation may be a useful signal without becoming an independent appraisal.
A better comparison would put dated private funding or tender terms, any IPO filing and the perp’s implied value side by side, adjusting for share rights and timing. If the gap persists after a public share begins trading under a reliable oracle, the contract’s basis and funding will explain whether convergence occurred. Until then, a large nominal mark attached to relatively small turnover should be described as this market’s indication, not the company’s settled worth.
The named operator matters in any dispute. Hyperliquid provides settlement infrastructure, Entropy sets the market specific inputs, and traders supply bids, asks and collateral. Anthropic is the subject of the wager but is not a counterparty. A holder seeking a correction to an oracle or clarification of settlement would need the deployer’s published process, not Anthropic investor relations.
The $21 million turnover does not fund the company
Consider two traders exchanging a contract with $10,000 of notional exposure. The same position can be bought and sold repeatedly, adding to volume on every execution, without a share moving or Anthropic receiving any cash. Gross 24 hour notional is therefore a measure of trading activity, not capital invested in the underlying company. Open interest counts positions that remain outstanding; executable order book depth indicates what can trade near the mark now. Each metric answers a different question.
The implied market value is especially easy to misread because Entropy’s quote compresses billions of dollars into a single index point. A 1% move near $1.95 trillion corresponds to roughly $19.5 billion in the quotation convention. If only millions of dollars of derivative notional changed hands, the market has repriced a reference, not transferred $19.5 billion between buyers and sellers. Traders’ actual gains and losses depend on their exposure size, entry price, funding and fees.
Nor is the mark an offer to acquire Anthropic in full. A negotiated acquisition would involve control, liabilities, approvals and shareholders with distinct rights. A funding round prices a specific security with its own preferences. The perp expresses the marginal balance of buyers and sellers in one synthetic instrument. Comparing those values may be interesting, but treating them as interchangeable prices erases the terms each one measures.
A reader seeing two different Anthropic valuations in the same week should ask whether they refer to a private funding round, an IPO target, a derivative market cap unit or an enterprise value calculation. A headline number can be correct within its convention while being wrong as a statement that the company has been sold. Precise attribution protects the distinction.
An oracle dispute would reach the deployer first
Crypto.news coverage of HIP 3 access controls describes how deployers can set additional conditions for their markets. The HIP 3 rules put the price input and market operation with Entropy. Hyperliquid validators apply protocol rules and can vote on slashing for irregular behavior affecting the system, but its documentation says the system should not intervene in every subjective disagreement about an oracle. A trader convinced that a private valuation input is too high does not automatically have a protocol level remedy. The trader may simply take the other side in the market, subject to margin and liquidity.
The external component of Entropy’s blend is hard for outsiders to reproduce if it draws on private deal indications and market making quotes. The local order book is more visible, yet displayed depth can change quickly. An audit of a sharp mark move would need the dated input prices, the depth calculation, parameter settings and the deployer’s signed oracle updates. Public onchain actions can show what the deployer submitted; they cannot by themselves prove the undisclosed private market data were representative.
One concern is circularity: a derivative mark influences funding and liquidation, while the same derivative book partly informs that mark. The stronger counterargument is that a live book with meaningful two sided depth can contain fresher information than a stale private funding round. Entropy’s weighting design aims to let the market speak more when that depth exists. Whether it succeeds is observable around independent news and, eventually, a public listing reference.
A change to the upper or lower valuation bounds could matter even when no company news occurs. FalconX described operator discretion over some parameters and a scheduled resolution if the company remains private. A holder should verify the current contract specification, not assume a screenshot from August still governs an October position. Any material change should be dated against open interest and communicated before readers are asked to treat a price series as continuous.
A public listing might not settle every disagreement
A conventional share price becomes observable when Anthropic lists, but a derivative tied to market capitalization still needs a share count and rules for which shares and session count. IPO shares could trade differently from restricted pre IPO holdings. A first day print may be volatile or thin compared with a later closing average. The contract’s documentation, not a generic definition of an IPO, determines whether it transitions to a public oracle, closes positions or continues with adjusted terms.
If Anthropic delays a listing, the synthetic market may remain active while external evidence stays sparse. FalconX described a scheduled end and cash settlement path for Entropy’s pre IPO contracts. A long horizon exposes traders to funding and operator decisions before any company event. The final formula could rely on a trailing average of the contract’s own mark, which would be a settlement to the market’s internal history rather than to a verified sale of shares.
This explains why a hedge with io:ANTH is imperfect for an actual private shareholder. The shareholder’s economic interest can change with the terms of its shares, dilution, transfer restrictions and an eventual public conversion. The perp’s reference can diverge, and its collateral can be liquidated before that shareholder can sell. A trader can still use it to express a view on value, but the basis risk remains even if the headline valuation looks similar.
The decisive evidence arrives when a public filing details share count, financials and offer terms, then when shares trade with enough depth to anchor a reference. Until that sequence, the market supplies a price for its contract. It does not supply a title deed for a piece of Anthropic.
Today’s valuation has more than one denominator
Reuters’s report on Anthropic’s investor briefing gives a financial event that actual IPO buyers may weigh. A derivative market can react to it immediately while investors in a future offering negotiate access, allocation and share terms. The same revenue headline might raise expectations of growth and concern about spending on computing at once. Without detailed costs and the final capital structure, a price to revenue multiple inferred from the $1.95 trillion mark is at best an illustration.
The accounting unit also matters. Entropy quotes a company value convention directly, while a conventional stock market price multiplies a share price by a disclosed diluted share count. A new issue in an IPO increases the number of shares and brings cash into the company. Employee options and other convertibles can add dilution. A pre IPO synthetic mark can be close to a quoted IPO target yet differ materially from a properly diluted public equity value when the documents arrive.
A public filing may reveal classes with different voting or economic rights, commitments to investors or a reserve of shares for employees. Private holders can face lockups after a listing. A perp trader’s position has none of those rights or restrictions in the same form; it has its own collateral and funding rules. Explaining those differences is not a claim that the market is useless. It locates what the market is pricing and what a reader cannot infer from it.
The reported four percent fall on October 15 is not a standalone referendum on the briefing. It coincides with public reporting and wider market conditions, while the derivative’s own funding and order flow can move its mark. A causal claim would need a time series comparing the news release, quotes across venues and changes in depth. The MarketWatch snapshot alone provides the price change and turnover, not who sold or why.
Distinguishing risk from a bad prediction
A trader could accurately anticipate Anthropic’s eventual IPO valuation and still lose money on a leveraged pre IPO perp. A temporary drawdown can liquidate the account. Funding can drain collateral while the prediction takes months to play out. A contract may resolve under a trailing average before the desired company event or change parameters under its published governance. Accuracy about the company is therefore insufficient; the timing and contract path matter.
The reverse is possible. A trader might profit from buying an underpriced contract and selling it weeks later even if Anthropic ultimately lists below the earlier mark. The profit would be a transfer from another derivative participant, not evidence that the initial price correctly described the private company’s long term worth. A functioning speculative market can have valuable price discovery and still produce many wrong interim prices.
FalconX’s research presents the positive case that liquid pre IPO trading can precede and help anticipate a public market. Its historical examples are informative, but Anthropic has a different investor base, growth profile and disclosure schedule. A market that predicts one listing does not have a guarantee on the next. A comparison after Anthropic’s actual listing would have to date each derivative quote and account for differences in contract units and share terms.
The contract’s operator and exchange infrastructure can publish enough information for that comparison. Dated oracle inputs, funding history, executable depth, open interest and any contract updates would allow outsiders to assess how the indicated valuation was formed. Without those records, the $1.95 trillion figure risks being repeated as a company fact when it is a venue specific market mark.
What to watch
Entropy specifications: Any change to io:ANTH’s oracle, leverage, valuation unit, funding or resolution terms.
Executable depth: Bid and ask amounts near the mark, alongside volume and open interest at a dated snapshot.
External evidence: Anthropic’s actual offering documents or verified private share transactions with comparable rights.
Oracle behavior: The gap between local book, published oracle and mark during major news or low liquidity.
Listing event: Whether a public share price becomes available and how the contract’s stated settlement process uses it.
FAQ
Can I buy Anthropic stock through the io:ANTH perp?
No. The Entropy contract is a synthetic perpetual on implied valuation. It conveys no Anthropic share or ownership rights.
What did the $1.95 trillion number mean?
It was MarketWatch’s October 15 snapshot of the valuation implied by the Hyperliquid linked market, not a completed sale of Anthropic at that price.
Did Anthropic receive the $21 million traded?
No. The reported amount was 24 hour notional turnover in a derivative market. It was not a company capital raise.
Who operates io:ANTH?
Entropy operates the market as a HIP 3 deployer using Hyperliquid’s trading infrastructure. The deployer sets market specific oracle and risk parameters.
How is a price possible without public shares?
Traders bid and offer a synthetic contract, while its operator defines a reference using market and external inputs. No public stock sale is needed for the derivative to trade.
Is the quote a per share price?
No. A point in io:ANTH’s price corresponds to $1 billion of implied company value under the contract’s convention.
Can a trader be liquidated before an IPO?
Yes. A leveraged perpetual position is margined continuously and can be closed under exchange risk rules after an adverse mark move, regardless of a later listing.
Is this a verified valuation of Anthropic?
No. It is a price in a particular synthetic market whose liquidity and oracle design should be evaluated. This is educational analysis, not investment advice.
Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Figures reflect regulatory filings and reporting available at the time of writing and change with each disclosure. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security or asset. Always do your own research. Information is accurate as of October 15, 2026.
Ripple Prime spustila pro institucionální klienty perpetuální kontrakty na akcie, ETF, indexy, zlato a stříbro prostřednictvím Trade.xyz na Hyperliquid. Mezi klienty, kteří tyto RWA swapy obchodují, patří Virtu.
Ripple Prime, through its multi-asset brokerage platform, is rolling out TradFi perpetuals for its Wall Street clients via Trade.xyz’s markets on Hyperliquid. This comes as the crypto firm continues to expand its offerings and builds on an initial DeFi rollout earlier in the year.
Ripple Prime Rolls Out TradFi Perpetuals For Institutional Clients According to a Bloomberg report, the brokerage platform has launched TradFi perpetuals for institutional clients in partnership with Trade.xyz, the largest HIP-3 deployer on Hyperliquid. These reference markets cut across stocks, ETFs, indices, and commodities such as gold and silver.
This move comes as the demand for 24/7 perpetuals heats up, with Trade.xyz notably providing access to the TradFi markets beyond the traditional hours. The report also cited the rise in open interest on these real-world asset perpetual contracts, which has climbed to $9 billion over the past year.
Ripple also continues to expand its institutional offerings through its brokerage platform. As CoinGape reported, Ripple Prime now offers swap financing for leveraged ETFs, an area that banks and securities firms have largely dominated.
The brokerage platform also recently launched its Delta One business, enabling its institutional clients to trade total return swaps on U.S. stocks, indices and crypto. The company also added support for Hyperliquid earlier this year, giving clients access to DeFi trading.
Virtu Onboarded As First Client Ripple also confirmed it launched access to RWA perpetuals for its institutional clients, with Virtu among the clients now trading these RWA swaps. “With reference markets trading continuously, including weekends, clients can manage exposures to traditional asset classes outside typical exchange operating hours,” the crypto firm said.
Commenting on the rollout, Ripple Prime’s International CEO Michael Higgins said RWA swaps are where TradFi and DeFi converge. He added that these institutions want 24/7 access to these assets and are best positioned to provide it given their ties to both worlds.
The crypto firm also noted that clients will benefit from cross-margining RWA swap exposures against the other asset classes the brokerage supports. Clients can also use the RLUSD stablecoin as collateral for these transactions.
For more on derivatives trading, check out Best Crypto Derivative Futures Trading Platforms
HIP-3 společnosti Hyperliquid vygeneroval kumulativní tržby ve výši 75 milionů USD; polovina připadla nasazovatelům trhů a druhá polovina na zpětné odkupy a spalování nativních tokenů.
Hyperliquid’s HIP-3 has generated a total of $75 million in cumulative revenue, with $37.5 million going to deployers and the remaining $37.5 million allocated for repurchasing and burning Hyperliquid’s native token. HIP-3, the Builder-deployed perpetual contract mechanism, allows eligible deployers to launch their own perpetual markets on Hyperliquid: they can define oracles, contract specifications, and manage operations, while leveraging the protocol’s core infrastructure such as order books and liquidation systems. Fees from these markets are typically split 50/50 between deployers and the protocol, with the protocol’s revenue share used for token repurchases and burns.
Relevant content
Ledger: German retail and distribution inventory devices show no signs of tampering, and no financial loss reports have been received across Europe.
Hardware wallet provider Ledger’s security team Donjon has updated on a German-related report, stating that after receiving a report from a German user, it inspected inventory devices at retail outlets and distributors in the country, including products at the named stores, and found no signs of tampering. Ledger also noted that there have been no reports of financial losses linked to hardware implants across Europe. Separately, regarding the suspected abnormal devices circulating online, the security team has not obtained physical units for testing. It has now invited holders of such devices to send them to Ledger’s security team for further analysis, with investigation results to be made public.
Beating AI Express News: xAI has launched its speech-to-speech model Grok Voice 3.0, claiming it ranks first on the Speech-to-Speech Index in an independent test by Artificial Analysis, scoring 86.9 points—higher than Grok Voice 2.0 (81.3), GPT-Live-1 (83.2), and Gemini 3.8 Live (82.6). The model also features end-to-end latency of under 1 second. It is now available via the Voice Agent API, priced at $0.08 per minute, matching the previous generation; agents using the "grok-voice-latest" tag will automatically switch to the new model. According to xAI, Grok Voice handles millions of daily conversations for Tesla and SpaceX: Starlink’s customer service center receives around 20,000 calls daily, with roughly 70% resolved without human intervention, and about a quarter of sales calls resulting in a purchase before the call ends. On benchmarks, Grok Voice scores 74% accuracy on ServiceNow EVA-Bench and 71.6% on τ-Voice, which the company says is comparable to GPT-Live-1 but with roughly 40% lower latency.
4 hours ago
White House Crypto Committee 'effectively defunct' as Executive Director Patrick Witt’s secondment is set to expire.
Crypto journalist Eleanor Terrett said she emailed the White House three times over the past week to inquire whether Patrick Witt still serves as executive director of the White House Crypto Council, and received no reply. Witt himself declined to comment.
Sources familiar with the matter disclosed that Witt, a U.S. Department of Defense employee temporarily seconded to the White House Crypto Council, has reached or is nearing the end of his secondment, with his reappointment status unclear. Earlier this year, he delayed his service in the Georgia National Guard, and is expected to resume his military service soon.
Terrett added that Harry Jung, deputy director of the White House Crypto Council, left his post at the end of July, and after David Sacks’ tenure as Crypto and AI “tsar” concluded, Witt is now the only remaining staff member of the council.
The crypto policy community is now debating: after the CLARITY Act (officially the Crypto Market Structure Act) failed to advance in the Senate, whether the White House still prioritizes the crypto industry.
The relevant personnel changes have not yet been officially confirmed by the White House.
4 hours ago
US stocks slump, with the optical communication sector leading the decline; semiconductor, storage, and crypto-related stocks all fall across the board, and Strategy drops 5.8%.
According to market data from BIT (bit.com), during U.S. stock trading hours, the S&P 500 index’s decline widened to 1.1%, the Nasdaq fell 1.64%, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 0.3%. Semiconductor, storage, optical communication, and crypto-related stocks all fell across the board, with the optical communication sector leading losses, as most major individual stocks in the sector declined by over 7%. In the semiconductor and storage sectors: Seagate Technology (STX) fell 2.8%; Western Digital (WDC) dropped 3.2%; SanDisk (SNDK) declined 4.7%; Micron Technology (MU) fell 3.3%; NVIDIA (NVDA) dropped 2.9%; Intel (INTC) fell 4.2%; Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) declined 5.3%. Among crypto-related stocks: Strategy (MSTR) fell 5.8%; Coinbase (COIN) dropped 4.6%; Circle (CRCL) declined 6.4%; BitMine Immersion (BMNR) fell 5.3%; SharpLink Gaming (SBET) dropped 7.4%. In the optical communication sector: Pure Photonics ETF (FOTO) fell 6.2%; Marvell Technology (MRVL) dropped 5.8%; AAOI (Applied Optoelectronics) declined 9.8%; LITE (Lumentum Holdings) fell 7.2%; COHR (Coherent Corp.) dropped 7.8%; CIEN (Ciena Corporation) declined 7.8%.
4 hours ago
USDC designated as EU's first 'systemically important e-money token'
The European Banking Authority (EBA) announced that it has classified USDC, issued by Circle Internet Financial Europe SAS, as an Important Electronic Money Token (EMT) under the EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation. To date, 45 EMTs in the EU have completed notification under MiCA, with USDC being the first to be designated as an Important EMT. Starting November 12, 2026, USDC will be subject to dual supervision for Important EMTs under MiCA: direct regulatory responsibilities for own funds, asset reserves, liquidity requirements, and recovery and redemption plans will be transferred from the French Prudential Supervision and Resolution Authority (ACPR) to the EBA; ACPR will retain oversight of governance, qualifying holdings, suitability assessments, outsourcing, and conflicts of interest. USDC is issued by Circle Internet Financial Europe SAS in the EU and Circle Internet Financial, LLC in the U.S. The EBA has signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the New York State Department of Financial Services to facilitate cooperation and information exchange on cross-border stablecoin activities.
4 hours ago
OpenAI accuses a former employee of leaking confidential data before joining Apple, as the intellectual property rights dispute escalates once more.
According to Reuters, OpenAI has accused a former employee of sending more than 100 files related to the company’s unreleased devices to his personal account before leaving to join Apple, and subsequently presenting the relevant products to Apple’s senior management. Apple had earlier filed a lawsuit against OpenAI, alleging the latter stole trade secrets of its unreleased hardware products, marking a further escalation of the intellectual property dispute over hardware technology between the two parties.
EQX Labs představila pro Hyperliquid 11 tokenizovaných amerických akcií, včetně $SPY a $AAPL. Obchodování vůči $USDC zatím nebylo spuštěno a termín jeho spuštění nebyl zveřejněn.
At 13:00 UTC on October 14, 2026, EQX Labs introduced 11 tokenized U.S. equity markets that it plans to issue as HIP-1 tokens on HyperCore. The set covers $SPY, $QQQ, $AAPL, $AMZN, $GOOGL, $META, $MSFT, $NVDA, $TSLA, $MU and $SPCX. EQX says the markets will trade against $USDC on Hyperliquid’s public spot order book, but its documentation states that trading is not live yet and gives no launch date.
The tokens are issued by EQX SPC Ltd., a British Virgin Islands segregated portfolio company. Each token is legally an unsecured, limited-recourse participating debt instrument, rather than the underlying share. Each ticker has a separate portfolio whose assets and obligations are kept apart from the other portfolios. The issuer is owned by the EQX STAR Trust, a Cayman purpose trust with independent governance, and EQX Labs provides technology services under an agreement with the issuer.
EQX says each token will be backed 1:1 by shares of the relevant company or fund. Those shares will sit in custody accounts held in the issuer’s name at Alpaca Securities, Clear Street and StoneX Financial. The backing can include settled shares and shares in flight from an authorized participant, with delivery due by the next U.S. business day. EQX says its launch dashboard will separate settled and in-flight positions and publish the brokers’ statements.
That split gives users two different backing states to monitor. Settled shares are already at a custodian. In-flight shares are still due from an authorized participant on the next U.S. business day. The broker statements and dashboard should therefore show whether reported backing has completed delivery or remains pending. The announcement does not describe a holder action for delayed delivery.
How creation and holder rights work Authorized participants will create tokens by delivering shares and redeem tokens for shares. EQX charges no issuer fee for creation or redemption. When a token trades above the backing value, an authorized participant can buy shares, create tokens and sell them. When it trades below backing value, the participant can buy tokens, redeem them and sell the shares. This mechanism can align prices while U.S. equity markets are open, when the underlying shares are available for arbitrage.
Other holders cannot redeem directly with the issuer. They buy and sell on Hyperliquid’s order book. The trading venue, rather than the issuer, will therefore set the available liquidity. EQX says it adds no fee to holding or secondary trading, although traders still pay Hyperliquid’s standard spot fee and an app may add its own charge. EQX instead receives a share of the trading fees that Hyperliquid pays to HIP-1 deployers. This separates the retail exit from the share-redemption process: a holder sells to another order-book participant, while an authorized participant handles conversion between tokens and shares.
The holder documentation distinguishes the token from a brokerage share in several ways. EQX tokens are not covered by SIPC or deposit insurance. A holder has a limited-recourse debt claim against the issuer for one ticker’s segregated portfolio, not equity in the company or fund. The token terms require redemption in shares rather than cash. That structure makes the quality and availability of the backing, the authorized participants and the issuer’s compliance central to the product.
Dividends will initially buy more of the same shares after applicable withholding and broker costs. The shares-per-token ratio starts at 1.0 and increases as dividends are reinvested. EQX’s comparison table specifies 30% U.S. withholding at the issuer. Stock splits will change the ratio. For other corporate actions, including mergers, EQX says it will announce the planned treatment in advance.
Token holders can submit voting instructions by signing with the wallet that holds the tokens. EQX says it will use reasonable endeavours to follow those instructions. The arrangement passes an instruction to the issuer, rather than making the token holder the registered shareholder.
What changes for Hyperliquid users The planned markets put equity exposure on HyperCore beside Hyperliquid’s existing spot and derivatives markets. Orders will go directly to a public order book rather than through a broker. EQX says transfers and on-chain settlement complete in under a second. The markets are designed to operate 24/7/365, including when U.S. exchanges are closed. During those closed hours, authorized participants cannot perform the share-side leg of the arbitrage described by EQX, so the documentation does not establish that token prices will track shares continuously.
For DeFi operators, the tokens create prospective collateral and vault assets with equity-linked economics. EQX says public token IDs and backing data will let apps list, price or lend against the tokens without an EQX account, API key or issuer fee. HyperEVM use depends on a contract address being listed in the token registry. Protocols considering these assets will still need to account for off-hours price formation, the issuer claim, custody status and restrictions on who may hold them.
The eligibility restrictions are material. EQX says the tokens are not offered to U.S. persons, people in the United States, British Virgin Islands residents or persons there, or sanctioned persons. Eligible users need a wallet funded with $USDC on Hyperliquid, with no EQX account or identity check. The official token ID matters because anyone can copy a market name.
Trading remains the next unresolved milestone. EQX has published the issuer structure, the first 11 tickers and the intended mechanics, but it has not stated when the order books will open, which authorized participants will be active at launch or how much settled backing each market will begin with.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by our writers are their own and do not represent the views of U.Today. The financial and market information provided on U.Today is intended for informational purposes only. U.Today is not liable for any financial losses incurred while trading cryptocurrencies. Conduct your own research by contacting financial experts before making any investment decisions. We believe that all content is accurate as of the date of publication, but certain offers mentioned may no longer be available.
A Hyperliquid whale is taking profits on a bet that has paid off more than 20 times over. The wallet bought 257,928 HYPE tokens ago at just $3.5 per token, which cost approximately $903,000 in total. Six hours ago, it sent 100,276 HYPE, worth $8.17 million, to a Kraken deposit address.
How did the sale go?The tokens came out of Hyperliquid staking first, and the wallet then sent them directly to Kraken. One day earlier, the same wallet moved another 30,228 HYPE, worth $2.55 million, in the same way.
HYPE/USDT Chart by TradingViewTogether, the two transfers are worth approximately $10.7 million. At today's price near $82, the original position is worth around $21 million, a gain of approximately 2,200%. If the wallet has not sold anything else, it still holds approximately 127,000 HYPE, worth close to $10.4 million.
HOT Stories
Deposits to an exchange often point to a sale, so investors watch movements like this closely. Even so, the market has absorbed the selling without a crash. HYPE trades near $82 and is down approximately 16% from its recent high near $98. Volume is low, which suggests traders are not rushing for the exit.
You Might Also Like
The chart is somewhat weak in the short term. The price has slipped below the 50-day average near $83.70 and the 20-day average near $86. The RSI sits in the low 40s, which points to fading momentum. The $79 area is the closest support, and the 100-day average near $76.50 is the next one below it.
Where does it go?The larger trend keeps eyeing high, as the long-term averages continue to rise. For buyers to take back control, HYPE needs to close above $84 and then reclaim $87.50. That would put $90 and $95 back in view. A close below $79 would be a warning, and it could send the price toward $76.
The key question is what the whale does next. Selling 130,000 tokens in days is a sign of profit taking, and more deposits to Kraken could add pressure while the price is soft. But one wallet is small next to the entire market, so the chart will matter more than any single seller.
Hypercall od června zaznamenal nominální objem 640 milionů USD, přičemž více než 80 % tvořily opce na S&P 500. Objem otevřených pozic dosahuje 49 milionů USD.
S&P 500 options are hot on Hyperliquid-based Hypercall exchange. (TyliJura/Pixabay)Summary
Hypercall has recorded $640 million in notional volume since June 1, with more than 80% coming from S&P 500 options.The platform offers daily, weekly and monthly expiries around the clock, settles contracts in USDC and has seen trading concentrate in options expiring the next day.Hypercall’s growth reflects rising demand for blockchain-based access to traditional markets, though its volume remains small compared with established options venues.Talk about options on the S&P 500 index, and you are discussing a beast of a market that trades trillions of dollars in notional volume every day. Crypto traders now appear to want to access it over a blockchain.
Hypercall illustrates the demand. The options platform built on Hyperliquid, the eighth-largest blockchain by total value locked (TVL), went live in June, and more than 80% of the $640 million in notional volume since then has come from S&P 500 options, the exchange told CoinDesk. Open interest, the value of contracts still outstanding, is about $49 million, of which $47 million is in S&P 500 options.
While the numbers are small next to traditional markets and Deribit's crypto options business, which started shortly after the platform’s 2016 debut and now routinely sees billions of dollars in daily volume and open interest, they illustrate a growing trend: the desire to access financial instruments when conventional markets are closed. Hypercall lists daily, weekly and monthly expiries, including over weekends.
"The volume is concentrated in options expiring the following day," Jake Sylvestre, founder of Hypercall, said in an email interview. "Traders can take a view on the next day's move or hold a position further out."
Traders are gravitating to blockchains for exposure to traditional markets, including derivatives. Hyperliquid’s decentralized exchange (DEX), also known as Hyperliquid, has become a go-to venue for placing trades and managing risk through perpetual futures, especially on weekends when conventional markets are closed and geopolitical tensions have repeatedly escalated.
The draw of 24/7Hypercall takes Hyperliquid’s perpetual futures into the options arena. An option is a contract that pays out if an asset ends up above or below — depending on the details — a set price by a specified date. A call option pays off when the asset finishes above that price at expiry. A put option works the other way round. Traders use both to hedge against price swings and bet on direction, volatility and time.
Each Hypercall contract has a $1 multiplier, which means each index point is worth $1 at settlement. A call with a 7,000 strike pays $100 if the index settles at 7,100. Contracts settle in USDC, a dollar-pegged stablecoin, against the average price over the final 30 minutes for Hyperliquid's S&P 500 perps.
Trading around the clock is the draw. "Hyperliquid has become the best venue for trading these markets outside exchange hours," Sylvestre said.
Hypercall’s exchange's market makers, the firms that quote prices, "hedge on Hyperliquid's perpetual futures, including on weekends when the cash equity market is closed," Sylvestre said. Earnings, economic data and company news can move an underlying asset while its home exchange is closed, and makers "have to price those events around the clock."
Hypercall isn't pitching itself as a replacement for Deribit, the Coinbase Global COIN-owned biggest crypto options venue, which mostly lists bitcoin BTC$83,212.45 and ether ETH$2,508.47 options.
Two market makers are active and three more are being onboarded.
"We haven't named them publicly yet and expect to over the next few weeks," Sylvestre said. "User collateral is held on-chain," it said, but "order matching is off-chain only." Parts of margining and liquidation also run off-chain.
Individual stocksIndex options aren't the only draw. Options on SpaceX SPCX, Nvidia NVDA, Micron Technology (MU) and SanDisk (SNDK) make up more than half of all trades, followed by Apple AAPL, Microsoft MSFT, Meta META, Alibaba (BABA), ether and bitcoin.
"The breadth is in single names," Sylvestre said.
Other platforms are adding stock options too. Bybit began offering 24/7-trading on options on stock perpetuals on Sept. 17, starting with SpaceX and Nvidia. Binance, the largest crypto exchange by value traded, offers options on more than 1,000 U.S. stocks and ETFs to eligible users outside the U.S.
HYPE za uplynulých 24 hodin klesl téměř o 5 % na přibližně 81,20 USD, přestože Assistance Fund v rámci zpětných odkupů nakoupil více než 48 milionů tokenů za 1,36 miliardy USD.
HYPE price has fallen nearly 5% to around $81.20 over the past 24 hours despite Hyperliquid’s Assistance Fund having spent $1.36 billion buying more than 48 million tokens.
Summary
Hyperliquid’s Assistance Fund has purchased more than 48 million HYPE through its ongoing buyback program.
HYPE traded near $81.20, while 24-hour trading volume increased more than 59% to $931.56 million.
The daily chart places Supertrend support at $80.26, with MACD remaining below its signal line.
USDC reserve income has added nearly $14.58 million to the fund’s trading-fee-funded purchases.
Hyperliquid News reported on Oct. 13 that the Assistance Fund’s cumulative purchases had exceeded 48 million HYPE, acquired for approximately $1.36 billion. The tracker valued the accumulated tokens at about $3.95 billion at its reporting price.
THE ASSISTANCE FUND HAS BOUGHT 48,000,102.51 hyperliquid:native FOR $1,364,831,403.93, WITH A CURRENT VALUE OF $3,953,240,443.01. pic.twitter.com/npJwk4pue1
— Hyperliquid News (@HyperliquidNews) October 13, 2026
Against that buying activity, the market figures accompanying the update placed HYPE near $81.20, with a 24-hour trading range of $79.52 to $85.73. Trading volume reached approximately $931.56 million, increasing more than 59% over the same period.
On KuCoin’s daily HYPE/USDT chart, TradingView recorded a similar price of $81.197. The chart showed an Oct. 13 high of $83.410 and a low of $79.496, placing the token close to its green Supertrend line after retreating from its late-September peak.
HYPE price holds above $80.26 as momentum weakens
TradingView’s daily chart places the Supertrend indicator at $80.261, roughly $0.94 below the recorded price. Although the session’s low briefly crossed beneath the line, HYPE subsequently traded above it, leaving the indicator’s bullish signal in place.
HYPE price daily chart — Oct. 13 | Source: TradingView
Across the same chart, the candles show a decline from a late-September peak near $98 and a sequence of lower highs into October. The recorded price of $81.197 sits approximately 17% below that peak.
The daily MACD presents a weaker momentum reading. TradingView shows the MACD line at −0.674, below the signal line at 0.700, with the histogram at −1.373. The negative histogram and downward movement in both lines support a bearish reading of the daily momentum indicator.
Based on the visible daily price structure, a recovery toward $85 would first require HYPE to move above the session high of $83.41. Recent candles around $85 identify another potential resistance area, followed by trading clusters around $88–$90.
Further up the chart, previous highs place another resistance zone around $94–$98. Those levels come from earlier price activity rather than an analyst’s forecast.
On the downside, the chart places the closest support references at the $80.26 Supertrend line and the session low near $79.50. A daily close below both would weaken the bullish Supertrend setup, with September lows around $75–$77 providing the next visible price reference.
Hyperliquid buybacks draw funding from fees and USDC reserves
Hyperliquid’s official fee documentation states that the Assistance Fund automatically converts its share of trading fees into HYPE through the network’s execution system. The documentation also says HYPE held in the fund is burned, permanently removing those tokens from circulating and total supply.
Under the documented arrangement, fees support several community mechanisms, including the Assistance Fund, the Hyperliquidity Provider vault and market deployers. Hyperliquid allows spot and certain perpetual-market deployers to retain part of the fees generated by their markets.
As crypto.news previously reported, Hyperliquid activated its AQAv2 framework for USDC on Aug. 26. The arrangement sends approximately 90% of cost-adjusted reserve yield to the protocol, adding income from stablecoin balances to the fund’s trading-fee revenue.
According to Hyperliquid’s framework, Coinbase serves as the USDC treasury deployer, while Circle handles technical functions such as minting, redemption, and cross-chain transfers. Revenue accumulates over 30-day periods before an automatic transfer eight days after each period ends.
Hyperliquid’s published framework makes payments dependent on reserve balances, yields, and operating costs, rather than setting a fixed annual contribution.
Revenue growth accompanies a separate institutional token deal
In September, a report on Hyperliquid’s 2026 protocol revenue ranking detailed CoinGecko’s calculation of $429.04 million in revenue from Jan. 1 through Sep. 15.
CoinGecko placed Hyperliquid first in its adjusted comparison, accounting for 12.62% of a $3.40 billion revenue pool. Pump.fun ranked second with $322.21 million, leaving Hyperliquid ahead by more than $106 million at the study’s cutoff.
Separately, Oct. 8 coverage detailed a 3.75 million HYPE transaction after Hyperliquid Labs completed a seven-day unstaking process. Onchain Lens linked the allocation, then valued near $330 million, to an institutional over-the-counter agreement.
According to the tracker, 1.875 million HYPE initially moved through five wallets, each receiving 375,000 tokens. Subsequent Lookonchain tracking showed 1.25 million HYPE returning to staking, with the remaining tokens held across two addresses.
Onchain Lens described the arrangement as a private transaction rather than an open-market sale. Hyperliquid Strategies CEO David Schamis later said his company was not the buyer.
U.S. investors have HYPE exposure through listed funds
For American investors, May 15 coverage of U.S. Hyperliquid investment products detailed 21Shares’ THYP spot product and TXXH leveraged fund.
According to the asset manager’s announcement, THYP provides HYPE exposure and incorporates staking, while TXXH offers a separate leveraged strategy.
The launch documents described THYP as a Securities Act of 1933 product rather than an investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940. In its disclosures, 21Shares stated that THYP investors do not receive the same protections available under traditional 1940 Act ETFs and mutual funds; TXXH was registered under the 1940 Act.
Disclosure: This article does not represent investment advice. The content and materials featured on this page are for educational purposes only.
Platforma Forge od Allora spustila Topic 90 pro AI předpovědi tříminutových logaritmických výnosů perpetual futures na Hyperliquid, přičemž modely dynamicky vybírají trhy.
Allora’s Forge platform has opened a new prediction topic built around Hyperliquid, and it comes with an unusual twist: there is no fixed list of assets.
The Hyperliquid Log Return topic, designated topic 90, went live on October 8, 2026. It asks AI and machine learning models to forecast three-minute log returns across Hyperliquid’s perpetual futures markets, with the set of markets rebuilt every round.
How topic 90 actually works Topic 90 works differently from static prediction setups. The market set for each round is assembled dynamically, based on what models choose to submit.
Each submission is capped at 100 keys. A key, in this context, is essentially a market the model wants to weigh in on.
Zeros are treated as the default and dropped from the registry. So a model that has no opinion on a given market simply leaves it out, rather than padding its entry with empty guesses.
The target itself is a three-minute base-10 log return. A log return measures how much a price moved over a window, expressed as a logarithm of the ending price divided by the starting price.
To settle who was right, Allora pulls ground truth from Hyperliquid’s one-minute candle data through its Atlas platform.
The scoring system punishes fence-sitting Allora’s answer to zero-padding is the CZAR loss function, short for Composite Zero-Agnostic Return. It is designed to reward forecasts that actually take a directional stance and to penalize predictions that hedge toward nothing.
Models are assessed on several criteria, including directional accuracy and correlation with realized returns.
The bar for graduating is also explicit. To move to mainnet, a model must pass seven statistical tests per topic and worker.
One of those tests requires the lower confidence bound on directional accuracy to sit above 50%. That means a model has to show, with statistical confidence, that it beats a coin flip at calling direction.
Forge, Hyperliquid and the bigger picture Forge functions as a competitive arena where models build reputations through testing. According to the research findings, more than 2,000 models are already active on the platform.
Those models are spread across 18 topics. The Hyperliquid Log Return topic joins others focused on price, volatility and commodity forecasts.
Hyperliquid is a high-performance Layer 1 blockchain optimized for perpetual futures and spot trading. Its HyperCore infrastructure handles order matching and liquidations.
Notably, the launch does not introduce a new token or any new trading mechanism. It is a model-performance play: a new arena with new rules, aimed at the people building predictive systems rather than the people trading on Hyperliquid directly.
What this means for model builders and traders The dynamic market set is the most interesting design choice here. By letting models pick their own markets, up to 100 at a time, Forge shifts some of the strategy from “how good is your forecast” to “where are you confident enough to forecast at all.”
The CZAR loss function and the seven-test mainnet gate address a credibility problem common in AI prediction projects. Requiring a directional accuracy lower bound above 50% forces models to demonstrate an edge, not just low error.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Diego Almada Lopez. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
INFINIT na Hyperliquid spustil spravované obchodní vaulty; prvním z nich je APEX Multi-Strategy od Apex Quantitative Capital. Vaulty mohou obchodovat pouze na trzích s open interestem alespoň 100 milionů USD.
At 12:02 UTC on October 12, 2026, INFINIT introduced its managed trading-vault framework, with APEX Multi-Strategy as the first named vault. The framework restricts vaults to eligible Hyperliquid markets with at least $100 million in open interest.
Depositors enter with $USDC during a defined window and receive a receipt token representing their share. A strategy manager trades for a fixed term. At the end, holders can redeem the receipt token for their share of the vault’s $USDC value after fees. Each manager sets the fees, lock period, deposit window, risk limits and strategy before deposits open.
This structure gives the manager trading authority without giving it withdrawal access. INFINIT says deposits sit behind a 3-of-4 multisig, with keys divided between INFINIT and the operating team. Trading credentials can open and close positions but cannot withdraw depositor funds. The company also publishes a shared trading wallet and provides weekly performance reports to depositors.
How the controls work
INFINIT calls the common infrastructure INFINIT OS. It covers strategy research and testing, vault setup, accounting for depositor shares, controlled execution, risk monitoring and investor reporting. The company says it also supports legal structuring, regulated fund licensing and fund administration for strategy managers.
Managers must pass what INFINIT calls the INFINIT Standard before they can take deposits. The manager and its beneficial owners must complete identity checks and screening. The manager must contribute first-loss capital alongside depositors and show a live trading record rather than relying only on a backtest. It must also declare market, leverage, exposure and drawdown limits.
The trade gateway enforces those restrictions at order entry. It blocks orders outside the approved market list and any order that violates the vault’s declared restrictions. Monitoring agents separately compare trading activity with the manager’s published mandate and risk limits. INFINIT’s risk team reviews suspected breaches. The manager must correct a confirmed breach, while an unresolved breach causes INFINIT to pause trading access.
The custody design separates several powers, but depositors still depend on INFINIT’s controls and the operating team’s key arrangement. A strategy can produce trading losses within its permitted mandate. Receipt-token redemption also occurs at the end of a fixed term, rather than as an on-demand withdrawal described in the announcement. Fees differ by manager and must be read in the terms for the specific vault.
The manager-screening process adds another layer before a vault can collect deposits. INFINIT requires identity checks for the manager and its beneficial owners. It also requires a live trading record and first-loss capital from the manager. That capital puts manager funds in the same strategy, but the announcement does not state the amount or the loss-allocation sequence. Those details belong in the vault terms that prospective depositors receive before a window opens.
Declared risk limits cover markets, leverage, exposure and drawdown. They are separate from the manager’s investment thesis. A permitted losing position can comply with all four limits. Conversely, an order can fit the thesis and still be rejected if it falls outside an approved market or another declared restriction. Depositors need both parts of the disclosure to understand what the manager intends to trade and what the gateway will allow.
The $100 million open-interest threshold narrows the Hyperliquid market set available to each vault. INFINIT says the gateway automatically blocks orders outside that eligible list. The announcement does not say how often open interest is measured or what happens when an already-open market falls below the threshold. That is a practical rule to check in each vault’s disclosed risk controls.
INFINIT says receipt tokens represent depositor shares and that integrations with other DeFi protocols are planned. That makes the current receipt an accounting and redemption claim under the vault terms. The announcement does not identify a live lending, collateral or secondary-market integration for it.
The first vault trades a neutral book
APEX Multi-Strategy is the first vault under the framework. Apex Quantitative Capital operates it. INFINIT says the team’s members have close to 50 years of combined experience across banks, buy-side institutions, crypto trading firms and exchanges.
The strategy is a systematic CTA momentum model. Its AI-led engine ranks markets by relative strength, goes long the strongest and shorts the weakest across stocks, commodities and crypto. INFINIT says the book stays dollar-neutral so returns come from market selection. Equity and commodity exposure comes through perpetual contracts on Hyperliquid, and all APEX returns come from trading profit and loss.
For depositors, the distinction between transparent positions and enforceable limits matters. The shared wallet lets them inspect activity, while weekly reports cover performance, exposure and trading. Neither replaces the disclosed mandate. The gateway determines which orders are allowed, and INFINIT’s monitoring process determines how a suspected breach is escalated.
The open question is how consistently those controls will constrain a live manager during fast markets. INFINIT’s announcement describes automatic order blocking, agent monitoring and a human risk review, but it does not publish latency, intervention thresholds or a completed audit in the announcement. Prospective depositors will need the vault-specific risk controls, audit details, fees and lock-up period that managers must disclose before accepting funds.
The next deposit window
INFINIT says onchain lending-vault deposits grew from $1.5 billion in September 2024 to $10 billion in September 2026. It presents trading vaults as a separate extension of managed onchain products. The comparison is context supplied by INFINIT, not a measure of deposits already committed to its trading vaults.
The next operational dates concern APEX. Vault 1 becomes redeemable on October 28, 2026. INFINIT says Vault 2 is separate, so existing holders must redeem from Vault 1 before depositing into Vault 2. The next APEX Multi-Strategy deposit window is planned for October 28 through November 11, 2026, with participation details still to be announced.
Zakladatel OKX Star Xu tvrdí, že Hyperliquid v rámci bloků upřednostňuje rušení objednávek před taker obchodníky, což zvýhodňuje market makery a prohlubuje knihu objednávek.
TLDR: Hyperliquid matches orders block by block and prioritizes cancellations within each block, says Xu. Xu links Hyperliquid’s order book depth to its market maker friendly design versus many exchanges. Xu says the design offers another approach for long-tail assets that have limited liquidity. Xu blames the October 10 liquidations partly on USDe being treated like a stablecoin as collateral. Star Xu says the Hyperliquid matching engine is more market maker friendly than the systems used by centralized exchanges. The OKX founder shared the view on the New Era Finance Podcast with host Michael.
He said Hyperliquid matches orders block by block and gives cancellations priority within each block. Market makers can therefore cancel orders ahead of takers. Xu also covered MiCA, customer protection, and the October 10 market turmoil during the discussion.
How the Hyperliquid Matching Engine Works Xu said the Hyperliquid matching engine differs fundamentally from centralized order book exchanges in its technical design. Centralized exchanges process orders individually. Hyperliquid, by contrast, matches orders in blocks.
Within each block, the system prioritizes cancellations. Under the Hyperliquid matching engine, market makers can therefore cancel orders ahead of takers. Xu called this design market maker friendly.
Xu believes this design explains why Hyperliquid’s order book depth appears better than that of many centralized exchanges. He added that the Hyperliquid matching engine offers another approach for long-tail assets with limited liquidity.
Xu made the comments while discussing crypto’s evolution. He said repeated crises, from early Bitcoin attacks and Mt. Gox to FTX, tested the sector.
Each episode also prompted improvements, in his view. He sees blockchain as a base for more efficient finance through self-custody, stablecoins, and tokenized assets.
Trust, Risk Controls, and the October 10 Turmoil Xu described MiCA as an important step toward consistent crypto regulation across Europe. He noted the compliance challenges OKX faced while entering the market.
He said international growth depends on earning customer and regulator trust through transparent operations and stronger governance.
He pointed to board oversight, compliance and risk functions, monthly proof-of-reserves reports, and external auditing. OKX also plans to pursue a public listing. Xu said these steps increase accountability.
Xu said safeguarding customer funds matters more than aggressive growth. Exchanges, he added, should follow financial rules and earn money from technology and services.
He recommends self-custody for users who can manage keys securely, though wallets can be vulnerable. He also warns against unusually high yields and demands to “just trust” an exchange.
Xu attributed the cascading October 10 liquidations partly to USDe being treated like a stablecoin and accepted as derivatives collateral. He described USDe as a higher-risk, hedge-fund-like product.
Leveraged borrowing against it could magnify returns but also amplify losses when prices moved. Xu argued that tighter risk controls and regulated derivatives venues could help prevent such episodes.
Looking ahead, Xu expects crypto to expand beyond trading into everyday financial services. These include wallets for holding money, blockchain payments, and tokenized equities.
He also expects on-chain asset-management tools that let users keep control of their funds. He is optimistic these technologies could become widely used financial infrastructure.
Singapurský měnový úřad (MAS) zařadil Hyperliquid na seznam upozornění pro investory, protože decentralizovaná struktura platformy podle regulátora spadá mimo jeho dohled. Provozovatel platformy, Hyperliquid Labs, potvrdil, že je registrován v Singapuru a nemá licenci MAS.
Singapore has built a reputation as one of the friendlier places on earth for digital assets. That friendliness, it turns out, has limits.
The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has voiced serious concerns about decentralized crypto products. It is paying particular attention to highly leveraged perpetual futures platforms, and it has now named one of the biggest of them.
On June 26, 2026, MAS added Hyperliquid to its Investor Alert List. The platform is operated by Hyperliquid Labs, which is registered in Singapore.
What MAS actually flagged MAS uses its Investor Alert List to flag entities to the public. Hyperliquid landed there because of its decentralized structure, which the regulator considers to sit outside its oversight.
The regulator also pointed out that Hyperliquid is not regulated in any major jurisdiction.
Hyperliquid Labs has confirmed it is registered in Singapore. It has also stated that it is not licensed by MAS.
Advertisement
Why perpetual futures are the pressure point Perpetual futures, or “perps,” are derivatives that let traders bet on an asset’s price without ever holding it. Unlike traditional futures, they have no expiry date, so positions can stay open indefinitely.
Consumer advocates have described leveraged perps platforms as “the most dangerous product in crypto.”
MAS has been careful to draw a line here. It distinguishes the institutional perpetual futures offered on SGX, Singapore’s exchange, from what Hyperliquid offers. The regulator’s message is that the product type alone is not the issue. Who is trading it, under what rules, and with what protections is what counts.
MAS has also stressed that crypto trading carries high risks for the general public.
The “techno-anarchism” problem A Bloomberg opinion piece captured the broader mood among regulators. It described growing apprehension about the “techno-anarchism” of recent crypto products.
The Hyperliquid case shows how awkward this gets in practice. A company is registered in Singapore, yet the product it is associated with operates in a way MAS says falls beyond its reach.
Singapore’s balancing act MAS continues to champion tokenization and institutional activity in the sector while focusing on curbing the risks that come from retail speculation.
Singapore’s framework requires digital token service providers serving overseas clients to obtain a license. Approvals under the 2025 regulations have been limited.
MAS Managing Director Chia Der Jiun has emphasized trust and risk management in recent remarks. He has highlighted the intersection of AI and digital asset trading as an area needing attention.
What this means for traders and platforms The most immediate effect is reputational. An investor alert from a respected regulator is not a ban, but it is the kind of label that compliance teams, banks and institutional partners tend to notice.
The research findings suggest MAS’s stance could signal a more cautious posture among global regulators. If so, similar decentralized perps platforms may face increased scrutiny elsewhere.
By separating SGX’s institutional perps from Hyperliquid’s offerings, MAS is effectively endorsing one model of leveraged trading while warning against another.
Disclosure: This article was edited by John Chen. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
SushiSwap nasadil token $HYPE od Hyperliquid na Robinhood Chain prostřednictvím LayerZero. Aktivum je na této síti poprvé dostupné k obchodování a poskytování likvidity.
SushiSwap has deployed Hyperliquid's $HYPE token on Robinhood Chain for the first time, using LayerZero for cross-chain bridging as part of its broader multichain expansion strategy.
SushiSwap Bridges $HYPE to Robinhood Chain via LayerZero@SushiSwap has deployed @HyperliquidX's $HYPE token on @RobinhoodCrypto Chain, marking the first time the asset has been available for trading on the network. The integration was made possible through @LayerZero_Core, which serves as the cross-chain bridging layer connecting $HYPE to the growing Robinhood Chain ecosystem.
The partnership with @LayerZero_Core allows users to buy, trade, provide liquidity, and launch tokens using $HYPE directly on the chain. The move adds a notable DeFi-native asset to a network that has quickly become one of the more closely watched Layer 2 launches of 2026.
What Is Robinhood Chain? Robinhood Chain is an Ethereum L2 for tokenized stocks and real-world assets, built on Arbitrum Orbit. It launched a public testnet on February 10, 2026, and went live on mainnet on July 1, 2026. Tokens that track stocks like NVDA and AAPL trade 24/7 on-chain as Stock Tokens, settle in seconds, and plug directly into DeFi.
SushiSwap's presence on the chain is already well established. All new token launches on Robinhood Chain via RevShare now route exclusively to SushiSwap V3. The addition of $HYPE signals that $SUSHI intends to go further, bringing established DeFi-native assets onto the platform rather than limiting its role to new token issuance.
The launch forms part of SushiSwap's broader multichain strategy , and the team is expected to bring additional assets to Robinhood Chain in the coming months. For $HYPE, the listing represents its first footprint on the L2, opening up a new venue for traders and liquidity providers who are active on the network.
The LayerZero ecosystem includes DeFi projects such as SushiSwap, and these projects use LayerZero to overcome multichain challenges such as liquidity fragmentation. That infrastructure is central to this integration, enabling $HYPE to move across chains without requiring a new native deployment from scratch.
Sources:
TokenPost: SushiSwap Launches HYPE Trading and Liquidity on Robinhood Chain
Coinfomania: $HYPE Goes Live on Robinhood Chain
Dwellir: What Is Robinhood Chain?
Obchodník manipuloval s cenotvorbou Papertrade navázanou na ETH na platformě Hyperliquid a za zhruba osm hodin od spuštění dosáhl čistého zisku asi 1,28 milionu USD.
According to Butler’s monitoring, Papertrade was exploited by an address to earn around $1.28 million in profits just roughly 8 hours after its launch. The same trader has accumulated over $13 million in historical profits on Hyperliquid, with a trading volume of $14 billion. Since Papertrade prices its trades based on Hyperliquid’s real-time ETH price, the attacker repeatedly opened large long and short positions on Papertrade while trading ETH on Hyperliquid, briefly pushing prices up or down before closing positions for gains. Data shows the trader executed a total of 305 trades, 296 of which were profitable, giving a win rate of approximately 97%. The average holding time was just 98 seconds, with cumulative trading profits peaking at $1.73 million. However, the attacker later opened 30 short positions on Papertrade at $2507.35, with a notional value of around $297 million, and sold roughly 6,600 ETH on Hyperliquid to drive the price down to $2504.4, but this attempt to close the positions failed. Afterward, ETH’s price rose to $2509.95, triggering full liquidation of the 30 short positions, resulting in a loss of roughly $450,000. The attacker ultimately netted approximately $1.28 million in profits. The Papertrade team may have curbed the attack by blocking the attacker’s position closures, but this is only speculation and has not been confirmed. Analysts noted that if the platform continues to directly use Hyperliquid’s BBO (Best Bid Offer) as its pricing basis, underlying manipulation risks will remain. They recommend adopting Hyperliquid’s official oracle price, which aggregates quotes from multiple trading platforms, to reduce risks from manipulation of a single order book.
Relevant content
STRK's 24-hour price gain has widened to 55%, briefly surging past $0.12.
According to HTX market data, STRK (Starknet) has extended its 24-hour gain to 55%, briefly breaking above $0.12 and currently trading at $0.11, leading the altcoin market rally. On the news front, StarkWare CEO Eli Ben-Sasson stated at Token2049 and in subsequent remarks that blockchains need post-quantum readiness and cryptographic agility to counter threats from quantum computing and AI acceleration. He clarified that Starknet is actively considering multiple options, including separating from Ethereum to become an independent Layer 1 (L1) chain, so as to independently control the pace of security migration, with the goal of achieving full quantum resistance by 2027 — earlier than Ethereum’s planned timeline. This "shift to L1 + quantum resistance" narrative quickly became a market focus, driving STRK’s consecutive sharp rally. On the technical and ecosystem front, the v0.14.4 mainnet launched on October 5, expanding SNIP-36 single-proof capacity to approximately 1.1 billion L2 gas, enabling proof verification for larger-scale off-chain computations; the strkBTC incentive program went live on October 2 (with the first 100 bridged BTC covering bridging fees and receiving weekly airdrops), further strengthening the Bitcoin-related narrative.
28 minutes ago
Ledger-linked attackers deposited 2,990 ETH into Tornado Cash, then bridged the funds to ZEC via NEAR Intents.
On-chain detective Specter revealed in his personal channel that an attacker address, implanted via unauthorized hardware into a Ledger hardware wallet linked to CryptoBilis, deposited 2,990 ETH (valued at approximately $7.45 million) to Tornado Cash between October 9 and 10. Monitoring data shows the attacker had earlier dispersed the funds to 14 addresses, then cross-chain converted the funds to the ZEC network via NEAR Intents for further privacy processing. Signs of address correlation were observed during the fund transfers: some withdrawal transactions reused the wallet addresses used for prior deposits, while other withdrawals were initiated by wallets linked to the wallet that paid gas fees during the theft, enabling researchers to trace the fund flow.
28 minutes ago
List of High-Risk Ledger Resellers Disclosed, Regional Supply Chain Risks Draw Attention After CryptoBilis Incident
After hardware wallet manufacturer Ledger confirmed that devices sold by its Southeast Asian distributor CryptoBilis contained unauthorized hardware implants, analyst Darkfost has compiled a "Ledger Dealers to Watch" list, identifying nearby merchants whose supply chains may also be impacted, including Lazada, Shopee, Tokopedia, Bhinnekon, and Metapod. The list marks CryptoBilis as suspended, while the risk exposure of other dealers remains unknown. Darkfost stressed this is speculative, not confirmed, but advised users who purchased Ledger devices from these dealers in the past six months to transfer their assets to secure locations before the issue is resolved. Ledger previously stated the incident appears limited to this single distributor and its local market, adding its own infrastructure, systems, and services were not breached, and investigations are ongoing. Darkfost also recommended users willing to inspect their devices themselves refer to disassembly guides to verify if the hardware has been tampered with.
28 minutes ago
Ledger Confirms Over $86 Million in Crypto Assets Lost in Hardware Supply Chain Attack Incident
Hardware wallet manufacturer Ledger confirmed today that unauthorized hardware implant attacks may have caused affected users to lose more than $86 million in crypto assets. Earlier, Ledger verified that affected user devices contained unauthorized hardware implants, prompting distributor CryptoBilis to suspend sales of its inventory.
28 minutes ago
Next Week's Macro Outlook: CPI Data Tests Fed’s Stance on Pausing Rate Hikes, IMF’s Walsh Speech Takes Center Stage
Next week, global markets will focus on the U.S. September CPI data to assess whether the Federal Reserve maintains its "discontinuous rate hike" stance. While most Fed officials believe another rate hike may be possible this year, recent comments indicate no urgency to act at consecutive meetings. Market pricing for a rate hike on October 28 has fallen to around 19%, while a December rate hike is fully priced in. Geopolitically, the stalemate between the U.S. and Iran and escalating tensions in Yemen continue to support oil risk premiums, with the U.S.-Russia diesel supply deal having limited short-term impact. Below is a key event calendar: Tuesday: Speech by Cleveland Fed President Patrick Harker; Fed Governor Christopher Waller speaks at the India Bloomberg New Economy Forum; U.S. September NFIB Small Business Confidence Index, ADP employment change for the week ending September 26, September existing home sales annualized total; OPEC releases its monthly oil market report. Wednesday: U.S. September CPI and core CPI; Fed officials’ pre-Brown Book comments; Boston Fed President Susan Collins and Fed Governor Michelle Bowman deliver speeches; IEA releases its monthly oil market report. Thursday: U.S. API crude oil inventories for the week ending October 9; U.S. initial jobless claims for the week ending October 10, September retail sales, September PPI and core PPI, October New York Fed and Philadelphia Fed manufacturing indexes; G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors Meeting. Friday: Fed Chair Jerome Powell attends the IMF Annual Meeting in Bangkok and holds a fireside chat with IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva; Cleveland Fed President Patrick Harker speaks again; U.S. September Import Price Index, industrial production; U.S. EIA crude oil inventories for the week ending October 9.
28 minutes ago
A crypto whale takes a long position on BTC, with unrealized profit exceeding $10 million.
According to TradingBeats monitoring, Hyperliquid whale address 0x8ea8…edbc holds 1,000 BTC long positions, with the position valued at approximately $83.04 million. The address uses 3x full leverage, with an average entry price of around $72,771, current unrealized profit of roughly $10.27 million, and a position return rate of about 37.1%. The address already held around 800 BTC long positions as early as May 11, with an unrealized profit of approximately $5.3 million at that time, before increasing the position size to 1,000 BTC. As of press time, the BTC contract mark price is approximately $83,037, some 14.1% higher than the address’s average entry price. The estimated liquidation price for the position is around $50,382, roughly 39.3% lower than the mark price.
Decentralizovaný derivátový protokol Hyperliquid dosáhl kumulativních příjmů přes 1,4 mld. USD a na zpětné odkupy HYPE na otevřeném trhu použil více než 1,26 mld. USD.
Hyperliquid, a decentralized derivatives protocol, has surpassed $1.4 billion in cumulative revenue, with more than $1.26 billion directed towards open-market buybacks of its native asset, HYPE, according to a recent report by @WuBlockchain. This substantial financial maneuver highlights Hyperliquid’s robust revenue generation capabilities and its commitment to supporting the market price of HYPE through buybacks. The protocol’s financial figures point to a strong linkage between fee generation and HYPE demand, facilitated by the buyback mechanism. Markets appear to interpret this financial performance as supportive of potential price increases for HYPE, reflecting positive sentiment around Hyperliquid’s financial health.
Key Takeaways Hyperliquid’s cumulative revenue has exceeded $1.4 billion, suggesting significant financial health and market activity. Over $1.26 billion of this revenue has been used for HYPE buybacks, indicating strong support for the asset in the open market. Market pricing suggests participants view this development as consistent with scenarios where Hyperliquid’s price could increase. What to Watch The market for Hyperliquid reaching $100 by December 31, 2026, currently priced at 55.5% YES, may indicate growing confidence in the asset’s future value. Key indicators to watch include any announcements of partnerships or technological advancements, which could further bolster market sentiment. Conversely, negative developments such as security breaches or regulatory challenges could influence market perceptions and pricing. Monitoring these factors will be crucial in assessing the likelihood of Hyperliquid hitting its price targets.
Term Structure
Contract Odds Δ since publish Volume 24h December 31 54% -1.5¢ $144 View market → January 1 2027 2.2% 0.0¢ — View market → January 1 2027 1.5% +0.1¢ — View market → January 1 2027 2.9% 0.0¢ — View market → January 1 2027 1.6% 0.0¢ — View market → January 1 2027 5.5% 0.0¢ — View market → January 1 2027 3.5% 0.0¢ — View market → January 1 2027 4% 0.0¢ $101 View market → January 1 2027 9.5% 0.0¢ $40 View market → January 1 2027 7% 0.0¢ — View market → Updated 5min ago
OpenETF spustil na síti Hyperliquid testnet tokenizovaných fondů, v němž investoři drží podíly kompatibilní se standardem ERC-20 ve vlastních peněženkách. Systém používá pouze testovací aktiva bez hodnoty.
At 04:23 UTC on October 6, OpenETF introduced a testnet system that turns Hyperliquid portfolios into funds with wallet-held share tokens. The current deployment uses test assets with no value, and the documentation says real funds have no place in it.
The product gives each fund a name, symbol, public terms and an ERC-20-compatible share token. A manager trades the portfolio on Hyperliquid while investors hold the shares in their own wallets. The first release accepts subscriptions in $USDC at net asset value, with a minimum subscription of 100 $USDC unless the manager sets a higher floor.
How the fund spans Hyperliquid Each fund is a vault that operates across HyperCore and HyperEVM. The vault contract on HyperEVM issues shares, prices subscriptions and redemptions, and pays holders. The same vault acts as the trading account on HyperCore, where it holds and trades the portfolio. The contract reads HyperCore directly, so the docs say a subscription or redemption uses on-chain portfolio data in the same transaction.
That structure separates ownership from trading authority. Investors keep the share tokens. The manager directs trading but never receives the vault’s trading key and has no withdrawal path through the contract or OpenETF’s execution service. This does not remove manager risk. A manager, or an attacker who gains trading authority, can still damage the fund through losing or abusive trades.
OpenETF also sits in the execution path. Its shared service checks every order against the fund’s rules before signing it. Trading therefore depends on that service. The same dependency currently applies when the system prices new redemptions and raises the cash needed to pay them. The planned Mandate layer, which would enforce each manager’s published trading limits on every order, is still marked as coming soon.
Managers can create a fund without approval or a creation fee. A manager must buy at least 100 $USDC of the same shares sold to investors and select a commitment ratio of at least 5%. The manager cannot reduce their holding below that ratio. Eligible portfolios can use Hyperliquid’s main exchange perpetuals, eligible spot markets and admitted HIP-3 markets. The docs state that there is no exposure cap for an individual supported market.
Subscriptions, fees and exits Investors subscribe and redeem in $USDC at net asset value. Redemptions can be requested at any time without a lock-up, minimum size or manager approval. Shares transfer between wallets with their redemption rights. Every subscription, redemption and daily accounting point leaves a receipt that users can recompute, while each fund has a Passport containing sourced facts about its terms and history.
A redemption can still take time. OpenETF’s service may need to unwind positions and raise cash on HyperCore before moving it to HyperEVM for payment. Trading losses or market conditions can also reduce the amount ultimately paid.
For a holder, the absence of manager approval removes one discretionary exit gate, but it does not make redemption automatic or immediate. The execution service still prices the request and turns portfolio positions into cash. A transferable share also carries the redemption right to its new wallet, so custody of the token determines who can present that claim. Users therefore need to assess both the manager’s strategy and the platform dependencies before treating the share like an immediately redeemable balance.
The testnet applies an exit adjustment fee to each priced redemption portion except the final shares leaving a fund. The fee starts at 0.1%, adds 0.05% for each unit of notional leverage, and is capped at 1%. It stays in the fund for remaining holders rather than going to the manager or OpenETF.
Managers choose a performance fee from 0% to 50% of pooled profit, with a 20% default, and a management fee from 0% to 2% a year, with a 0% default. Both rates freeze when the fund issues shares. That makes the terms visible before a subscription, but it does not protect an investor from leverage, thin markets or a poor strategy.
The fee design separates compensation for the manager from the cost assigned to an exiting holder. Performance fees settle yearly against pooled profit, while management fees accrue as an annual rate. The exit adjustment is different: it stays inside the fund and rises with notional leverage until it reaches the 1% cap. A prospective holder can inspect those fixed manager rates before subscribing, then compare them with the portfolio’s market exposure and the extra cost that leverage can add at redemption.
What changes from Hyperliquid vaults OpenETF presents the product as a different wrapper around managed Hyperliquid strategies. In its comparison, a legacy Hyperliquid user vault records an internal $USDC balance, charges a 10,000 $USDC creation fee and imposes a one-day lock after a deposit. OpenETF instead gives the investor a transferable share token, charges no creation fee and has no redemption lock-up. The manager starts with 100 $USDC of their own capital.
The share token opens another route for integrations because wallets and applications can read it as a standard token. Collateral use and deeper integrations remain roadmap items rather than current functions. The roadmap also lists allowlisted subscriptions, AI-assisted fund creation, HIP-4 outcome markets, HyperEVM DeFi positions and funds holding other OpenETF funds.
The main user trade-off is visible in the control model. A manager cannot simply withdraw the portfolio, yet investors rely on OpenETF’s execution service, Hyperliquid and $USDC. They also bear the strategy’s trading losses and may wait while positions are unwound for a redemption. The docs describe the deployment as testnet only and do not give a dated mainnet launch. The next unresolved milestone is when OpenETF will open the system to assets with value and whether the Mandate controls will be live before that happens.
On-chain analytics platform @OnchainLens has flagged a significant series of token movements by crypto investment firm Multicoin Capital, showing the firm has been steadily routing $HYPE tokens to the institutional trading platform @Coinbase Prime over the past month.
$63 Million in Transfers Over Four Weeks The transfers were presumably made with the intention of selling the tokens, though no official confirmation has been provided by the firm.
A Broader Pattern of Institutional Movements This latest wave of transfers is part of a longer-running trend.
The activity comes as $HYPE trades at elevated levels.
providing a structural demand offset to any institutional selling pressure.
For now, the market will be watching closely to see whether Multicoin's on-chain activity accelerates or slows as $HYPE tests the territory near its record highs.
Sources:
TokenPost: Multicoin Transfers $62.99 Million of HYPE to Coinbase Prime
Bitbase: Hyperliquid Strategies Buys $45.8M in HYPE as Whale Selling Fears Linger
Crypto Times: Hyperliquid Price Today, $340M Token Unlock Hits as HYPE Trades Near $93
Zakladatel Synthetix Kain Warwick varoval, že držitelé HYPE nemají právní nárok na příjmy protokolu Hyperliquid ani ochranu srovnatelnou s ochranou akcionářů.
Kain Warwick, the founder of Synthetix, has a blunt message for HYPE holders. The token, he says, comes with no investor protections, unlike traditional equities.
That critique lands on one of DeFi’s most closely watched assets. HYPE has been trading between $80 and $98, backed by a buyback machine that would make most public company CFOs jealous.
What Warwick is actually saying Warwick’s argument rests on a basic distinction. A share of stock is a legal claim on a company. A HYPE token is not.
HYPE holders have no legal claim on protocol revenue and none of the rights that come with traditional equity. The value they capture comes through code, not contracts.
Warwick also took aim at a specific piece of Hyperliquid’s economics. The exchange splits 50% of fees with external market builders, an arrangement he criticized as potentially unsustainable for revenue growth.
Advertisement
His concern is that the split could weigh on the buyback strategy that supports HYPE. Fewer fees flowing to the protocol means fewer dollars available to buy tokens off the market.
How HYPE’s value engine works Hyperliquid is a decentralized perpetual futures exchange. It runs on its own Layer-1 blockchain, HyperCore, with support for HyperEVM.
The protocol’s Assistance Fund directs 97–99% of trading fees toward buying back and burning HYPE. Burning removes tokens from circulation permanently.
Recent yield inputs from AQAv2 contributed around $14.5M to the fund in early October 2026. That gives the buyback program another source of fuel beyond fees alone.
Background: a launch built on community ownership HYPE launched on November 29, 2024, with a fixed supply of 1 billion tokens. Notably, there was no allocation for venture capital investors.
Approximately 31% of the supply went to around 94,000 early users through an airdrop at genesis.
The founding team at Hyperliquid Labs, led by Jeff Yan, kept 23.8% for core contributors. Those tokens follow a vesting schedule with a one-year cliff, then monthly releases running until 2028.
In early October 2026, core contributors moved 3.75 million HYPE, valued at approximately $330M, with part of that handled through OTC sales. The research also links some unlock management to regulatory scrutiny from Singapore’s MAS alongside broader market dynamics.
What this means for HYPE holders Warwick’s warning is less about whether HYPE has value and more about what kind of value it is. Holders are relying on a mechanism, not a legal right.
Warwick’s criticism carries extra weight given his position. As the founder of Synthetix, he has spent years building in the same derivatives corner of DeFi that Hyperliquid now dominates.
Token holders cannot count on courts, disclosure rules, or fiduciary duties to protect them if the rules of the game shift. Core contributor tokens continue vesting monthly until 2028, and the 3.75 million HYPE moved in early October 2026 shows those unlocks are not theoretical.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Estefano Gomez. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
Velryba za poslední týden vložila na Kraken 131 421 tokenů HYPE v hodnotě 11,77 milionu USD a realizovala zisk přes 23 milionů USD. Nadále drží 140 506 tokenů HYPE.
HYPE’s recent price action has sparked market attention as a major whale investor realized profits exceeding $23 million, intensifying debate over possible selling pressure and the next direction for the token.
Large Whale Capitalizes on HYPE GainsAs of the latest data, HYPE trades near $83.80, having recently rebounded by roughly 0.50% on the 4-hour TradingView chart. However, the token remains well below its recent peak between $94 and $95.
On-chain analytics platform Lookonchain identified significant whale activity driving the narrative. The whale, who accumulated 257,928 HYPE at an average price of $3.50 per token around two years ago—totaling approximately $902,000 at the time—has now secured over $23 million in profit.
In the past week, this wallet deposited 131,421 HYPE, valued at about $11.77 million, to the crypto exchange Kraken at an average price of $89.56. The same wallet still controls another 140,506 HYPE, estimated at $12.2 million based on current prices.
Despite these significant deposits, it is not confirmed whether all transferred tokens have been sold on the exchange. Nevertheless, market participants remain alert to further movements that could increase selling pressure if more tokens are sent to Kraken.
A whale who bought 257,928 HYPE at roughly $3.50 per token about two years ago has seen their position appreciate to over $23 million in profit, following recent deposits of more than $11.7 million worth of HYPE to Kraken. The wallet continues to hold over 140,000 HYPE valued at $12.2 million.
Technical Analysis: Support and Resistance LevelsRecent technical charts indicate that HYPE has pulled back from its $94-$95 high, now consolidating in the $83-$84 range. Buyers have attempted to stabilize the token at these levels, seen as a key support zone in the near term.
If HYPE remains above this region, further upside targets could include $88, followed by resistance at $90-$92. The prior high near $94-$95 continues to stand as a significant price ceiling for bulls.
Momentum indicators reflect a mixed picture. The 14-period Relative Strength Index (RSI) has fallen to 28.33, slipping below the traditional 30-point oversold threshold, which could indicate the recent decline has become overextended. The average RSI sits near 40.47, suggesting the majority of the recent move reflected strong selling enthusiasm.
However, the RSI remaining under 30 and a lack of immediate price recovery would signal that sellers retain control, potentially driving prices lower before a meaningful rebound develops.
The 14-period RSI is now at 28.33, signaling an oversold condition, though further selling cannot be ruled out without evidence of a sustained recovery above support.
The Moving Average Convergence Divergence (MACD) indicator also points to ongoing bearish pressure. The MACD line remains below the signal line, with a negative histogram value, underscoring downside momentum. For bulls, a close above $88—coupled with a MACD crossover—would present a firmer case for a rebound.
Mini dictionary: MACD (Moving Average Convergence Divergence), a trend-following technical analysis tool that shows the relationship between two moving averages of a cryptocurrency’s price, is used to identify momentum shifts and potential reversals.
Derivatives and Volatility MetricsOpen interest in Hyperliquid derivatives remains above $3 billion according to CoinGlass, reflecting significant exposure among futures traders even as the HYPE spot price declines.
Trading volumes continue at elevated levels, with recent daily turnover reaching several billion dollars. The perpetual futures market for HYPE has seen repeated spikes in both long and short liquidations, contributing to pronounced price swings and underscoring heightened volatility as the token trades near its current support.
MetricCurrent ValueSpot Price$83.80Recent Peak$94-$95Whale Holdings (HYPE)140,506Open Interest>$3 billionRecent Daily VolumeSeveral billion USDRSI (14-period)28.33 (Oversold)Market Awaits Further Whale MovesMarket uncertainty centers on whether ongoing whale transfers will continue to drive selling or if stabilization at $83-$84 will allow bulls to retake control. For now, traders are closely monitoring both the technical signals and any additional movement of HYPE tokens to exchanges, as these factors could determine the next key price move.
HYPE v září vzrostl z přibližně 50–60 USD na rekordních 97,90 USD, ale 6. října má být uvolněno až 856 milionů USD v tokenech, což může zvýšit prodejní tlak.
HYPE delivered one of the strongest rallies among large-cap crypto assets in September, climbing from roughly $50-$60 at the beginning of the month to a record $97.90 on Sept. 22.
The token remained near $90-$93 in early October, even as Bitcoin and Ethereum traded further below their respective highs.
The rally has been closely linked to activity on Hyperliquid. Total open interest reached approximately $14.3 billion in early September, approaching levels seen shortly before the October 2025 market crash.
HOT Stories
The protocol also directs close to 97% of fees generated by its core crypto perpetual markets toward HYPE buybacks. Since launch, those buybacks have reportedly reached roughly $1.3 billion worth of HYPE.
The token's role within the Hyperliquid ecosystem has also expanded. On Sept. 18, the protocol introduced manual borrowing, allowing users to use HYPE or BTC as collateral for stablecoin loans. The feature reportedly generated about $269 million in borrowing during its first day, alongside more than $400 million in supplied liquidity.
That development strengthens the case for HYPE as an asset increasingly connected to Hyperliquid's financial infrastructure rather than simply serving as a governance token.
The protocol's HIP-3 ecosystem has expanded as well, allowing third-party builders to create perpetual markets linked to stocks, commodities and other assets.
By late September, HIP-3 had approximately $3.96 billion in open interest across 150 active markets, representing about 23% of Hyperliquid's total perpetual open interest. Activity remains concentrated, however, with one builder accounting for nearly 98% of HIP-3 open interest.
Institutional access has added another layer to the story. Three U.S. spot HYPE ETFs held approximately $502 million in assets as of Sept. 25, although inflows had slowed from their early-September peak. Binance also listed HYPE with a Seed Tag on Sept. 24, initially contributing to a roughly 4.5% decline as some large holders moved tokens to exchanges.
Hyperliquid price prediction: Can HYPE reclaim $98?The technical picture has weakened from the September peak. HYPE fell to around $86 after reaching nearly $98, breaking below the short-term moving average that had supported the rally through much of August and September.
The decline does not yet resemble a capitulation event. Trading volume has generally declined through September, while the latest sell-off occurred with moderate activity. That suggests the market may be experiencing profit-taking and consolidation rather than a full reversal.
HYPE remains above its medium- and long-term moving averages, preserving the broader bullish structure. The token previously recovered from the $77-$78 area, reclaimed $80 and then broke through the $87-$90 range before entering price discovery.
You Might Also Like
At the same time, the rally has pushed momentum indicators into overbought territory. RSI remained around 70-75 for extended periods before the latest decline, while the move from roughly $57 in early September to almost $100 left the token significantly extended from its longer-term trend.
The $98-$100 area is therefore the immediate technical hurdle. A sustained break above that zone could open the way toward the $110-$120 area based on technical extensions. Conversely, failure to reclaim $98 could leave HYPE consolidating between roughly $80 and $90, with $80-$85 emerging as the next important support zone.
Positioning data also suggests that the market is not uniformly bullish. Wallets with more than $1 million in profits, described as the "Money Printer" cohort, hold approximately $2.82 billion in longs against $2.88 billion in shorts, leaving the group with a net-short exposure of about $60 million.
Smaller profitable traders show a more bullish bias. The $100,000-$1 million cohort holds about $879.1 million in longs versus $419.1 million in shorts, while wallets with $10,000-$100,000 in profits hold approximately $526.9 million in longs against $188.7 million in shorts.
You Might Also Like
Another factor for traders is the scheduled October token unlock. Up to $856 million worth of HYPE was expected to be released on Oct. 6, making it the largest individual token unlock among assets scheduled for the month. Such an increase in potential supply could add pressure if recipients choose to sell.
Overall, HYPE's September rally remains supported by strong protocol activity, aggressive buybacks, expanding borrowing and perpetual markets, and growing institutional access. However, the move toward $100 has also produced increasingly stretched technical conditions.
The next phase is likely to depend on whether Hyperliquid can translate its growing protocol activity and revenue into sustained demand for HYPE. For now, $98-$100 remains the key resistance zone, while $80-$85 is the more important downside area to watch.
Zakladatel společnosti Hyperliquid Jeff Yan nyní zvažuje opční protokol: podle něj HIP-4 poskytuje jasný rámec, zatímco kryptoměnové opční produkty zatím neprorazily.
Hyperliquid founder Jeff Yan, during an interview on the Empire Podcast at DAS 2026 Asia, was asked: "If you were a builder and no longer allowed to work on infrastructure, what would you build?" Yan responded: "I’d look around to identify unbuilt projects with real potential, depending on what other builders are working on. Right now, I might explore options, since many people I’ve spoken with want to trade them. Perpetual contracts largely meet the needs of most users, but some traders note they can’t fully express all their market views using perpetuals. I believe HIP-4 offers a very clear framework for building an options protocol: it can inherit spot markets, order books, and portfolio margin; for market makers, perpetual contracts are available to hedge option delta. The key is turning that component into something widely appealing. I don’t think any option or convexity yield-style product in crypto has truly reached escape velocity, though it’s clearly achieved that in traditional finance."
Hyperliquid Labs has finalized the largest over-the-counter (OTC) distribution in the history of its HYPE token, releasing 3.75 million HYPE valued at approximately $330 million. This token release accounts for 1.5% of HYPE’s total supply and forms a significant part of the project’s October allocation schedule.
Major team token release and OTC structureThe distribution followed a week-long unbonding period that started on September 30 and concluded on October 7. During this period, the HYPE tokens remained immobile before being made available for transfer. Of the 3.75 million tokens released, 1.875 million HYPE have been distributed to five buyers through OTC transactions, with each receiving 375,000 HYPE. The remaining 1.875 million tokens from this allocation have not yet been transferred and are pending further action later in October.
OTC transactions are typically used to execute large-scale deals without direct market exposure, reducing immediate price volatility. In this case, the tokens did not enter public exchanges, but were delivered directly to pre-selected counterparties through private agreements.
Iliensinc, a co-founder of Hyperliquid Labs, stated that these transfers are part of an OTC transaction with an institutional buyer, though further details—including the buyer’s identity and the contractual terms—remain undisclosed.
This recent HYPE OTC Distribution eclipses previous team allocations, which ranged between 140,000 and 534,000 tokens per month. The current event, at 3.75 million tokens, represents an 8.65-fold increase compared to earlier releases.
Mini dictionary: Over-the-counter (OTC) transaction, in cryptocurrency, refers to private, direct exchanges of large amounts of tokens between two parties, bypassing public markets to maintain price stability and limit slippage.
PeriodTeam Token DistributionDistribution MethodEarlier months140,000–534,000 HYPEVesting/team allocationsOctober 20233,750,000 HYPEOTC/private transferMarket impact and stakeholders’ outlookDespite concerns about possible market disruption from such a large release, the price of HYPE remained stable. Activity on the blockchain showed that after initial transfers, some tokens were restaked or moved into different wallets, indicating ongoing internal allocations or preparations for further transfers.
The delayed release of the remaining 1.875 million HYPE means only part of the October team allocation has entered circulation. Previously published vesting schedules had anticipated a nominal 9.9 million HYPE token release for the month, but the actual distribution so far falls well short, a detail seen as noteworthy by market observers.
The OTC approach may have helped mitigate sudden liquidity shocks in public markets, but key details such as sale price, payment terms, and any lock-up conditions have yet to be made public. The anonymous nature of the transaction leaves questions for both investors and market analysts.
The CEO of Hyperliquid Strategies DAT (PURR), David Schamis, publicly denied involvement as a recipient in this OTC transaction: “I’ve said this publicly a few times so I’ll say it again here: this was not us. I don’t know who it is but I’m 100% certain it’s not HypeStrat.”
Market data and ongoing developmentsCurrent on-chain data indicates strong market interest, with HYPE perpetual contract open interest standing at $1.76 billion and 24-hour trading volume reaching $575.5 million. At present, HYPE trades at $87.30.
Market participants are closely watching the remaining scheduled transfers for October, as the pace and scale of further distributions could influence both price and liquidity in the short term. The difference between the 9.9 million HYPE in the vesting schedule and the 3.75 million released so far remains under discussion among HYPE token holders and investors.
Šéf Hyperliquid Policy Center Jake Chervinsky označil Hyperliquid za neutrální veřejnou infrastrukturu, nikoli burzu; regulované platformy na ní mohou stavět vlastní obchodní produkty.
Jake Chervinsky wants to clear something up: Hyperliquid does not run an exchange. Speaking around TOKEN2049 in Singapore, the CEO of the Hyperliquid Policy Center described the protocol as neutral public infrastructure that anyone can build trading products on top of.
That distinction sounds like semantics. In crypto regulation, semantics often decide who needs a license and who doesn’t.
One level below the storefront In an interview on October 7, Chervinsky said Hyperliquid’s protocol operates beneath the customer-facing platforms that traders actually use. He placed it “one level below” exchanges like Coinbase and Kraken.
He also said the network is “not meant to compete” with those businesses.
Under that framing, regulated entities, including traditional exchanges, can build their own products on Hyperliquid’s technology. The exchange handles customers, onboarding and compliance. The protocol handles the plumbing.
Chervinsky reached for familiar comparisons to make the point. He likened Hyperliquid’s infrastructure to Bitcoin and Ethereum, arguing that, like those networks, it does not need to register as an exchange.
A ten-year deadline for the old guard Chervinsky did not stop at definitions. He offered a forecast with a clear condition attached.
If the model succeeds, he predicted, every significant exchange, crypto-native or traditional, would need to adopt public blockchain infrastructure within a decade to stay competitive. His case rests on three advantages: transparency, resilience and cost-effectiveness.
He also indicated that onchain markets are expected to operate under US regulatory frameworks soon.
On October 8, Chervinsky spoke at TOKEN2049 about Hyperliquid’s role as infrastructure for all of finance. He shared the conversation with figures from HyperliquidX and ICE, the Intercontinental Exchange.
Who is the Hyperliquid Policy Center The Hyperliquid Policy Center launched in February 2026 as a nonprofit. Its focus is advocacy and research on onchain markets and perpetual derivatives.
Perpetual derivatives, or perps, are futures contracts with no expiry date. Traders can hold a leveraged position on an asset’s price for as long as they keep funding it, which has made perps one of the most heavily traded products in crypto.
The center was funded with a donation of 1 million HYPE tokens from the Hyperliquid Foundation. That donation was valued at approximately $28-29 million.
Kraken’s parent is already testing the thesis In September 2026, Payward, the parent company of Kraken, announced plans to offer permissioned perpetual futures on Hyperliquid to eligible US customers.
The setup pairs public blockchain technology with compliance layers on top. Kraken’s side handles who gets access and how the rules are applied. Hyperliquid’s side handles the market itself.
What this means For Hyperliquid, the infrastructure framing is a regulatory strategy as much as a technical description. If the protocol is treated like Bitcoin or Ethereum rather than like an exchange, it avoids exchange registration requirements, while the businesses building on it shoulder the compliance burden.
That division of labor is what makes the Payward plan possible. Regulated firms get access to an onchain order book without the protocol itself having to become a regulated firm.
What to watch next is whether more exchanges follow Payward’s lead, and how US regulators respond when they do.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Estefano Gomez. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
Hyperliquid Labs potvrdila, že sídlí v Singapuru a působí bez regulace; singapurský měnový úřad MAS uvedl, že si není vědom toho, že by platforma byla regulována v nějaké významné jurisdikci.
Hyperliquid Labs has confirmed its registered headquarters in Singapore, where its roughly 11-person team moved in 2024, while the country’s regulator has said it is unaware of the platform being regulated in any major jurisdiction.
Summary
Hyperliquid Labs has confirmed Singapore as its registered headquarters and acknowledged its unregulated status. People familiar with MAS’s thinking cited decentralization as the reason it considers Hyperliquid outside its jurisdiction. MAS added Hyperliquid to its Investor Alert List on June 26, without imposing a ban. Payward has proposed regulated Hyperliquid-based markets for eligible U.S. customers, subject to approval. The Financial Times reported that Hyperliquid Labs confirmed its Singapore headquarters, while people familiar with the Monetary Authority of Singapore’s thinking said the regulator considers the decentralized platform outside its jurisdiction.
In its direct response to the newspaper, MAS said, “We are not aware that Hyperliquid is regulated in any major jurisdiction.”
Hyperliquid acknowledged that it operates without regulation, according to the report, and said it has never claimed to hold permission or authorization from MAS. The company also expressed willingness to work constructively with regulators.
Hyperliquid’s Singapore presence includes its development team According to the FT, co-founder Jeff Yan and a team of about 11 people relocated to Singapore in 2024. Company documents reviewed by the newspaper identified Singapore as the registered headquarters, while recent recruitment material also referred to an office there.
The newspaper reported that job advertisements posted as recently as the previous week asked candidates whether they could work in the Singapore office. Hyperliquid Labs confirmed its registered location when approached by the FT.
People familiar with MAS’s position told the publication that the platform’s decentralized nature was the basis for its view that Hyperliquid should not fall under its jurisdiction. Hyperliquid, for its part, told the newspaper it remains unregulated and is open to cooperation with authorities.
MAS’s investor warning identifies an unlicensed platform As crypto.news previously reported, MAS added Hyperliquid to its Investor Alert List on June 26. The regulator’s entry names both the Hyper Foundation website and the Hyperliquid trading application.
MAS describes the list as a notice about entities that investors may wrongly believe are licensed, authorized or regulated by the authority. The regulator says the list is not exhaustive and records information available when an entry is published.
Responding to the June listing, Hyperliquid said:
“IAL listing does not constitute a ban, an enforcement action, or a finding of wrongdoing.”
In the same response, the platform said its permissionless infrastructure remained unchanged and reiterated that it had never presented itself as authorized by MAS. Hyperliquid also said it would work with regulators and institutions to support clear rules for on-chain finance.
Singapore requires licenses for covered overseas token services In June 2025, earlier reporting detailed Singapore’s overseas token licensing deadline, following MAS’s May 30 notice and June 6 clarification. The regulator required covered providers to obtain a license or stop the activities by June 30, 2025, without an additional transition period.
MAS said the framework applies to digital token service providers serving only customers outside Singapore in digital payment tokens or tokens representing capital market products. The authority said it had set a high licensing bar and would generally not grant licenses for that business model.
Explaining its position, MAS cited higher money-laundering risks and difficulty supervising providers whose substantive regulated activity takes place overseas. The regulator said providers without the necessary license must cease covered services from the effective date.
U.S. access proposals rely on registered trading infrastructure For American customers, former SEC senior counsel Ashley Ebersole described a separate U.S. regulatory pathway in an Aug. 31 report. Ebersole, co-founder and chief legal officer at tx, said existing U.S. law does not provide a straightforward route for offering offshore-style crypto perpetual futures to retail customers.
According to Ebersole, the CFTC would likely oversee contracts tied to commodities, while securities-linked products could involve the SEC. A compliant structure could require registrations covering the trading venue, clearing and intermediaries, alongside rules or exemptions for the products themselves.
Even if both agencies pursued the work, Ebersole estimated a 10-to-12-month process. He said agencies would need to identify their legal authority, establish a framework, and complete any required proposal, public-comment, and implementation steps.
Ebersole said reliance on existing powers or exemptions could shorten that process, while litigation, disagreements between agencies or a need for legislation could delay it.
On Sep. 16, Kraken parent Payward announced plans for regulated Hyperliquid perpetual markets using the platform’s HIP-3 infrastructure. Payward said the proposed markets require regulatory approval before eligible U.S. customers can trade.
Under the proposal, Bitnomial Exchange would create and administer the contracts, with Bitnomial Clearinghouse handling clearing and settlement. Payward said trades would use Hyperliquid’s on-chain order book for matching and recording transactions.
For customer access, Payward plans to use NinjaTrader Clearing to carry accounts. The company said traders would need to complete onboarding and appear on both NinjaTrader and Bitnomial allowlists before participating.
Payward’s proposed arrangement limits customers to the regulated products Bitnomial deploys under its exchange rules, rather than every market available through Hyperliquid. In the Sep. 16 announcement, Payward named Hyperliquid as the first protocol for the initiative and did not specify a launch date.
