Track market-moving stories before they get noisy

Abraxas Capital has bought another 13,000 ETH worth $32.39 million in the spot market to hedge part of a 141,180 ETH short position on Hyperliquid valued at $353.27 million.

Summary

Abraxas Capital bought another 13,000 ETH worth $32.39 million in the spot market, according to Lookonchain. The purchase was made to hedge a 141,180 ETH short position on Hyperliquid valued at $353.27 million. The latest spot purchase covers just over 9% of the short when measured by the number of ETH. Abraxas previously accumulated more than 211,000 ETH worth over $477 million during a six day buying run in May 2025. Lookonchain said on Sept. 8 that Abraxas Capital purchased the additional Ether while keeping its much larger short position open on the decentralized derivatives platform. The blockchain analytics account described the transaction as another spot purchase made specifically to hedge the short.

At the values provided by Lookonchain, the latest purchase was made at an implied price of roughly $2,491 per ETH. The 13,000 ETH position equals just over 9% of the firm’s 141,180 ETH short when measured by the number of tokens.

Abraxas therefore remains heavily net short based solely on the positions disclosed by Lookonchain. Subtracting the latest 13,000 ETH spot hedge from the 141,180 ETH short leaves 128,180 ETH of net short exposure before considering any other holdings or positions controlled by the firm.

Abraxas Capital keeps $353 million ETH short open Lookonchain valued the Hyperliquid short at approximately $353.27 million at the time of its post, compared with $32.39 million for the latest spot purchase.

The hedge gives Abraxas exposure to ETH in opposite directions. The short position benefits from a decline in Ether’s price, while the spot ETH gains value when the token rises. Lookonchain specifically characterized the latest purchase as a hedge, rather than a closure or reduction of the underlying short position.

Large leveraged positions have become common on Hyperliquid, where whale accounts have carried several billion dollars in combined positions this year.

In May, crypto.news previously reported that Hyperliquid whale positions had reached $4.039 billion. Long exposure stood at $1.981 billion, while shorts accounted for $2.058 billion, producing a long-to-short ratio of 0.96.

Both sides of the whale book were underwater at the time. Long positions carried roughly $30.8 million in aggregate unrealized losses, compared with approximately $14.6 million in losses on short positions.

One of the largest individual trades in the May snapshot involved an ETH whale using 15x leverage. The account held roughly $87 million in Ether exposure from an entry near $2,265 and was sitting on more than $3.6 million in unrealized losses.

A separate reading five days earlier placed Hyperliquid whale exposure at $4.236 billion. Long positions totaled $2.099 billion, or 49.55% of the total, against $2.137 billion in shorts.

The split produced a long-to-short ratio of 0.98, leaving large traders almost evenly positioned between bullish and bearish bets.

Abraxas has made large Ethereum purchases before The latest transaction is not Abraxas Capital’s first large on-chain move involving Ether.

In May 2025, the investment manager withdrew 138,511 ETH valued at roughly $297 million from centralized exchanges over two days, according to Lookonchain. The transfers occurred during a sharp ETH rally that pushed the token above $2,300.

Abraxas then increased its holdings with another 33,482 ETH purchase worth $84.7 million.

Lookonchain data cited at the time showed that the firm had accumulated 211,030 ETH over six days, worth more than $477 million. The purchases followed the earlier withdrawal of approximately $297 million in ETH from exchanges.

The 2025 accumulation occurred under different market conditions and does not establish the purpose of the firm’s current positions. Lookonchain has specifically described the Sept. 8 spot transaction as a hedge against the Hyperliquid short.

Hyperliquid whale positioning has changed considerably at different points this year. In April, large trader positions totaled $3.4 billion, consisting of $1.737 billion in longs and $1.663 billion in shorts.

Long positions were carrying approximately $153 million in aggregate unrealized losses at the time, while shorts were sitting on roughly $161 million in unrealized profits.

An ETH whale tracked in the same dataset held a 15x leveraged long from around $2,148.70 and was down approximately $8.6 million.

Ethereum trades close to $2,500 Abraxas made its latest hedge while Ether remained close to the $2,500 level following a recovery from early September lows.

On Sept. 7, Ethereum traded near $2,493 after moving between approximately $2,475 and $2,537 during the session.

ETH had repeatedly failed to hold above $2,500, while its daily relative strength index had eased to 63.62 after the August rally.

Liquidation data cited in the report showed notable leveraged positions clustered around $2,430 below the market and between $2,540 and $2,600 above it. The nearest support zone was concentrated between roughly $2,423 and $2,475.

Ether had been trading considerably lower less than a week earlier. On Sept. 2, the token fell to an intraday low of $2,356 after failing to clear resistance close to $2,550.

Approximately $94.2 million in ETH futures positions were liquidated over 24 hours during the decline, while Ethereum fell below $2,400.

ETH remained above several medium-term moving averages at the time, including its 20-day simple moving average near $2,299 and its 50-day, 100-day and 200-day averages near $2,054, $1,903 and $2,030, respectively.

The token later recovered toward the $2,500 area, putting Abraxas’ latest 13,000 ETH spot purchase close to the same price zone.

Institutional demand for spot Ether has remained active during the recovery. U.S. spot Ethereum exchange-traded funds recorded $225.8 million in net inflows on Aug. 28, extending a nine-session buying streak to $1.42 billion.

BlackRock’s ETHA accounted for $1.02 billion, or roughly 72%, of the nine-day ETF inflows. Fidelity’s FETH recorded $56.2 million on Aug. 28, while BlackRock’s staked ETHB product added $20.7 million.

Lookonchain’s Sept. 8 figures put Abraxas Capital’s latest spot hedge at 13,000 ETH worth $32.39 million, while the firm’s Hyperliquid short remained at 141,180 ETH with a notional value of $353.27 million.

Wallets tied to North Korea’s sanctioned Lazarus Group have been routing tens of millions of dollars through Hyperliquid, according to on-chain work first published by Arkham analyst Emmett Gallic.

The finding lands just as the Trump administration is trying to pull the same derivatives venue into the regulated US market.Gallic reported that addresses linked to the OFAC-designated group moved more than $30 million through Hyperliquid’s HyperUnit bridge as recently as August 30.

Investigator ZachXBT had already tied those same addresses in 2024 to about $61 million in stolen bitcoin.

In the latest flow, funds arrived as bitcoin, were swapped into ether and solana, then bridged out to Tron, Solana, and Ethereum.

From there they reached KuCoin, LBank, Kraken, and several unlabeled Tron services.

Gallic split the activity into two clusters: one of about $30 million that traces to wallets already labeled Lazarus, and another of about $5 million that shows similar dormancy, address style, and counterparties.

That pattern is not a claim that Hyperliquid itself was breached.

It is a claim that a permissionless venue can be used to convert and hop stolen coins before they hit centralized exchanges.

Public ledgers show the path. They do not by themselves show whether those exchanges later froze accounts, filed reports, or blocked further withdrawals.

The policy backdrop makes the tracing more than a crime-lab footnote.

At a White House gathering in mid-August, President Donald Trump said CFTC Chairman Michael Selig was working to bring Hyperliquid into the United States “in a fully compliant and legal fashion.”

Separate reporting has described advanced talks between Hyperliquid Labs and Payward, Kraken’s parent, about offering some perpetual futures to American traders through Bitnomial, a CFTC-regulated exchange and clearinghouse.

An onshore product would still have to satisfy derivatives rules, customer-protection standards, market surveillance, and sanctions screening—requirements that sit uneasily next to wallet-to-wallet trading with no traditional KYC gate.

Hyperliquid grew into the largest decentralized home for perpetual futures by letting users trade from a wallet rather than a brokerage account.

That design helped it process trillions of dollars in cumulative volume.

It also leaves developers unable to force identity checks on every address that touches the chain.

Product filings for HYPE-linked funds have already listed that gap as a sanctions risk.

Lazarus-linked wallets were flagged on the platform as early as late 2024, when earlier suspected DPRK activity helped spark a large one-day outflow even though the protocol said no user funds were taken.

US agencies have long argued that North Korean cyber units steal crypto to finance weapons programs.

Analytics firms put 2025 DPRK-linked theft near $2 billion. Converting bitcoin on a high-liquidity perps venue, then bridging into other networks before cash-out, matches a familiar layering playbook.

Addresses linked to OFAC Sanctioned Lazarus Group (North Korea) have been actively moving $30M+ through Hyperliquid (HyperUnit) as recent as yesterday.@zachxbt identified these addresses as Lazarus Group in 2024 linked to $61M in stolen fundshttps://t.co/RNJ4NMBrxA pic.twitter.com/CvivPLVnEL

— Emmett Gallic (@emmettgallic) August 31, 2026

None of that proves an intent to sabotage Hyperliquid’s US ambitions.

It does give regulators a concrete case when they ask how a permissionless global book can be walled off from a compliant American offering.

The open questions are practical.

Who controls the deposit accounts at the centralized exchanges? Which of those firms acted after the coins arrived? And can an onshore Hyperliquid product be designed so that sanctioned clusters on the open protocol do not bleed into U.S. order flow?

Until those answers are public, the $30 million trail is less a verdict on Hyperliquid than a stress test of whether DeFi can enter US markets without importing the same sanctions problem that thrives in wallet-native trading.

After months of anticipation, Bulk, an emerging Solana perpetual futures trading venue, has finally opened the doors to its invite-only mainnet beta launch.

Much to the delight of over 15,000 pre-depositors, Bulk’s launch hit Solana’s perps race with a bang, reportedly netting over $22M in Day 1 trading volume and outpacing the giants who came before it.

However, despite palpable excitement, it wasn’t all smooth sailing for the venue. Concentrated, aggressive trading caused a temporary price dislocation, triggering large liquidations and ADL.

Bulk Records $22M in Day 1 Trading After first launching its testnet in March 2026, and amassing peak TVL of $40M in pre-deposits, Bulk is finally live in mainnet beta. An estimated 15,000 wallets are eligible for the invite-only soft launch, with access being periodically rolled out to other users over the coming weeks.

According to Bulk CEO Kobie McGlashan, Bulk processed over $22M in day one volume, surpassing the traffic witnessed by market leaders like Hyperliquid and Lighter on their respective debuts.

Comparatively, Bulk’s $22M launch would’ve placed it in fourth position in Solana’s perp DEX volume rankings, trailing GMTrade, Pacifica, and Jupiter.  While an impressive start for the emerging venue, it’s important to note that some of Bulk’s volume may be driven by mercenary capital. 

Bulk is expected to deliver one of Solana DeFi’s most anticipated future airdrops, prompting traders to generate volume on the platform in exchange for AURA, or points. 

Debut Marred by Temporary Price Dislocation While Bulk’s maiden voyage attracted plenty of volume and demonstrated strong demand from traders, market data shows that some users took advantage of the venue’s Day One liquidity to force a price dislocation and trigger liquidations.

According to co-founder & CTO Junaid Peel’s public statement, one wallet traded aggressively through the venue’s Day One liquidity, rebuilding a large short position while undergoing partial liquidations.

The trader’s behaviour ultimately caused a market-wide price dislocation, triggering liquidations across several positions and causing cascading auto-deleveraging. Bulk has communicated that affected users will be reimbursed following incident review.

Despite the growing pains, McGlashan has asserted that targeted market manipulation practices are commonplace in the crypto industry. Challenges like what Bulk faced on Saturday are particularly common for new and emerging venues, and even established venues can fall victim to sophisticated attacks. 

In March 2026, a malicious actor forced a self-liquidation by manipulating the price of $JELLYJELLY, effectively passing a toxic position to the HLP, causing several million in losses and threatening to liquidate the entire vault at certain price thresholds.

While unsettling in the short term, incidents like the above only help to make perpetual trading venues more resilient in the long term, enabling stronger and more efficient markets and safer trading for users.

Read More on SolanaFloor The memes are coming home

Solana Reclaims Memecoin Flows as Stonk.fun Flips Pump, Hyperliquid in Daily Revenue

Is Robinhood a worthy challenger?

Every HYPE unlock triggers the same panic cycle. Every time, the sellers never show up. The September batch will probably be no different, and the data from previous unlocks explains exactly why.

Summary

Hyperliquid released approximately 9.92 million HYPE tokens on September 6, valued at roughly $820 million at the prevailing market price of $82.60 per token. Historical data from HYPE unlocks shows that the vast majority of newly unlocked tokens are not sold. After the March 2026 unlock, on-chain data indicated that only about 1.75% of unlocked supply reached exchanges within the first 30 days. HYPE has gained more than 50% since its mid-August breakout from the $55 to $60 range, reaching an all-time high of $88.06, with price holding above $80 through multiple unlock events in recent months. The Assistance Fund has burned 48.42 million HYPE through automated buybacks funded by 99% of eligible trading fees, permanently removing 4.84% of maximum supply. Hyperliquid Strategies, the Nasdaq-listed treasury company, held 29.3 million HYPE worth $1.9 billion as of June 30 and expanded its equity facility to $2.5 billion for potential additional purchases. Crypto Twitter lit up on September 6. The headline was irresistible: Hyperliquid just unlocked $820 million worth of HYPE tokens, adding nearly 10 million tokens to the available supply in a single batch. On paper, that sounds like a wall of sell pressure about to crush the price. Traders who have been burned by unlock dumps on other tokens immediately started hedging, opening short positions, and posting dire warnings about what comes next.

They are almost certainly wrong. And the reason they are wrong tells you something important about how HYPE actually works, how token unlocks function in practice, and why the market keeps getting smarter about separating real supply pressure from headline noise.

The $820 million number is technically correct and practically meaningless The September 6 unlock released 9.92 million HYPE tokens from their vesting contracts. At the time, HYPE was trading around $82.60, which puts the theoretical market value of those tokens at roughly $820 million. That is the number that landed in every headline and every panicked tweet.

But theoretical value and actual sell pressure are wildly different things.

An unlock does not mean that 9.92 million tokens hit the open market. It means those tokens become claimable by their holders. The people receiving vested HYPE are not random speculators looking to dump at the first opportunity. They are core contributors, early team members, and ecosystem participants who have been building on Hyperliquid for years. Most of them have strong reasons to hold.

Think about it from their perspective. They received HYPE allocations when the token was worth single digits. They have watched it climb to $82. They are sitting on life-changing gains. But they also know the protocol is growing faster than almost anything else in DeFi. Hyperliquid processes more than $4 billion in daily trading volume. The Assistance Fund is burning tokens worth $1 million per day. A Nasdaq-listed company is spending hundreds of millions to accumulate their token. Why would they sell now?

The data says they do not.

What actually happened after previous unlocks The best predictor of unlock behavior is unlock behavior. And HYPE has given us enough data points to see a clear pattern.

After the March 2026 unlock, which released a comparable batch of tokens, blockchain analysts tracked the movement of newly unlocked HYPE for 30 days. According to on-chain data aggregated by Arkham Intelligence and independent researchers, approximately 1.75% of the unlocked tokens moved to exchange deposit addresses within the first month.

Read that number again. 1.75%.

Out of hundreds of millions of dollars in theoretical unlock value, the actual sell pressure amounted to a tiny fraction. Most recipients left their tokens untouched. Some staked them. Some moved them to new wallets for tax or security reasons. But the panic-inducing “massive supply dump” that the headlines predicted simply did not happen.

The August 29 unlock provided even more recent evidence. That batch was larger, releasing approximately 14.18 million HYPE tokens valued at roughly $1.2 billion near the all-time high of $86.71. The immediate price reaction was a pullback to around $81, which is exactly the kind of dip that gets called a “crash” in breathless Twitter threads. Within days, HYPE was trading back above $85. The pullback represented normal profit-taking in a token that had just rallied 50% in a month, not a structural supply crisis.

This pattern repeats across the entire unlock history. Each time, the headlines scream about billions in new supply. Each time, the actual selling is minimal. Each time, the price recovers.

Why unlock panic consistently overstates the real impact The gap between perceived and actual unlock impact comes down to three factors that most market commentary ignores.

First, vesting recipients are not the same as traders. When a centralized exchange lists a new token and airdrop recipients rush to sell, that creates genuine supply pressure because those holders were never committed to the project. Vesting recipients are different. They earned their tokens through years of work or early commitment. Their time preference is fundamentally different from someone who received a free airdrop.

Second, HYPE has structural demand that absorbs new supply before it can create meaningful price impact. The Assistance Fund buyback mechanism runs continuously, spending approximately $1 million per day on open-market HYPE purchases. That is $30 million per month in automated buying pressure that does not stop for unlocks, does not get scared by headlines, and does not negotiate its entry price. The buyback alone could absorb a substantial portion of any actual selling from unlock recipients.

Third, the market has learned. The first few HYPE unlocks may have caused genuine uncertainty, but after multiple cycles where the feared dump failed to materialize, sophisticated traders and market makers now treat unlock events as potential buying opportunities rather than sell signals. The informational content of an unlock event in HYPE is close to zero because the pattern has been so consistent.

This is not unique to HYPE. Research across the broader crypto market shows that large-cap tokens with strong fundamentals tend to absorb unlock supply more efficiently over time. The difference is that HYPE has one of the most aggressive built-in demand mechanisms in the industry, which narrows the window for any sell pressure to have lasting impact.

The Assistance Fund is the real story here While traders obsess over token unlocks, the Assistance Fund quietly does the opposite of an unlock every single day.

Hyperliquid’s protocol directs 99% of eligible trading fees into the Assistance Fund, which uses those fees to buy HYPE on the open market. The purchased tokens are then burned, permanently removed from supply. No one can ever sell those tokens again. They are gone.

The numbers are staggering. By September 6, cumulative burns had reached 48.42 million HYPE tokens. That is 4.84% of the original maximum supply of 1 billion tokens, permanently erased. At current prices, the burned supply would be worth more than $4 billion.

To put that in perspective, the September 6 unlock released 9.92 million tokens. The Assistance Fund has removed 48.42 million tokens. The net effect of the buyback program outweighs this unlock by nearly five to one.

And the burn rate is accelerating. When Hyperliquid was processing lower volumes in early 2025, daily buybacks ran around $500,000. By mid-2026, they had doubled to roughly $1 million per day. In peak weeks, single-day buybacks have reached $3.97 million. The mechanism scales directly with trading volume, and Hyperliquid dominates crypto buyback activity, accounting for nearly 90% of all tracked token repurchases in 2026 alongside Pump.fun.

The annualized buyback rate runs near 7% of HYPE’s market capitalization. Compare that to Ethereum’s burn rate, BNB’s quarterly burns at roughly 20% of profits, or Solana’s 50% priority fee burn. HYPE’s ratio is four to five times higher than any comparable large-cap crypto asset.

This is the number that matters far more than any unlock. The protocol is eating its own supply faster than vesting events can replenish it.

Token unlocks across crypto: the pattern is clear HYPE is not the only token that survives unlock events better than expected, but it is one of the clearest examples.

Look at Solana. SOL went through massive unlock periods in 2021 and 2022, with billions of dollars in tokens becoming available. The short-term price action was choppy, but the long-term trend was determined by network adoption and ecosystem growth, not by unlock schedules. SOL went from under $20 to over $250 because people built useful things on it, not because its vesting schedule was perfectly smooth.

Arbitrum saw similar dynamics. ARB experienced large unlock events that triggered temporary volatility, but the tokens that actually reached exchanges represented a small fraction of the theoretical total. Optimism’s OP token followed the same pattern. The market has a remarkably consistent response to unlocks: brief uncertainty, minimal actual selling, and a return to the prevailing trend within days or weeks.

The tokens that get destroyed by unlocks tend to share specific characteristics. They lack genuine revenue or usage. Their holders received tokens through airdrops or speculative farming rather than long-term vesting. Their unlock schedules release huge percentages of total supply at once. And they have no structural demand mechanism to absorb new supply.

HYPE has none of those weaknesses. The protocol generates real revenue. The holders are long-term committed. The unlock percentages are manageable. And the Assistance Fund provides constant demand.

Hyperliquid Strategies adds another layer of demand Beyond the Assistance Fund, there is an entirely separate source of HYPE demand that most unlock analysis ignores.

Hyperliquid Strategies, the Nasdaq-listed company that operates as a corporate treasury vehicle for HYPE, held 29.3 million tokens worth $1.9 billion as of June 30, 2026. Since its business combination closed in December 2025, the company has spent $773.4 million buying approximately 16.5 million HYPE at an average price of $46.77.

On September 1, Hyperliquid Strategies expanded its equity facility with Chardan Capital Markets from $1 billion to $2.5 billion. The facility allows the company to sell PURR shares and use the proceeds for general corporate purposes, including HYPE purchases. CEO David Schamis said the company was approaching the original $1 billion limit and needed additional capacity.

This means there is a publicly traded company with $2.5 billion in potential firepower that has explicitly stated its intention to buy more HYPE. That company is already one of the largest identified holders. Its validator is the third largest on the network excluding Hyper Foundation wallets. Its shares are owned by institutional investors including Duquesne Family Office, Stanley Druckenmiller’s firm, which disclosed a $23 million PURR position.

The existence of Hyperliquid Strategies creates an asymmetric dynamic around unlock events. If newly unlocked tokens hit the market and push the price down, Hyperliquid Strategies has both the mandate and the capital to buy the dip. Unlock sellers are selling into a bid from a company with billions in available capacity. That is not a fair fight.

The institutional momentum keeps building The unlock narrative misses the forest for the trees. While headline writers count newly released tokens, the actual trajectory of Hyperliquid is pointing sharply upward.

In the past month alone, several developments have reinforced the institutional case for HYPE. Hyperliquid Labs and Kraken parent Payward entered advanced talks to offer HYPE-linked perpetual futures to U.S. traders through CFTC-regulated exchange Bitnomial, according to Bloomberg. CME Group launched crypto indexes that include HYPE alongside BNB, XRP, and Solana. The Hyperliquid Policy Center asked the SEC and CFTC to create a framework for equity perpetuals, the first formal step toward bringing an entirely new asset class under regulatory oversight.

President Trump himself said during an August 19 White House meeting that the CFTC was working to bring Hyperliquid into the United States in a compliant fashion. A former SEC senior counsel estimated the regulatory process could take 10 to 12 months but noted that the path appeared genuinely underway.

None of this is priced into the unlock math. An unlock analysis that looks only at new supply without considering the demand from a Nasdaq-listed treasury company, a potential U.S. regulated futures listing, and CME-level institutional recognition is measuring one side of the equation and ignoring the other.

The HIP-3 equity perpetuals markets processed more than $480 billion in cumulative notional volume during their first 10 months. HIP-4 outcome markets tripled their volume after opening to outside deployers. Hyperliquid is building genuine product-market fit across multiple verticals while the market argues about whether a 9.92 million token unlock will crash the price.

How the vesting schedule actually works Understanding why unlocks have minimal impact requires understanding the mechanics of HYPE vesting.

HYPE’s maximum supply is 1 billion tokens. The initial distribution allocated 31% to a genesis airdrop in November 2024, with the remainder split among future emissions, core contributors, and the Hyper Foundation. Core contributor tokens vest over multiple years with periodic cliff unlocks rather than daily linear vesting.

This structure means tokens do not trickle into the market continuously. They become available in discrete batches at scheduled intervals, which is what creates the headline-generating moments. But the batch structure also means that holders who want to sell have to make a conscious decision to claim and transfer their tokens. Passive holders, which is most of them, simply leave tokens unclaimed.

The September 6 batch of 9.92 million tokens represents approximately 0.99% of maximum supply. In a token with $19.2 billion in circulating market capitalization and $865 million in 24-hour trading volume, a 1% supply increase is manageable even if every single token were sold immediately. And they will not be sold immediately.

The vesting schedule will continue producing periodic unlocks for years. Each one will generate the same headlines. And each one will likely produce the same result: a brief moment of uncertainty, minimal actual selling, and a return to the underlying trend determined by protocol fundamentals.

What to watch There are legitimate risks around token unlocks, and anyone holding HYPE should track them honestly rather than dismissing all supply concerns.

On-chain claim rates in the first 72 hours. The 1.75% claim rate after the March unlock is the benchmark. If September’s claim rate jumps to 5% or higher, that would signal a genuine change in holder behavior and warrant closer attention.

Assistance Fund buyback volume. The Fund’s daily purchases act as a natural floor under the price. If protocol revenue drops and daily buybacks fall below $500,000, the absorption capacity weakens. Track the Onchain Lens data for the Assistance Fund wallet.

Hyperliquid Strategies purchasing activity. The company’s SEC filings disclose HYPE acquisitions. If Hyperliquid Strategies pauses buying or signals a change in strategy, the institutional demand pillar weakens.

Exchange deposit flows from unlock wallets. Arkham Intelligence and similar platforms track whether newly unlocked tokens move to exchange deposit addresses. This is the single best real-time indicator of actual sell intent.

Broader market conditions. HYPE does not trade in a vacuum. If Bitcoin enters a sharp correction and risk assets sell off broadly, unlock sellers could amplify the downside. The unlock itself is not the risk. The unlock coinciding with external pressure is.

Daily trading volume relative to unlock size. With $865 million in daily volume, the market can absorb significant selling. If volume drops while unlock supply rises, the ratio shifts unfavorably.

Disclaimer:** This article does not represent investment advice. The content and materials featured on this page are for educational purposes only. Crypto assets are volatile and carry risk of loss. Past performance does not guarantee future results. Published September 7, 2026.

What was the September 6, 2026, HYPE token unlock? Hyperliquid released approximately 9.92 million HYPE tokens from vesting contracts on September 6, 2026. At the market price of roughly $82.60, the batch was valued at approximately $820 million. The tokens became claimable by core contributors and ecosystem participants who had been subject to vesting schedules since the network’s launch.

Does a token unlock mean all those tokens will be sold? No. A token unlock makes previously locked tokens claimable, but it does not force holders to sell. After the March 2026 HYPE unlock, on-chain tracking showed that only about 1.75% of unlocked tokens reached exchanges within 30 days. Most recipients left their tokens untouched, staked them, or moved them to new wallets without selling.

Why does HYPE typically go up after token unlocks? HYPE has shown resilience during unlock events because of structural demand from the Assistance Fund buyback mechanism, accumulation by Hyperliquid Strategies, and the tendency of vesting recipients to hold rather than sell. When actual selling pressure is minimal and automated buying continues, the net effect of an unlock can be neutral or even slightly positive as uncertainty clears.

What is the Assistance Fund and how does it affect HYPE supply? The Assistance Fund is an automated protocol mechanism that uses 99% of eligible Hyperliquid trading fees to buy HYPE on the open market. Purchased tokens are permanently burned. By September 6, 2026, the Fund had burned 48.42 million HYPE, equal to 4.84% of maximum supply. At roughly $1 million in daily purchases, the Fund creates constant buying pressure that offsets unlock-related supply increases.

How does HYPE’s unlock impact compare to other major tokens? Large-cap tokens with strong fundamentals, including Solana, Arbitrum, and Optimism, have generally absorbed unlock supply without lasting price damage. Tokens that suffer from unlock dumps typically lack real revenue, have mostly airdrop-based holder bases, or release disproportionately large percentages of supply. HYPE’s combination of revenue-funded buybacks, committed long-term holders, and manageable unlock sizes places it among the more resilient tokens during vesting events.

What is Hyperliquid Strategies and why does it matter for unlocks? Hyperliquid Strategies is a Nasdaq-listed company that holds HYPE as its primary treasury asset. It held 29.3 million HYPE worth $1.9 billion as of June 30, 2026, and has a $2.5 billion equity facility for potential additional purchases. Its presence creates a large, well-capitalized buyer that can absorb any unlock-related selling pressure, effectively putting a floor under the token during vesting events.

How much HYPE has been permanently burned? The Assistance Fund had burned approximately 48.42 million HYPE tokens by September 6, 2026, representing 4.84% of the original 1 billion maximum supply. At a price of $85.50, that burned supply would carry a theoretical market value exceeding $4 billion. CoinGecko reflected this by listing HYPE’s fully diluted supply near 955 million tokens rather than the original 1 billion.

Should I buy or sell HYPE based on unlock events? Token unlocks are one factor among many that affect price. This article examines the historical pattern of HYPE unlock behavior and the structural mechanisms that influence supply and demand. Past performance during unlock events does not guarantee future results. Individual investment decisions should account for personal risk tolerance, portfolio allocation, and overall market conditions. This is educational analysis, not investment advice.

Should I buy or sell HYPE based on unlock events? Token unlocks are one factor among many that affect price. This article examines the historical pattern of HYPE unlock behavior and the structural mechanisms that influence supply and demand. Past performance during unlock events does not guarantee future results. Individual investment decisions should account for personal risk tolerance, portfolio allocation, and overall market conditions. This is educational analysis, not investment advice.

TLDR: HYPE price holds near $85.45 after BHYP added $10.5 million in tokens, ending a four-day pause in purchases by Bitwise clients. Bitwise has accumulated $166.3 million in HYPE since BHYP launched, making the fund the largest HYPE ETF by reported size. Hyperliquid bought and burned 9,730 HYPE worth about $829,500 in one day, extending lifetime burns to 48.42 million tokens. The ETF purchase adds regulated spot demand, while fee-funded burns permanently shrink supply and leave $88.06 as nearby resistance. HYPE price traded near $85.45 as Bitwise clients resumed purchases through the BHYP fund. The product added $10.5 million in HYPE on Friday after recording no purchases for four consecutive days. Arkham data identifies the transaction as BHYP’s largest daily addition since a $23.2 million purchase on August 27.

Total acquisitions have now reached $166.3 million since launch, placing BHYP above rival HYPE products by size. Meanwhile, Hyperliquid bought and burned 9,730 HYPE worth about $829,500 within 24 hours. The two flows pair renewed regulated demand with a steady reduction in the token’s available supply during market strength.

Hyperliquid (HYPE) Price HYPE Price Finds Support From Bitwise ETF Accumulation BHYP’s renewed activity ends a brief pause that followed several weeks of institutional accumulation. Friday’s $10.5 million purchase represents about 123,000 HYPE at prices near $85.27. The estimate shows the scale of demand entering through one regulated product.

Bitwise launched the spot Hyperliquid ETF in May, offering investors indirect exposure to the Hyperliquid token. The fund also stakes a large portion of its holdings through Bitwise’s internal infrastructure. Staking can add token rewards, although the structure carries operational, liquidity and slashing risks.

Arkham’s figures place cumulative purchases at $166.3 million since launch. That total makes BHYP the largest HYPE ETF by reported size. It also signals that the four-day buying gap did not mark a clear end to client demand.

BITWISE IS BUYING HYPE AGAIN

Bitwise’s BHYP clients didn’t buy any HYPE for 4 days straight. On Friday they bought $10.5M, the biggest day for BHYP since buying $23.2M on August 27.

Bitwise has now bought $166.3M since launch, making it the LARGEST HYPE ETF. pic.twitter.com/l8J01rwinf

— Arkham (@arkham) September 5, 2026

The purchase came while HYPE price held near the upper end of its recent range. Market data placed HYPE price near $85.45, up about 1.5% over 24 hours. HYPE also traded roughly 3% below its $88.06 record, reached on September 3.

Friday’s session ranged from about $83.73 to $86.15. Buyers therefore absorbed weakness below $84 before lifting the token back above $85. Immediate resistance sits near $86.15, followed by the record zone between $87.66 and $88.06.

A sustained move above that area would establish fresh price discovery. Conversely, weakness below $83.70 could expose the September 2 area near $80.25. The ETF purchase offers measurable spot demand, but HYPE price direction still depends on broader trading flows.

Hyperliquid Burns $830,000 While Token Supply Contracts Onchain Lens data shows Hyperliquid acquired and burned 9,730 HYPE during the latest 24-hour period. The tokens carried an average purchase price of $85.27 and a combined value near $829,500. Network documentation states that the assistance fund permanently removes all HYPE from both circulating and total supply.

Lifetime burns have reached 48.42 million HYPE, based on the tracker. At the current HYPE price, those tokens would carry a market value near $4.14 billion. The removed amount equals about 4.84% of the original one-billion-token maximum supply.

HYPERLIQUID BURNS $830K HYPE IN 24 HOURS

Hyperliquid bought and burned 9.73K $HYPE (~$829.5K) over the past 24 hours at an $85.27 average price.

Lifetime:

· 48.42M $HYPE burned
· ~$4.14B at current value
· 4.84% of max supply permanently removed pic.twitter.com/SsqxWR2wRt

— Onchain Lens (@OnchainLens) September 6, 2026

This mechanism links activity on Hyperliquid with recurring market purchases. Trading fees support assistance-fund buying, while each burn reduces the number of issued tokens. Higher platform activity can therefore increase the pace of purchases without creating a fixed schedule.

The latest daily burn is small beside the token’s circulating supply. Still, repeated removals can matter over longer market periods, particularly when ETF demand absorbs additional coins. Friday’s BHYP purchase was almost 13 times larger than the reported 24-hour burn in dollar terms.

The current setup shows two verifiable flows operating together. BHYP provides regulated accumulation, while Hyperliquid’s fee mechanism removes token supply permanently.

The latest burn alone does not automatically raise market valuation because demand, liquidity and broader risk appetite also shape trading. BHYP shares also differ from direct token ownership and carry product-specific fees and risks.

HYPE price now sits between nearby support and its recent record. A break above $88.06 would confirm that buyers have cleared the latest supply area. Holding above $83.70 would preserve the short-term rebound structure established after Friday’s intraday decline.

Hyperliquid [HYPE] is heading into a major supply event, with core contributors set to receive another large chunk of HYPE tokens.

According to the Tokenomist data, on the 6th of September, contributors released just 0.19%, worth $36.56 million, far below the intended 2.32% scheduled allocation.

This gap matters because Hyperliquid faces another 9.92 million HYPE release on the 6th of October, valued near $860 million, representing nearly 3.9–4.5% of the circulating supply.

Needless to say, this creates a substantial risk of dilution if contributors claim and sell heavily.

Source: Tokenomist Moreover, the price of these new tokens is significantly larger than the average daily spot volume. Essentially, this means heavy distributions could cause a tremendous decrease in market liquidity, ultimately putting downward pressure on the price.

However, the September scheduled supply may not reach markets immediately. Therefore, contributor wallet activity will help determine if the 6th of October token distribution causes true selling pressure or another small token distribution.

Bitwise adds $10.5M in HYPE demand While October introduces a potential supply increase, institutional demand is already building another side of HYPE’s liquidity equation. After four days without purchases, Bitwise’s BHYP clients bought $10.5 million in HYPE on on the 4th of September.

With each purchase averaging approximately $85 per token, this totals approximately 123,500 HYPE. Cumulative purchases by the BHYP investor base total $166.3 million.

As such, however, the $10.5 million spent on HYPE by BHYP investors on Friday equates to less than one percent of the 9.92 million tokens set to be unlocked as part of Hype’s October schedule.

Source: Arkham The difference here illustrates how BHYP cannot handle the headline unlock by itself should heavy contributions from participants occur. However, continued institutional demand will likely create softer incremental selling rather than eliminating it.

Furthermore, BHYP inflows would strengthen that buffer, while stalled purchases would leave market liquidity carrying more of the burden.

HYPE burns add another layer of demand The demand supporting HYPE extends beyond outside buyers. This is because Hyperliquid’s trading activity also creates continuous token purchases.

In the last 24 hours, $859,500 in fees generated $823,800 in HYPE-directed revenue as of writing. In turn, this funded purchases of 9,730 tokens.

Those tokens, worth $829,500, were bought near $85.27 before being permanently burned. This mechanism matters because every burn removes purchased HYPE rather than simply shifting tokens between holders.

Source: OnChain Lens According to OnChain Lens, lifetime removals of HYPE have reached 48.42 million HYPE. This accounts for only 4.84% of the 1 billion max HYPE token limit. Although current burns cannot match major unlocks anytime soon, they do continually lower the available pool of HYPE tokens over time.

Thus, increasing trade volume could provide a faster way for HYPE to continue growing internal demand by institutions.

Final Summary Hyperliquid [HYPE] faces a 9.92 million-token October unlock, with actual contributor claims determining the scale of supply pressure. Bitwise demand and Hyperliquid burns provide absorption but remain too small to offset heavy contributor distribution alone.

The Hyperliquid (HYPE) token continues to gain traction, with bullish sentiment strengthening as institutional interest, staking activity, and significant whale accumulation lend support to the price action. At press time, HYPE trades at $85.36 with a 24-hour trading volume of $793.73 million and a market capitalization of $21.47 billion, having risen 1.36% within the last day.

Whale accumulation and staking activityA large investor known for operating the wallet “0x6436” has recently acquired 343,000 HYPE tokens valued at approximately $29.09 million, according to on-chain data shared by the market watcher Lookonchain. This move increases the whale’s position to 3.24 million HYPE tokens, collectively worth around $252 million.

Lookonchain added that this wallet has staked its entire HYPE holdings, indicating a long-term commitment to the project rather than seeking short-term gains. The ongoing accumulation by this major holder has drawn attention among traders, raising confidence in the token’s outlook.

Lookonchain emphasized that the magnitude of accumulation reflects substantial belief in HYPE’s long-term prospects, particularly since the tokens are now held in staking rather than entering the market for sale.

Mini dictionary: Lookonchain is a cryptocurrency analytics platform that tracks large transactions, whale holdings, and on-chain activity to provide insights into market dynamics.

Technical indicators and analyst outlookTechnical analysis on TradingView reveals an ongoing uptrend for HYPE, which climbed to $85.66 after recovering from a low near $50.00. The token is currently supported by a bullish alignment of exponential moving averages, with the 20 EMA at $78.29, the 50 EMA at $70.24, the 100 EMA at $64.14, and the 200 EMA at $56.11. This sequence signals continued positive momentum in the near term.

The MACD technical indicator shows a reading of 6.07, slightly above the signal line at 6.06, with green histogram bars indicating ongoing buyer strength. The price remains above all key moving averages, reinforcing the bullish trend.

Moving AverageLevel20 EMA$78.2950 EMA$70.24100 EMA$64.14200 EMA$56.11Crypto analyst Hov has underlined that the HYPE token’s rally produced notable gains for various entry points. Early buyers at $26 have seen approximately 240% returns, while positions taken near $55 are up over 50%.

ETF inclusion and institutional exposureRecent data from Hyperliquid Daily shows that HYPE has debuted in the Nasdaq Crypto Index US ETF, managed by Hashdex, a crypto asset management firm. This marks HYPE’s first inclusion in a US-listed crypto exchange-traded fund (ETF).

With a 3.4% allocation, HYPE is now the fifth largest holding in the fund, following Bitcoin, Ethereum, XRP, and Solana. The addition comes as the fund adjusts its holdings composition, reflecting a decreased weighting for Bitcoin and the inclusion of new assets as they grow in size and liquidity.

For Hyperliquid, the appearance in such a product could signal rising credibility and broader visibility among institutional and traditional investors. The project, initially focused on decentralized perpetual markets, now expands its presence as more investment vehicles take note.

Future changes in HYPE’s ETF allocation are likely to depend on continued growth and liquidity development in the protocol itself.

Inclusion in the Nasdaq Crypto Index US ETF positions HYPE closer to established cryptocurrencies as institutional interest accelerates.

The next directional move for the HYPE price will depend on buyers’ ability to sustain gains above key resistance points. While signs point to continued bullish momentum, profit-taking and volatility may follow after the recent sharp advance. If buyers maintain support, a breakout could drive prices toward the $105 target noted in technical setups.

Disclaimer: The information contained in this article does not constitute investment advice. Investors should be aware that cryptocurrencies carry high volatility and therefore risk, and should conduct their own research.

TLD: Tokenized gold regained crypto-market attention as XAUT activity expanded across decentralized exchanges, lending platforms, and leveraged futures markets. XAUT and PAXG remain leading gold-backed assets on decentralized exchanges, while Uniswap liquidity and collateral integrations widened trading access. Hyperliquid gold open interest returned near $750 million, with whale positioning leaning long as traders reacted to inflation and geopolitical uncertainty. Antalpha-linked wallets accumulated large XAUT positions, while holder growth and rising activity across Ethereum, BNB Chain, and Monad broadened adoption. Tokenized gold has returned to the center of crypto trading after a strong August revival. Traders are using blockchain-based gold for hedging, collateral, and leveraged speculation across decentralized markets. Tether Gold, known as XAUT, remains the largest focus of this renewed activity. CoinGecko shows XAUT trading near $4,430 after gold pulled back from recent highs. 

Trading volumes also remain elevated compared with earlier periods this year. PAXG continues to attract decentralized liquidity alongside it. The shift reflects growing demand for assets linked to inflation protection. Crypto traders also seek new opportunities beyond Bitcoin and altcoins during uncertain global markets.

Gold XAUT Price Tokenized Gold Demand Builds Across DEX and Lending Markets XAUT has led the latest expansion in tokenized gold activity across decentralized finance. Tether increased supply during recent months as demand strengthened among traders and larger wallets.

Market activity accelerated in August, when trading volumes moved close to their 2026 highs. The token also became more useful inside lending platforms and collateral markets.

About $2.39 million in XAUT liquidity was trading through Uniswap V3 during the reported period. That activity helped deepen decentralized access beyond centralized exchanges.

XAUT and PAXG now rank among the most actively traded gold-backed assets on decentralized exchanges. Their liquidity gives crypto traders direct exposure without leaving blockchain markets.

Lighter also added XAUT as collateral, connecting gold exposure with perpetual futures trading. That integration widened the token’s role beyond simple spot ownership.

Holder activity expanded as well. RWA.xyz data showed XAUT reaching 84,756 wallets, representing growth above 16% over 30 days.

More than $4.6 billion in value moved on-chain globally during August. Active addresses topped 53,000 as demand spread across several networks.

Ethereum still hosts most of the token supply. However, BNB Chain and Monad gained more supply recently, suggesting broader use across newer decentralized applications.

Tokenized Gold Gains Momentum in Perpetual Futures Trading Gold also returned as a major perpetual futures market on Hyperliquid through HIP-3. Open interest climbed back toward $750 million, while daily trading reached about $299 million.

Source: Dune Analytics Large traders were mostly positioned on the long side. The biggest tracked long carried more than $273,000 in unrealized gains.

Short sellers faced heavier pressure. The largest reported short position showed unrealized losses near $2.2 million on September 4.

The renewed interest followed stronger demand for defensive assets during inflation concerns and geopolitical uncertainty. Gold also benefited from traders seeking alternatives to semiconductor-linked positions.

Tokenized gold gives those traders a familiar macro asset with crypto-native settlement. It also allows faster movement between collateral, spot trading, and leveraged markets.

A large wallet linked with high probability to Antalpha also attracted attention. The wallet accumulated repeated 1,000 unit tranches while gold traded closer to $4,000.

By September 4, that wallet held about 16,120 XAUT, worth more than $71 million. The wallet showed inflows without visible cash-out activity.

Another Antalpha-linked wallet held more than 33,000 units alongside other assets. Some related wallets actively traded gold and transferred funds toward Bitfinex.

Part of those holdings also moved into custody through Cobo.com. The activity suggests professional investors are using several routes for storage and execution.

The accumulation stands out because repeated purchases appeared during gold’s earlier climb. Those positions gained value as prices advanced through August.

XAUT remains the main tokenized gold asset driving crypto-market interest. Its expanding collateral role, DEX liquidity, and whale ownership are creating more trading paths.

The market is also becoming less dependent on centralized exchanges as decentralized liquidity improves across major chains. That shift may help tokenized gold compete more directly with stablecoins and other real-world assets used as trading collateral.

Abraxas Capital, a London-based digital asset firm managing over $4 billion, just scooped up 16,554 ETH worth roughly $39 million. At the same time, the firm is sitting on 120,178 ETH in short positions on Hyperliquid, the decentralized perpetual futures exchange.

The two-sided trade The firm’s short exposure on the platform has frequently exceeded $700 to $900 million in gross positions across ETH, Bitcoin, and Solana. Of that, Ethereum consistently accounts for the largest single-asset chunk, with ETH shorts ranging between $120 million and $194 million depending on the day.

Earlier in August, Abraxas withdrew 73,872 ETH from Binance over a four-day stretch, a haul worth approximately $173 million. The latest 16,554 ETH purchase adds to that accumulation pattern.

Advertisement

Abraxas is collecting ETH at spot prices while using short positions to earn funding rates and hedge against downside risk. When the market pays you to hold shorts (because long traders are paying a premium), you can accumulate the underlying asset while your short positions generate yield.

Profits in the hundreds of millions On August 29, Abraxas posted a $21 million profit in a single 24-hour window, generated from a portfolio containing $472 million in short positions. That kind of daily return, roughly 4.4% on the short book alone, illustrates why the firm keeps scaling into this approach.

The total short exposure has at times ballooned to between $598 million and $783 million across all assets on Hyperliquid. On-chain analysts have been tracking Abraxas’s wallets closely, and the firm frequently ranks among the platform’s top traders by volume.

Why Hyperliquid matters here Hyperliquid operates on its own Layer-1 blockchain and has carved out a niche as the go-to venue for on-chain perpetual futures trading. Its native token, HYPE, has attracted attention partly because institutional players like Abraxas are generating enormous volume on the platform.

What this means for the ETH market The dual approach of accumulating spot ETH while maintaining enormous short positions suggests Abraxas is positioning for multiple scenarios. If ETH drops, the shorts profit. If ETH rises, the spot holdings appreciate. And regardless of direction, funding rates from perpetual futures provide a steady income stream.

A sudden ETH rally would generate unrealized losses on the shorts that need to be managed carefully, even if the spot book offsets some of that pain. Abraxas has faced unrealized losses during volatile stretches, though cumulative profits have remained positive.

Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.

Multicoin Capital has now sold roughly another 10% of its HYPE position, according to blockchain intelligence platform Arkham.

The latest sale leaves the investment firm with approximately $90.5 million worth of HYPE.

This is its largest on-chain holding despite continued sales. 

HOT Stories

Multicoin accumulated roughly 4 million HYPE during February and March, when its position reached a peak. Its current holdings stand at slightly more than one-quarter of that amount. The firm has now sold nearly 75% of its peak position.

In July, Multicoin also made a decision to make a direct investment into the Hyperliquid ecosystem. 

On July 16, Multicoin invested $1.75 million in Trasia Labs, an Asia-focused perpetual futures platform built on Hyperliquid. 

Multicoin was the sole investor in the seed round. This makes the deal notable given the firm’s large HYPE position.

card

And in February, co-founder Kyle Samani stepped back from Multicoin after nearly a decade. He remained chairman of Forward Industries.

HYPE's continued momentum HYPE recently made a debut within Hashdex’s Nasdaq CME Crypto Index ETF (NCIQ). HYPE was added with a roughly 3.4% weighting. 

This is the fund’s fifth-largest holding behind Bitcoin, Ethereum, XRP and Solana. This is the first reported inclusion of HYPE in a U.S.-listed crypto index ETF.

HYPE is now also more accessible to U.S. investors. Coinbase currently lists Hyperliquid for trading and offers HYPE-related derivatives, including cash-settled futures. 

There are also some important developments on the institutional side.  Grayscale’s Hyperliquid Staking ETF, HYPG, continues to make the case for HYPE around the token’s economics and Hyperliquid’s growth. 

EntropyIO, a new perpetual futures deployer built on Hyperliquid’s HIP-3 infrastructure, launched with ambitions to let traders speculate on private companies before they go public. The platform registered a contract for OpenAI under the ticker io:OAI, but the market was delisted without recording a single trade.

The actual story is both more interesting and more complicated than a simple OpenAI listing. EntropyIO’s real flagship products are an Anthropic pre-IPO perpetual contract (io:ANTH) at 3x max leverage and a SanDisk equity perp (io:SNDK) at 10x leverage, both of which went live when the platform launched on August 24, 2026.

What EntropyIO actually built The platform operates as a HIP-3 market deployer on Hyperliquid, a designation that lets it create and manage perpetual futures markets on the decentralized exchange.

EntropyIO raised $14 million in a funding round led by Ribbit Capital. On top of that, roughly $40 million in HYPE tokens were reserved for staking to support the deployer’s operations.

The team draws from traditional finance heavyweights like Citadel Securities, Optiver, and Millennium.

Pre-IPO perps work differently from typical crypto perpetuals. The pricing model tracks implied company valuations rather than a spot price, since these companies don’t have publicly traded shares. A $1 price unit on the Anthropic contract translates to a $1 billion implied valuation. After launch, Anthropic’s implied market cap briefly touched around $2 trillion.

The OpenAI contract that wasn’t EntropyIO did register an OpenAI perpetual contract under the io:OAI ticker. But the contract was subsequently delisted due to inactivity, meaning no one actually traded it before it was removed.

A prior HIP-3 operator called Ventuals had previously run markets for both OpenAI and Anthropic pre-IPO perps on Hyperliquid. Ventuals shut down and delisted those offerings in June 2026, roughly two months before EntropyIO’s launch.

How the pricing and risk systems work EntropyIO uses custom oracles combined with liquidity-weighted designs to generate price feeds. Settlement mechanics rely on either on-chain consensus or Time-Weighted Average Price calculations, which help smooth out price swings that thin order books tend to produce.

These bespoke oracle systems exist to prevent transactional manipulation that naturally follows when trading volumes are low.

It’s worth noting what these contracts don’t provide: any form of equity ownership, voting rights, or dividends. Traders are purely speculating on implied valuations. The contracts are synthetic instruments with no claim on the underlying company whatsoever.

What this means for on-chain derivatives The HIP-3 framework allows third-party deployers to create markets on Hyperliquid’s infrastructure, effectively turning the exchange into a platform rather than just a trading venue.

The OpenAI delisting serves as a useful reality check. Just because you can create a perpetual market for something doesn’t mean anyone will show up to trade it. Anthropic, by contrast, appears to have attracted enough trading interest to justify its continued listing.

The $2 trillion implied valuation for Anthropic that appeared shortly after launch suggests that early price action in these markets may reflect speculative froth rather than genuine price discovery. Anthropic’s last private funding rounds valued the company at a fraction of that figure.

Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.

TradeXYZ recorded $202.36 billion in trading volume during the second quarter of 2026, an increase of 79.2% from the previous quarter, according to a Sept. 1 report from the Hyperliquid Research Collective.

Summary

TradeXYZ’s quarterly trading volume rose 79.2% to $202.36 billion, according to the independent research report. Equity perpetual volume increased 377% quarter-on-quarter, reaching $58.9 billion across 55 markets during Q2 2026. TradeXYZ’s HIP-3 volume share increased from 84.5% to 95.1% during the second quarter of 2026. Quarter-end open interest reached $2.96 billion, representing a 64.6% increase from the previous quarter’s level. Felix, Ventuals and Dreamcash stopped operating between June 19 and July 2, reducing HIP-3 competition. The platform’s estimated share of trading across Hyperliquid’s HIP-3 markets rose from 84.5% to 95.1% during the quarter. Its fastest-growing segment was equity perpetuals, where volume increased 377% quarter-on-quarter to $58.9 billion across 55 markets.

The figures come from an external research report prepared by GLC Research, Four Pillars, Arrakis and GRZ Research. They should not be treated as audited financial results or figures confirmed through a TradeXYZ regulatory filing.

2026 Trade[XYZ] Q2 Report

Today, we're excited to release Trade[XYZ]'s 2026 Q2 Report.

While three of its HIP-3 rivals, Felix, Ventuals, and Dreamcash, shut down entirely this quarter, Trade[XYZ] pulled further ahead. Its share of HIP-3 volume climbed from 84.5% to 95.1%.… pic.twitter.com/F2irNgYE2r

— Hyperliquid Research Collective (HRC) (@HyperliquidR) September 1, 2026 The report also calculated $7.59 million in quarterly revenue, up 32.9%, while open interest reached $2.96 billion at the end of June. Open interest increased 64.6% from the previous quarter.

TradeXYZ captures 95.1% of HIP-3 trading volume TradeXYZ’s quarterly volume rose by approximately $89.43 billion from the estimated Q1 level of $112.93 billion. Growth in trading activity outpaced revenue, which increased by 32.9% over the same period.

That difference can reflect changes in product mix, fee rates, trader tiers and the proportion of volume generated by markets with lower effective fees. The report did not provide enough audited information to identify a single cause.

TradeXYZ’s HIP-3 market share increased by 10.6 percentage points during Q2. The research group estimated that its share had reached approximately 99.5% on a trailing 30-day basis by the time the report was prepared.

HIP-3 allows third parties to deploy perpetual futures markets on Hyperliquid while using the network’s trading infrastructure. Deployers can choose market parameters and list assets that are not available through Hyperliquid’s original validator-operated markets.

Hyperliquid’s current fee documentation says HIP-3 deployers may retain up to 50% of the trading fees generated by their markets. That creates a direct revenue model for platforms that can attract traders and maintain liquid order books.

The structure also separates TradeXYZ from a conventional centralized exchange. Users trade through Hyperliquid’s on-chain infrastructure, while TradeXYZ acts as the deployer responsible for its market selection and related parameters.

Equity perpetuals drive the fastest growth Equity perpetual volume reached $58.9 billion during Q2, representing about 29.1% of TradeXYZ’s total reported volume. The segment covered 55 equity-linked markets by the end of the quarter.

A perpetual contract gives traders price exposure to an underlying asset without a fixed expiration date. Equity perpetuals can therefore track the market value of a company’s shares while trading outside the normal operating hours of traditional stock exchanges.

These contracts do not necessarily provide the same rights as owning the underlying shares. Perpetual holders generally do not receive voting rights, legal ownership or direct claims on company assets. Funding payments and liquidation rules also create risks that do not apply to ordinary unleveraged share ownership.

TradeXYZ introduced its pre-IPO perpetual product, known as IPOP, on May 1. The first market tracked Cerebras, followed by contracts linked to SpaceX and Quantinuum, according to the report.

The research group said those contracts continued through the companies’ public listings and then converted into standard equity perpetuals. It also claimed that the pre-IPO markets provided prices close to the companies’ opening public trades.

Those conclusions come from the report’s analysis. TradeXYZ has not filed audited evidence showing that pre-IPO perpetual prices consistently predict opening prices, and three completed examples would not establish long-term reliability.

The growth forms part of a wider convergence between cryptocurrency infrastructure and equity markets. For example, Wintermute registered as a U.S. broker-dealer while preparing to expand into equities and tokenized securities, as covered in the report on its regulated U.S. securities entry.

Rival closures increase market concentration TradeXYZ’s rising share also reflects the departure of competing HIP-3 deployers. Felix, Ventuals and Dreamcash stopped operating between June 19 and July 2, according to the research report.

Their closures removed alternative venues during and shortly after the quarter. This means TradeXYZ’s 95.1% share resulted from both its own volume growth and reduced competition.

The report did not provide detailed reasons for each closure. It also did not disclose whether customers experienced losses, whether open positions were transferred or how much volume each departing platform handled before stopping operations.

A market share approaching 100% gives TradeXYZ a strong position among HIP-3 deployers, but it also concentrates activity and operational dependence in one platform. Future market share could change if new deployers enter, existing teams relaunch or Hyperliquid modifies the HIP-3 framework.

The concentration is specific to HIP-3 markets and should not be confused with TradeXYZ controlling all Hyperliquid trading. Hyperliquid also hosts its original perpetual markets, spot assets and other infrastructure outside TradeXYZ’s deployed products.

CFTC action does not directly approve TradeXYZ The report described the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s May action on perpetual futures as regulatory validation for the broader product category.

On May 29, the CFTC issued a policy statement explaining its position on listing perpetual contracts. The agency released the statement alongside an order allowing a designated contract market to list a bitcoin-linked perpetual futures contract.

That action covered a U.S.-regulated contract offered by a registered market operator. It did not approve TradeXYZ, Hyperliquid’s offshore markets or TradeXYZ’s equity perpetual products.

TradeXYZ users should therefore not interpret the CFTC decision as granting U.S. regulatory authorization to the platform. The legal treatment of equity-linked perpetuals can involve derivatives and securities rules that differ from those governing a bitcoin contract.

Regulators in other jurisdictions have followed separate approaches. One Trading received a Dutch license to offer regulated perpetual futures in the European Union, according to coverage of its European derivatives authorization.

The comparison shows that regulatory approval normally applies to a specific operator, legal entity and product structure. Broader acceptance of perpetual futures does not automatically authorize every on-chain market using a similar contract design.

Q3 data will test whether TradeXYZ retains its lead The next relevant update will be TradeXYZ’s third-quarter volume, revenue and open-interest data. Those figures should show whether Q2 growth continued after three competing HIP-3 deployers closed.

Equity perpetual activity will be another key measure. The segment must maintain liquidity across its expanded list of markets for the 377% quarterly increase to represent more than a short-term surge around major listings.

Future pre-IPO conversions will also provide more evidence about how TradeXYZ handles corporate listings, reference prices and contract transitions. The report did not announce a fixed schedule for additional IPOP markets.

TradeXYZ’s U.S. availability remains a separate regulatory question. Neither the research report nor the CFTC statement announced approval for the platform to offer equity perpetuals directly to U.S. customers.

13 minutes ago

US-listed HYPE sector treasury firm Hyperliquid Strategies Inc (PURR) has amended its ChEF purchase agreement with Chardan Capital Markets, lifting the total commitment for newly issued common stock from $1 billion to $2.5 billion. The newly issued shares have a par value of $0.01; while the financing scale has expanded significantly, the issuance remains subject to clear price and quantity constraints. This amendment introduces a trading platform cap mechanism: once cumulative sales exceed $1 billion, additional issuances priced below $12.02 per share will be restricted, with a cap of 42,641,847 shares, equivalent to 19.99% of the outstanding shares prior to the amendment. Any additional issuance beyond this threshold will require shareholder approval in line with Nasdaq rules. This design not only greatly boosts financing capacity but also provides existing shareholders with protection against excessive dilution. According to market data from BIT (bit.com), PURR closed down 7.31%.

Scan the QR code

Download APP

Zug, Switzerland, September 1st, 2026, Chainwire

Through Silhouette’s RFQ, every supported xStock gets an execution venue from day one, even those without their own order books.

Silhouette, the universal block trading layer for Hyperliquid, today announced that its RFQ system is live on mainnet, launching with tokenized equities from xStocks – Payward’s tokenized equity framework – opening new opportunities for the asset class through its demand layer.

Now, traders request a quote on any supported xStock, receive competing quotes from onboarded market makers, and settle the winning trade onchain, at any hour and at size.

“Tokenized stocks keep arriving onchain, and most of them have nowhere to trade. Silhouette’s RFQ is the demand layer: market makers compete for every trade, settlement is onchain, and the assets that prove real flow graduate to their own HyperCore markets. Launching with xStocks means starting with the issuer that brought this asset class to Hyperliquid,” said Chandler De Kock, Founder of Silhouette.

An order book is how an asset with proven demand trades. When launched before that proof exists, books sit thin and risk becoming dead markets, and the promised growth of the asset class stalls with them.

Demand for a traditional asset at a broker does not automatically carry over to its tokenized version onchain; converting it takes tooling and a cost structure trading firms recognise. Silhouette’s RFQ does that conversion cheaply, asset by asset.

The launch comes as tokenized equities accelerate across the industry, with issuers converging on the most active onchain markets. On Hyperliquid, the two layers now work as one pipeline: Silhouette discovers demand, and HyperCore’s order books host the assets that prove it.

“Access to real markets shouldn’t stop when a broker’s desk closes for the night. Every tokenized equity we’ve brought onchain has been waiting for a venue that treats it like a real asset, not an experiment. Silhouette’s RFQ is that venue, and it’s the clearest signal yet that this asset class is ready to trade the way the rest of finance already does.” said Val Gui, General Manager at xStocks.

About Silhouette

Silhouette is the universal block trading layer for Hyperliquid. It separates trader identity, size and direction from execution to ensure traders can avoid the common problems of front-running, fading or copying public transactions. By adding this layer, Silhouette enables institutions to trade without moving the book. The result is better pricing and cleaner execution for the users and teams that move markets. Backed by Polychain Capital and RockawayX. silhouette.exchange

About xStocks

xStocks is the industry benchmark for tokenized real world assets, bringing publicly listed equities and other assets onchain through fully collateralized, 1:1-backed tokens. Powered by Payward’s digital asset infrastructure, xStocks places traditional assets on blockchain rails, expanding access to global capital markets with extended availability, global reach, and digital-native settlement. Starting with tokenized US equities, xStocks now spans markets across the US, Europe and Asia.

Designed for interoperability, xStocks move seamlessly between centralized exchanges, self-custodied wallets, and onchain applications, unlocking new utility across trading, collateralization, and decentralized finance. Since launching in June 2025, xStocks has grown to power billions of dollars in transaction volume across multiple blockchain ecosystems, anchoring a rapidly expanding global network shaping the future of tokenized markets.

For more information, visit https://xstocks.fi.

Hyperliquid has faced a potential 10-to-12-month regulatory process to enter the U.S. market even if federal agencies move quickly, according to former SEC senior counsel Ashley Ebersole, after President Donald Trump said regulators were working on a compliant route for the perpetual futures platform.

Summary

Ebersole told crypto.news that bringing Hyperliquid to the U.S. would require more than a single CFTC registration or approval. The CFTC would likely oversee most crypto perpetuals, while securities-linked contracts could fall under SEC jurisdiction. Ebersole estimates that building a regulatory pathway could take 10 to 12 months even if both agencies actively pursue it. Existing law could offer a faster route, but Ebersole said congressional legislation would provide more legal certainty. Any U.S. framework created for Hyperliquid could also give Coinbase, Kraken, and other registered platforms a route to offer similar products. Ashley Ebersole, co-founder and chief legal officer at tx and a former senior counsel at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, told crypto.news that the main obstacle is not simply securing permission for Hyperliquid to operate in the country. U.S. regulators would first have to establish how offshore-style crypto perpetual futures fit within existing securities and derivatives laws.

President Donald Trump brought the issue into focus on Aug. 19 during a White House meeting with crypto and financial industry executives. Trump said Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chair Michael Selig was working to bring Hyperliquid into the United States in a “fully compliant and legal fashion.” Contemporary reports did not identify an approval, regulatory structure, or timetable for such a move.

The comments came as the administration pressed Congress to advance the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act. As previously covered by crypto.news, Trump used the same Aug. 19 meeting to urge lawmakers to pass the legislation, which would establish clearer boundaries between SEC and CFTC oversight of digital assets.

Hyperliquid would need more than CFTC approval Ebersole said U.S. law does not currently provide a straightforward route for offering crypto perpetual futures to American retail customers in the same form commonly available on offshore platforms.

The CFTC would probably have primary jurisdiction over perpetual contracts tied to commodities, including crypto assets that are not securities, according to Ebersole. Contracts based on securities, however, could fall under the SEC’s authority as security-based swaps or other securities-linked products.

“The threshold issue is that U.S. law does not currently provide a straightforward regulatory pathway for offering crypto perpetual futures to U.S. retail customers in the form in which they trade offshore,” Ebersole said.

For Hyperliquid, a compliant structure could involve registration requirements covering the trading venue, clearing, and intermediaries. Ebersole said designated contract market, or DCM, and derivatives clearing organization, or DCO, infrastructure could form part of the process, with separate SEC requirements applying where securities are involved.

Registration would address only part of the problem. According to Ebersole, federal agencies would first need to determine whether Congress has already given them sufficient authority over the products and then establish rules under which perpetuals could legally be offered.

“The harder problem is not simply obtaining a registration; it is that the existing U.S. regulatory architecture was not designed around offshore-style perpetuals, so a lot of regulatory ‘building’ would be needed.”

Regulators could use formal rulemaking, exemptive relief, or a combination of both to create such a pathway, Ebersole added.

Some of that regulatory debate is already underway. In July, the Hyperliquid Policy Center and Phantom asked the CFTC to develop rules tailored to onchain markets instead of applying requirements designed for traditional intermediaries. The groups argued that decentralized software developers and non-custodial wallet providers should not automatically face the same registration obligations as conventional financial firms.

SEC and CFTC jurisdiction would follow the underlying asset Dividing responsibility between the two federal agencies would create another layer of work.

Ebersole compared the issue with the framework established after the Dodd-Frank Act, which divided federal oversight between swaps regulated by the CFTC and security-based swaps overseen by the SEC. In his view, crypto perpetuals could follow a similar principle, with jurisdiction determined by the economic exposure of each contract.

A perpetual based on a security or group of securities would generally involve the SEC, while one tied to a commodity would normally fall under the CFTC’s derivatives authority, he said.

More complicated questions could arise when spot assets and derivatives interact inside the same trading ecosystem. According to Ebersole, such arrangements could create edge cases requiring coordination between both regulators, much as the agencies had to develop detailed jurisdictional boundaries following Dodd-Frank.

The issue has become particularly relevant for equity-linked perpetuals. On Aug. 24, the Hyperliquid Policy Center proposed treating qualifying equity perpetuals as security futures under an existing structure jointly overseen by the SEC and CFTC. The organization said HIP-3 markets had processed more than $480 billion in cumulative notional volume during their first 10 months.

Several days earlier, the Policy Center and trade[XYZ] had also submitted five proposed pillars to the SEC for regulating pre-IPO perpetual contracts. The SEC had published the submission but had not endorsed or approved the proposed products.

A Hyperliquid US pathway could take 10 to 12 months Even with political support, Ebersole expects the administrative process to take considerably longer than the technical work needed to offer the products.

His 10-to-12-month estimate assumes the SEC and CFTC actively decide to establish a route for perpetuals. Regulators would first have to identify their statutory authority, develop a framework, and prepare any required rules or exemptions.

A formal rulemaking process could then require agencies to publish proposals, collect public comments, review those submissions, adopt final measures, and implement the resulting framework.

“The 10-to-12-month estimate assumes a lengthy procedure phase that’s principally about administrative process rather than technological implementation,” Ebersole said.

A faster process is possible if regulators rely substantially on powers and exemptions already available to them.

“Could that happen in six months? Potentially, particularly if the agencies rely heavily on existing authorities or exemptive mechanisms.”

Ebersole cautioned that the longer estimate already assumes regulators want the process to succeed. Litigation, disagreements between the SEC and CFTC, changing political priorities, or a conclusion that Congress must first pass legislation could push any U.S. launch further out.

U.S. traders already have limited exposure to perpetual products under regulated structures. In June, Kalshi filed with the CFTC to list perpetual futures linked to HYPE after rolling out Bitcoin and Ethereum perpetual contracts for U.S. customers.

Access to Hyperliquid itself remains more restricted. Coinbase added more than 290 Hyperliquid-powered perpetual markets to its Base App on Aug. 19, with leverage reaching as high as 50x on supported contracts, but U.S. users were excluded along with users in the United Kingdom and Canada.

Existing law could provide a faster but less certain route Rather than waiting for Congress, the SEC and CFTC could conclude that their existing statutory powers are sufficient to establish a regulated framework, according to Ebersole. Such an approach could shorten the process, particularly if agencies use exemptions alongside existing derivatives and securities rules.

A legal constraint remains after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which ended the Chevron doctrine that had directed courts to defer to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous federal statutes.

“An agency cannot create statutory jurisdiction simply by interpreting an ambiguity in its favor,” Ebersole said.

If an SEC or CFTC interpretation were challenged, he said, a court would independently determine whether Congress had actually granted the agency authority over the product. Agency reasoning could still carry persuasive weight, but it would not receive Chevron-style deference simply because the underlying statute was ambiguous.

Congressional action would therefore provide a cleaner legal route, according to Ebersole, because lawmakers could expressly authorize perpetual products, divide responsibility between the SEC and CFTC, and establish the limits of each regulator’s authority.

Legislation carries its own timing problem. Ebersole said the congressional route could take considerably longer and may not result in a law at all.

The question is particularly relevant while the CLARITY Act remains unresolved in Washington. The legislation seeks to establish federal boundaries between digital commodities and securities, with the CFTC receiving additional authority over qualifying digital commodity markets while the SEC retains jurisdiction over securities.

A US perpetuals framework would not be limited to Hyperliquid Any regulatory route created for Hyperliquid would also have consequences for competing U.S. trading platforms, Ebersole said.

Federal regulators could not realistically establish a lawful framework that applied only to one company. Once the SEC and CFTC set requirements for offering crypto perpetuals, other firms meeting the same regulatory standards would have grounds to seek permission to offer comparable products.

“Whatever pathway regulators create for Hyperliquid cannot realistically be Hyperliquid-specific,” Ebersole said.

Coinbase, Kraken, and other appropriately registered platforms would therefore have a strong basis to pursue similar products if regulators establish a workable U.S. framework, according to Ebersole.

“The larger significance of onshoring Hyperliquid is not simply whether one offshore platform can enter the United States. It is whether regulators are prepared to welcome a major product category that has largely developed outside the U.S. to regulated domestic competition.”

Pump.fun, the Solana-based memecoin launchpad, surpassed Hyperliquid in monthly protocol revenue on August 9, 2026, the first time it has held that title since April 2025.

According to DeFiLlama data, Pump.fun generated $33.73 million in revenue over the preceding 30 days, nudging past Hyperliquid’s $32.73 million.

The numbers behind the milestone Pump.fun collected $84.35 million in total fees during the same 30-day window, compared to Hyperliquid’s $47.14 million.

Hyperliquid’s net revenue retention margin sits at 73%, versus Pump.fun’s 41%.

Hyperliquid holds over $6 billion in total value locked. Pump.fun sits at roughly $251 million.

By late August 2026, Pump.fun’s cumulative lifetime revenue had climbed into the $1.23 to $1.26 billion range, putting it past Hyperliquid’s lifetime total of approximately $1.19 billion. That makes Pump.fun the first Solana application to surpass $1 billion in lifetime revenue.

Mid-August also saw Pump.fun’s weekly protocol fees clear $10 million for the first time.

What is driving Pump.fun’s resurgence Pump.fun’s model is straightforward. Tokens launch on a bonding curve, meaning price rises automatically as buyers pile in. Once a token hits a certain market cap threshold, liquidity migrates to a decentralized exchange. The platform collects fees at each stage, and a meaningful portion of those fees flows into buybacks and burns of the $PUMP token.

The $PUMP token climbed roughly 12% to approximately $0.0027 following the announcement, pushing its market cap to around $1.055 billion.

Pump.fun’s April 2025 lead was short-lived the first time around, and Hyperliquid reclaimed its position quickly.

What this means for Solana and the broader DeFi landscape A 73% net revenue margin on $32.73 million is a different quality of income than a 41% margin on $33.73 million. Investors in protocol tokens need to weigh gross revenue against what actually accrues to the protocol and, ultimately, to token holders.

Pump.fun’s aggressive buyback-and-burn strategy is designed to close that value-accrual gap by reducing $PUMP supply over time.

The two platforms represent a useful proxy for a broader debate in DeFi: high-volume, low-margin consumer activity versus lower-volume, high-margin institutional-adjacent activity. Both models are generating real revenue.

Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.

Hyperliquid (HYPE) price is trading around $80.00 on Monday, maintaining a constructive bias with steady institutional inflows of over $50 million last week. On-chain data show elevated trading volume and revenue over the last two weeks, while retail speculation eases as HYPE futures Open Interest declines. The technical outlook is mixed as bullish momentum wanes. 

Retail sentiment shifts as institutional, network demand holds steadyHyperliquid is gaining institutional interest amid elevated network demand. SoSoValue data shows that the HYPE Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) recorded five consecutive days of inflows, totaling $56.86 million last week and $66.33 million so far this month. 

HYPE ETFs data. Source: SosovalueOn the platform side, Hyperliquid Analytics recorded $61.93 billion in total volume last week, with $16.45 million in revenue, down from the previous week’s $88.68 billion in volume and $21.27 million in revenue. Though the data shows an easing in Hyperliquid metrics, the long-term trend reflects elevated network activity. 

Hyperliquid total revenue data. Source: Hyperscreener.On the retail side, HYPE futures Open Interest (OI) is down 5% over the last 24 hours to $3.27 billion, indicating reduced notional value of active contracts or positional wipeout. Total liquidation of $3.98 million in the same period, led by long liquidation of $3.43 million, reaffirms the contraction in active long positions. The OI-weighted funding rate of 0.0085% indicates a persistent bullish bias among traders, willing to buy high-risk long positions at a premium. 

HYPE derivatives data. Source: CoinGlassTechnical outlook: Will HYPE price extend gains above $80?Hyperliquid trades at $80.14 at press time on Monday, holding steady after a 4% drop the previous day. HYPE sustains a bullish near-term bias as price holds well above the major Exponential Moving Averages (EMAs). The 50-day EMA at $66.94, the 100-day EMA at $61.93, and the 200-day EMA at $54.61 all trail the advance, hinting at a firmly supported uptrend.

From a technical perspective, HYPE remains capped below the 127.2% Fibonacci extension level of the downswing from $76.93 to $51.20 at $83.93. A confirmed breakout above this level could extend the rally toward the 161.8% Fibonacci extension at $92.83.

Momentum eases but remains constructive on the daily chart, with the Relative Strength Index (RSI) easing from the overbought zone to 64, while the Moving Average Convergence Divergence (MACD) is sloping toward the signal line as the bullish histogram profile wanes, suggesting reduced upside pressure.

HYPE/USD daily price chart.On the downside, initial support emerges around the prior Fibonacci cycle high at $76.93, ahead of a dense retracement cluster between the 78.60% level at $71.42 and the 50-day EMA at $66.94.

(The technical analysis of this story was written with the help of an AI tool. Know more.)

Key Takeaways Table of Contents

HYPE currently trades at approximately $82.92, registering a 3.98% gain over 24 hours, with total market capitalization reaching $20.87 billion Market analyst Crypto Patel cautions that inability to surpass $87 may drive HYPE down to $60 or potentially $50 The release of 14.18 million tokens valued at roughly $1.2 billion caused downward pressure from the $86.71 peak The platform dominated with $249.2 billion in notional trading activity, significantly outpacing its closest rival’s $106 billion Growing institutional interest evident through Hyperliquid Strategies’ 29.3 million HYPE holdings and Bitwise’s new spot ETF The HYPE token from Hyperliquid is currently positioned at $82.92 as of this writing, following its peak performance of $86.71 reached on August 27, 2026. This milestone occurred simultaneously with the protocol’s most substantial scheduled token distribution since its initial deployment.

Hyperliquid (HYPE) Price Current 24-hour trading activity totals $863.67 million, while the total market valuation sits at $20.87 billion. HYPE continues maintaining its position among the top 10 cryptocurrency assets ranked by market capitalization.

The pullback stems from the introduction of 14.18 million HYPE tokens into active circulation — representing approximately 1.4% of the complete 1 billion token maximum supply. Based on present valuations, this release equates to roughly $1.2 billion in value.

Approximately half of these distributed tokens were designated for insiders and initial backers. An equivalent portion targets the community segment, while the Hyper Foundation receives a smaller allocation.

Critical $87 Threshold Remains the Focal Point Cryptocurrency market analyst Crypto Patel identified the $87 mark as a significant resistance barrier. HYPE attempted to reclaim that territory before experiencing a sharp reversal that brought prices down to approximately $78.50.

Patel observed that the $82 level, previously functioning as support, could now serve as resistance. A move toward the $84–$85 zone might present another exit opportunity should the price face rejection.

While HYPE remains below the $87 threshold, Patel projects potential downside objectives at $60 and $50.

According to analyst Ted Pillows on X, a major holder acquired $20,500,000 worth of HYPE within a single trading day, characterizing this as “smart money accumulating quality alts.” Such substantial accumulation from significant players indicates underlying conviction despite current market headwinds.

Corporate Acquisition and Token Burns Create Buying Pressure From the institutional perspective, Nasdaq-traded Hyperliquid Strategies has accumulated a reserve of 29.3 million HYPE tokens following successful equity fundraising rounds totaling hundreds of millions. Additionally, Bitwise’s Hyperliquid ETF has been actively staking a substantial HYPE allocation, as indicated by recent disclosures.

LATEST: 📈 Hyperliquid Strategies more than doubled its HYPE treasury to 29.3M coins in the past fiscal year while raising $647M in equity. pic.twitter.com/FcTwAZZw7a

— CoinMarketCap (@CoinMarketCap) August 28, 2026

The protocol has implemented its AQAv2 mechanism, which channels returns from billions in USDC holdings into systematic HYPE token repurchases and permanent burns. The initial execution phase is scheduled for early October.

Protocol-generated fees are already being directed to an Assistance Fund designed to permanently eliminate tokens from circulating supply.

Platform Leads Decentralized Perpetuals Trading Landscape From a volume perspective, Hyperliquid processed $249.2 billion in notional trading activity, substantially exceeding its nearest competitor’s $106 billion. This disparity highlights the platform’s commanding position within the decentralized perpetuals sector.

President Trump referenced CFTC Chair Michael Selig’s efforts to establish a regulatory framework for Hyperliquid within U.S. markets, statements that contributed to the token breaking through earlier resistance zones.

Currently, no U.S. retail access has received regulatory clearance.

Short-term price trajectory will probably hinge on whether the recently unlocked tokens face market selling pressure or get absorbed through staking mechanisms, ETF purchases, and corporate treasury acquisitions.

TLDR: Zcash price trades near $790 after a rally toward $880. Support sits around $755 to $770, with resistance at $815 to $825. Santiment reports average ZEC social dominance 183% above its earlier baseline. That exceeds gains for Bitcoin, Ethereum and Hyperliquid. ZEC futures open interest totals roughly $1.57 billion. Daily derivatives turnover exceeds reported spot activity by over ten times. ZCSH expands brokerage access through NYSE Arca. The Zcash Foundation schedules its NU7 advisory poll to close on September 14. Zcash price holds near $790 as Santiment reports a 183% increase in average social dominance during the August rally. The privacy coin retreated after gaining almost 80% from roughly $490 to $880 earlier this month. Its share of online discussion expanded much faster than those of Bitcoin and Ethereum.

The Zcash price rally now faces technical resistance near $825, following several lower highs. ZEC futures open interest totals roughly $1.57 billion, adding substantial derivatives exposure around the current trading range. Meanwhile, a new exchange listing expands brokerage access, and an advisory vote addresses unresolved questions about the next network upgrade.

Zcash Price Rally Draws Attention Beyond Bitcoin and Ethereum According to Santiment, Hyperliquid averaged 44% above its earlier social dominance baseline during the same comparison period. Bitcoin recorded about 12% growth, while Ethereum posted approximately 8%. These percentages describe changes in discussion share, not token returns or market capitalization.

Source: Santiment The metric compares coin mentions with discussion of the 100 largest crypto assets. A 183% increase represents 2.83 times the baseline, rather than a 183% share of discussion.

Attention also peaked on different dates. Ethereum reached its social dominance high on August 11, followed by Zcash on August 22. Bitcoin and Hyperliquid peaked on August 26, pointing to successive waves of attention across the four assets.

Bitcoin social volume grew about 9% in the August comparison with July. Its price gained roughly 26%. Santiment interprets that gap as evidence that broad rallies can outpace growth in overall discussion. For Zcash price analysis, greater social dominance does not establish fresh buying or identify bullish sentiment.

Investment access has also changed during the Zcash price advance. Grayscale launched ZCSH on NYSE Arca on August 25, converting its existing trust into an exchange traded product. Assets of roughly $316 million include inherited holdings and should not be confused with fresh inflows.

Separately, the Zcash Foundation opened its Community Advisory Panel poll on unresolved NU7 proposals. Questions cover issuance policy and shorter block times, with voting closing September 14 at 19:00 UTC. The advisory process does not itself activate network changes.

The faster block proposal would shorten target intervals from 75 seconds to 25 seconds. Issuance options address future mining rewards without changing the total supply cap, the Foundation says.

ZEC Futures Exposure and Chart Levels Shape the Next Test CoinGlass figures shows ZEC futures open interest near $1.57 billion at 06:10 UTC on August 28. Futures turnover totaled approximately $3.54 billion over 24 hours, compared with reported spot volume of $345 million. That puts derivatives turnover at about 10.3 times the reported spot total.

Source: Coinglass Liquidations reached roughly $5.4 million, equivalent to about 0.34% of outstanding open interest. Open interest measures unsettled contracts and includes both long and short exposure. It cannot establish whether traders favor a higher Zcash price.

Nor does ZEC futures turnover measure new money entering the market. Repeated trading can increase volume without creating an equivalent increase in outstanding positions. Funding rates, collateral, and spot demand provide additional context that these totals alone cannot supply.

On the chart, buyers previously cleared $512 and $550 before the move accelerated. Sellers then established lower highs, leaving descending resistance around $815 to $825. A sustained Zcash price break above that band would put $840 to $850 in focus before the $880 peak.

Support lies around $765, with recent intraday lows widening the relevant area to $755 through $770. A loss of that zone would bring the next support area around $720 to $740 into view. Meanwhile, the daily Relative Strength Index has eased from above 80 to about 69.7.

Hyperliquid Policy Center has asked the SEC and CFTC to let qualifying equity perpetual contracts enter the U.S. as security futures after HIP-3 markets processed more than $480 billion in notional trading volume over their first 10 months.

Summary

Hyperliquid Policy Center has asked the SEC and CFTC to recognize qualifying equity perpetual contracts as security futures. The proposal would place eligible equity perpetuals under an existing framework jointly overseen by the SEC and CFTC. HIP 3 markets have processed more than $480 billion in cumulative notional volume during their first 10 months. HPC wants regulators to keep perpetual contract classification consistent across asset types while preserving exchange listing flexibility. Hyperliquid Policy Center said in an Aug. 24 comment letter that cash-settled equity perpetuals carrying the established characteristics of futures contracts should be eligible for classification as security futures, a category jointly overseen by the two U.S. regulators.

For a product trading hundreds of billions in volume, perpetual contracts still don't have a settled answer to the most basic question under U.S. law: are they futures, or are they swaps?

One federal judge described the exercise as deciding "whether tetrahedrons belong in… https://t.co/YjpwaV4fwh pic.twitter.com/dOcZtu1Ujq

— Hyperliquid Research Collective (HRC) (@HyperliquidR) August 24, 2026 The filing responds to a joint request for comment from the Securities and Exchange Commission and Commodity Futures Trading Commission on how U.S. law should define swaps, security-based swaps and products that may fall outside those categories. HPC described the issue as a basic classification question that has remained unsettled even as perpetual contracts have expanded outside the United States.

Under HPC’s proposal, regulators would first look at the structure of a derivative and how it trades to decide whether it is a future or a swap. The asset referenced by the contract would then determine how regulatory authority is divided between the SEC and CFTC.

A perpetual contract on Bitcoin, crude oil or an individual stock should therefore receive the same initial product classification when each instrument has the same futures-like characteristics, the group argued. A contract tied to a single stock that qualifies as a future would fall into the security futures category and come under both agencies.

Hyperliquid group says equity perpetuals can qualify as security futures At the center of HPC’s position is the structure of a perpetual contract, which has no predetermined expiration date but uses recurring funding payments to keep its price close to the asset it tracks.

When a contract trades above its reference price, long-position holders pay shorts. If the contract falls below the reference price, shorts pay longs. HPC said the mechanism creates a continuous incentive for the perpetual price to converge toward the underlying market, performing a function that expiration and final settlement serve in traditional dated futures.

HPC also cited features that courts and regulators have historically used when examining futures contracts, including standardized terms, fungibility, fixed unit quantities and the ability to close a position through an offsetting trade.

On Hyperliquid’s HIP-3 markets, positions open and close through a central limit order book, margin is maintained continuously, and contract prices are publicly available. Equity perpetual holders receive price exposure but do not obtain ownership, voting rights, or other claims attached to the referenced shares.

The lack of an expiry date does not automatically prevent futures classification, according to the filing. HPC cited federal court decisions finding that a specified future delivery or settlement date is not always required and that contracts of indefinite duration can still carry the futurity associated with a futures contract.

U.S. regulators have already applied that reasoning to crypto perpetuals. In May, crypto.news previously reported that the CFTC approved Kalshi’s Bitcoin perp as the first federally regulated Bitcoin perpetual futures contract in the United States. The May 29 approval classified BTCPERP as a futures contract even though it has no fixed expiration date.

Kalshi began offering the contract in June and subsequently expanded its regulated perpetual lineup to other cryptocurrencies. The CFTC said additional products would remain subject to review, leaving the treatment of contracts referencing other asset classes open to further regulatory analysis.

SEC and CFTC have yet to settle the classification question Past enforcement cases have not produced a uniform answer for perpetual contracts.

HPC said earlier CFTC actions treated some perpetual products as swaps after examining parts of the Commodity Exchange Act’s swap definition without determining whether the instruments qualified for the statutory exclusion covering futures contracts. Other cases treated perpetual-style products as leveraged or margined retail commodity transactions subject to trading requirements similar to those applied to futures.

The SEC also used the term “perpetual futures” in its case related to the Mango Markets exploit while disputing that the products were futures contracts offered under regulated futures rules. According to HPC, neither an enforcement action nor a court had resolved the threshold question of whether the instruments themselves qualify as futures or security futures excluded from the swap definition.

The CFTC took a different approach with Kalshi in May, approving BTCPERP as a “contract for sale of a commodity for future delivery.” Its accompanying policy statement said perpetual contracts on other asset classes should undergo review and specifically identified equity-based products as an area where the CFTC and SEC should both be involved.

Disagreement over that interpretation has already reached federal court. CME Group later filed a legal challenge over perps, arguing that products such as Kalshi’s contract should fall under the swaps framework instead of being treated as ordinary futures. CME’s position contests the legal basis the CFTC used when approving the contracts.

Around the same period, the SEC and CFTC opened the definitions review that prompted HPC’s latest submission. The agencies sought public input on swaps, security-based swaps, exclusions from those definitions and emerging derivatives, including products that raise questions about the boundary between their jurisdictions.

HIP-3 volume puts $480 billion behind the regulatory debate HPC tied its request to trading activity already taking place through Hyperliquid’s HIP-3 framework, where independent market operators known as deployers can create their own perpetual markets.

The protocol handles execution, price-time order matching, enforcement of margin requirements, funding transfers, clearing and settlement. Deployers control elements including the assets listed, contract specifications, oracle sources, leverage limits and open-interest caps.

HIP-3 markets now cover several traditional asset classes for users outside the United States, including crude oil, gold and other precious metals, foreign exchange, equity indexes, individual equities and exchange-traded funds.

Over the 10 months following HIP-3’s launch, those markets accumulated more than $480 billion in notional trading volume and maintained roughly $4 billion in open interest, according to the filing. Across Hyperliquid as a whole, markets processed nearly $3 trillion in notional volume during 2025 and more than $1.5 trillion during 2026 through Aug. 23.

Stock-linked products have become part of that expansion. A July examination of Hyperliquid equity perps detailed how the platform has hosted perpetual contracts tracking equities while giving traders synthetic price exposure without ownership of the underlying shares.

HPC said U.S. users currently cannot access Hyperliquid, meaning the liquidity and infrastructure described in its filing developed outside the country while regulated domestic access to perpetual contracts remained limited.

Security futures would put equity perps under both regulators HPC proposed using the existing security futures framework for equity perpetuals that meet futures characteristics because the category already assigns oversight to both agencies.

Under the framework, a designated contract market regulated by the CFTC can list security futures after notice-registering with the SEC. A national securities exchange can cross in the other direction by notice-registering with the CFTC, while intermediaries have parallel registration routes.

Security futures have seen limited commercial activity since OneChicago closed in 2020, but the filing noted renewed interest this year. CME Group announced in June that it would launch single-stock futures beginning July 27, returning U.S. exchange activity to a product category that had been largely dormant.

HPC asked the agencies to confirm that cash-settled equity perpetuals carrying established futures characteristics may be listed as security futures, while allowing exchanges to retain flexibility when deciding how individual products should be classified.

The group also requested a consistent taxonomy between the two regulators and asked them to update the security futures framework so existing listing standards can accommodate new contract structures. HPC said classification should remain flexible enough for a bilateral, individually negotiated perpetual-style product to be treated as a swap or security-based swap when it lacks the fungibility, offset rights and multilateral execution associated with futures.

According to the filing, the SEC and CFTC could issue interpretive guidance, policy statements or staff-level guidance without waiting for a formal rulemaking. The agencies also have joint authority to modify security futures listing standards, which they previously used for American Depositary Receipts, ETFs, closed-end fund shares and debt securities.

TL;DR Entropy is live on Hyperliquid via HIP-3, with the first liquid market for Anthropic’s pre-IPO alongside equity perpetuals. RedStone is the data layer these markets run on: integrating custom sources, pushing the data onchain through a 4-of-6 multisig config, and delivering the reference prices they price against. RWA and Pre-IPO perps trade 24/7 while their home markets keep hours, so RedStone Live continues to price them through the close, sourcing live venues with low latency. Entropy liquidity-weighted methodology blends the order book with RedStone’s external reference, weighting each by executable depth so the mark rests on the sounder source. RedStone secures the large majority of oracle-protected value on HyperEVM and built HyperStone, the first oracle dedicated to HIP-3. Entropy Launches HIP-3 Equity Perps Market Entropy, a perpetuals exchange offering 24/7 trading for real-world assets and pre-IPO equity, is now live on Hyperliquid. Built via the HIP-3 standard, Entropy’s opening markets feature Anthropic’s pre-IPO stock, the first way to trade the stock at scale on Hyperliquid, along with SNDK.

RedStone is the official data layer powering Entropy’s markets, integrating custom sources for assets that have no clean feed of their own and implementing the liquidity-weighted methodology behind their pricing. The data reaches the exchange through RedStone Live, a low-latency service built for RWAs trading onchain.

A weak key setup is a direct attack surface, the kind that cost DeFi over $600M in 2026. RedStone pushes prices to Entropy’s markets through a 4-of-6 multisig, meaning four of six independent signers have to agree before any update goes onchain. No single compromised key can move the price, making any oracle-related attack vector highly unlikely.

RedStone Live: 24/7 Pricing Data For RWAs Entropy’s perps are live 24/7. The market where its underlying asset trades is not. SanDisk trades on Nasdaq during US hours, and goes quiet overnight and over the weekend.

RedStone Live closes the gap between traditional markets and onchain venues. During market hours it sources pricing from licensed institutional providers. When those markets close, it switches to the CEX derivatives and other venues where the asset keeps trading on its own order flow. This method ensures that feeds keep tracking live prices through the night instead of freezing on the last print.

Price feeds are built per asset and aggregated from multiple sources rather than a single venue, which keeps the price stable when any one source thins out or drops. RedStone Live delivers data at low latency, and every input is cryptographically signed at each step.

Liquidity-weighted Methodology Standard perp markets can usually lean on an external price since the asset trades openly. Entropy’s markets are different. Stocks have strict trading hours and a pre-IPO stock like Anthropic has no public price at all. That means that a lot of time, pricing is pulled from Entropy’s own order book. Oftentimes, the mark that drives funding and liquidations has to be built from an order book whose liquidity shifts from one moment to the next. 

RedStone implements a liquidity-weighted methodology, designed by Entropy, that reads the executable depth behind a price. The book and RedStone’s external reference for the same asset are blended into one mark, and the depth decides the mix. When there is real, fillable size resting in the book, the mark leans on the book. As that depth thins, it shifts weight onto RedStone’s reference, so the price always rests on whichever source is sounder at that moment.

The two launch markets show it working at both extremes. Anthropic has no official market price, only informal reference points, so its mark leans hardest on the book itself. The equity perps carry uneven depth through the day, and the methodology prices them on what is fillable at each point.

RedStone on HyperLiquid HIP-3 has democratized perp markets, lowering the entry barrier for teams building onchain trading venues. But once a market is launched, choosing a reliable data provider becomes one of the decisions the whole market rests on. 

RedStone is the oldest oracle on HyperEVM, securing the large majority of oracle-protected value on the network. We have also built the first oracle dedicated to HIP-3, which has powered more than $3.4B in volume across 15 HIP-3 markets since going live with Felix.

About RedStone RedStone is the data layer for institutional DeFi, delivering secure, low-latency price feeds for digital assets, RWAs, stablecoins, LSTs, LRTs, and Bitcoin LSTs across 110+ chains. Trusted by 200+ clients, including Securitize, Morpho, Pendle, Spark, Ether.fi, Ethena, Lombard, Venus, and Compound, RedStone powers lending, stablecoins, perpetuals, and tokenized asset markets with custom pricing infrastructure built for complex onchain systems. RedStone provides data for tokenized products including BlackRock’s BUIDL, Apollo ACRED, and Hamilton Lane SCOPE. Zero mispricing events. 100% uptime. Learn more at redstone.finance.

About Entropy Entropy is a new perpetuals DEX on Hyperliquid via HIP-3, backed by a $14M seed round and a $40M HYPE stake required for deployment.

The goal of Entropy is to have the highest quality perps on real-world assets and indices, and Entropy achieves that by treating market design as a research problem. Their team brings deep market microstructure expertise, with backgrounds spanning Citadel Securities and Polymarket. This experience is focused on rigorous oracle design and robust mark price construction, which will allow us to list novel pre-IPO equity perps, rates, and index products, along with more liquid and efficient global equity perps.

Abraxas Capital, a London-based digital assets firm managing over $4 billion, has assembled a staggering short position portfolio on Hyperliquid while simultaneously withdrawing $173.17 million in Ethereum from Binance over four days. The dual-pronged strategy paints a picture of a firm betting aggressively on price declines across major tokens while keeping a hefty spot cushion to manage risk.

The numbers are eye-catching. Across two wallets on Hyperliquid’s decentralized perpetual futures platform, Abraxas holds roughly $598 million in predominantly short positions. That includes $193.9 million short on ETH, $175.4 million short on Bitcoin, $141.6 million short on Hyperliquid’s native HYPE token, and $65.8 million short on Solana.

A whale that keeps adding weight Abraxas isn’t just sitting on these positions. The firm has been actively increasing exposure, adding approximately $19.5 million in gross shorts within a two-hour window recently.

Advertisement

Since mid-2025, the firm has consistently maintained short exposure ranging from $500 million to over $900 million on Hyperliquid, frequently ranking as the platform’s largest single whale. At its peak, the short book reportedly exceeded $900 million.

Right now, the trade isn’t exactly printing money. Abraxas is carrying an unrealized loss of $80.8 million across its positions.

The $173 million in ETH withdrawals from Binance supports that read, as the spot purchases serve as a natural hedge against the short perpetual exposure.

Funding rate arbitrage, not a doomsday bet The firm has realized profits exceeding $300 million, primarily through funding-rate arbitrage rather than pure directional trading. The strategy works like this: when perpetual futures trade at a premium to spot prices, shorts collect periodic funding payments from longs. By pairing short perp positions with nearly equal spot purchases of the underlying asset, Abraxas can harvest those funding payments while staying roughly market-neutral.

This approach has been particularly visible in how Abraxas handles its HYPE exposure. The firm has paired its $141.6 million HYPE short with spot purchases of the token, creating a hedged position that profits from the funding rate differential rather than from HYPE’s price falling.

The ETH withdrawals from Binance fit the same pattern. Pulling $173.17 million in ETH to cold storage or self-custody wallets while holding $193.9 million in ETH shorts creates a nearly balanced book.

What this signals for the broader market Abraxas has demonstrated flexibility before. The firm reduced its short exposure from $760 million in November 2025 down to approximately $270 million, showing it’s willing to cut and re-enter rather than ride positions into oblivion. The current buildup back toward $600 million suggests the firm sees favorable funding-rate conditions worth capturing at scale.

Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.

Fintech

23 August 2026 | 15:11 Pump’s full platform collected more fees than Hyperliquid in the latest snapshot, yet Hyperliquid sent more revenue into a HYPE buy-and-burn loop that directly shapes its token economics.

Key Takeaways Pump’s full stack generated $4.82M daily fees. Hyperliquid produced $2.37M in daily revenue. Eligible fees automatically purchase and burn HYPE. Both platforms monetise trading through distinct mechanics. Pump’s reported PUMP buybacks reached $941,387. Gross Fees Make a Misleading Headline The headline numbers suggest Pump is pulling far ahead of Hyperliquid, but raw fee totals mask a clear shift in actual protocol revenue.

DefiLlama’s Pump dashboard showed $4.82 million in 24-hour fees across its full platform, combining Pump.fun, PumpSwap, and Terminal. Over the same rolling window, Hyperliquid generated $2.94 million. On gross fees alone, Pump wins by roughly 64%.

Revenue flips the script. Hyperliquid’s dashboard listed $2.37 million in daily revenue, beating Pump’s $1.84 million by $530,000 (roughly 29%).

Revenue is the cleaner metric here. Pump’s gross fee total counts funds passed directly to liquidity providers and token creators. Meanwhile, Hyperliquid’s gross fees include builder fees that bypass its Assistance Fund. Neither headline fee figure reflects what the protocol retains or routes back to token holders.

Scope also distorts the conversation. Isolating the Pump.fun launchpad alone yields just $1.50 million in fees and $1.15 million in revenue, making Hyperliquid look much larger by comparison. Looking at the full platform vs. individual product streams keeps the playing field fair.

Protocol Fee & Revenue Comparison Matrix

Hyperliquid vs. Pump ecosystem metrics

Metric / Focus Hyperliquid Pump (Full Stack / Ecosystem) Gross Daily Fees $2.94 million $4.82 million (Full platform) / $1.50M (Launchpad alone) Daily Net Revenue $2.37 million $1.84 million (Full) / $1.15M (Launchpad alone) Token Buyback / Burn Mechanism Automatic daily purchase and permanent burn of HYPE via Assistance Fund (~$2.37M daily flow). PUMP buybacks executed from on-chain burns totaling $941,387. Core Engine & Model Perpetual derivatives, spot trading, and expanded builder markets (HIP-3). Token launches, bonding curves, and post-migration PumpSwap trading. ■ Protocol Revenue vs Fee Breakdown

 How Hyperliquid Converts Fees to HYPE Demand HYPE hit an all-time high of $82.43 on August 22 before settling near $79.22. Its tokenomics design is central to that price action.

Hyperliquid’s documentation details how its Assistance Fund automatically converts trading fees into HYPE as part of L1 execution. That acquired HYPE is then permanently burned, taking it out of total circulation.

DefiLlama routes 99% of qualifying perpetual fees (minus builder fees) and 99% of eligible spot fees into this fund. Its 24-hour revenue and holders-revenue readings sit aligned at $2.37 million, providing a direct live metric for the value entering the HYPE buy-and-burn mechanism.

At $79.22 per HYPE, that daily flow equals roughly 30,000 HYPE. While actual purchases fluctuate with live execution prices, the core mechanic remains fixed: qualifying trading revenue creates steady buying pressure, permanently locking those tokens out of circulation.

Separately, HYPE paid in successful HIP-1 token auctions is also burned. Because this is an episodic deployment cost rather than recurring trading revenue, it isn’t included in the daily $2.37 million run rate.

Spot Tokens vs. Perpetual Risk Pump is far more than a launchpad. Traders buy and sell tokens on its bonding curves from second one, continuing on PumpSwap post-migration. Its bonding-curve specs outline a 1.25% trading fee split between the protocol and token creators before liquidity transfers out.

Hyperliquid handles spot trading too, but perpetual derivatives are its real engine. Traders take leveraged long or short positions, settle funding, and manage liquidations without touching the underlying asset. Through HIP-3, third-party builders can deploy perp markets for equities, indices, ETFs, and commodities, running as USDC-margined contracts on Hyperliquid infrastructure via TradeXYZ.

Holding an Nvidia or gold perp on Hyperliquid isn’t equity ownership, it’s cash-settled price exposure backed by builder oracle rules. Pump users swap actual spot crypto tokens. This creates two entirely different business models: Pump monetizes token launches and spot volatility, while Hyperliquid extracts value from traders continuously repositioning leverage across broad markets.

Pump’s Own Buyback Machine Hyperliquid isn’t alone in supporting its token. DefiLlama tracks $941,387 in 24-hour holders revenue for Pump, reflecting PUMP buybacks executed from on-chain burns across its products.

The mechanics differ significantly. Pump’s reported buybacks combine multiple product activities and don’t sum directly with its $1.84 million revenue figure. Hyperliquid’s holders-revenue figure mirrors daily revenue directly because tracking models assign the full qualifying Assistance Fund flow straight to HYPE holders.

The reality? Both protocols actively buy back their tokens. Hyperliquid simply routes about 2.5 times as much value into its holder mechanism ($2.37 million vs $941,387) and burns the acquired HYPE automatically.

A Sustainable Trend, Not a Liquidation Spike Hyperliquid logged $6.84 billion in perpetual volume over the last snapshot, just 3% above its 30-day daily average of $6.65 billion ($199.5 billion total).

Liquidation data tells a similar story. Daily liquidations hit $55.06 million, comfortably below the protocol’s 30-day average of $78.5 million daily ($2.36 billion monthly total).

This proves the latest buy-and-burn volume wasn’t driven by a single liquidation cascade. Generating $39.74 million in revenue over the past month shows Hyperliquid’s buyback engine is backed by steady daily trading activity rather than short-lived volatility.

Pump took home more gross fees across its Solana ecosystem, but Hyperliquid generated more net revenue and directed a bigger slice straight into automated HYPE burns. While token burns aren’t the sole driver behind HYPE’s run to $82, the continuous, data-backed demand provides strong fundamental support.

Methodology: Figures were captured from DefiLlama’s live Hyperliquid, Pump and Pump.fun dashboards on August 23, 2026, at 12:00 UTC. Fee, revenue, volume and holders-revenue metrics are rolling measures and change continuously. The article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.

Author

Kosta has reported on cryptocurrency markets and blockchain infrastructure since 2020, bringing over six years of hands-on experience in the crypto industry built through daily tracking of markets, trends, and emerging blockchain developments. Specializing in Bitcoin on-chain analysis, institutional ETF flows, and digital asset price action, his work at Coindoo has been cited by other news agencies and consistently covers market developments with a focus on data-driven reporting across Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, and XRP. Over the years, Kosta has contributed to multiple crypto media outlets in different regions, authoring over 6,000 articles across the sector. His reporting spans cryptocurrency markets and the broader fintech industry, tracking not only price action but also the technological and regulatory forces shaping the ecosystem. To support his analysis, Kosta actively leverages on-chain data and metrics from leading platforms such as Santiment, Glassnode, and CryptoQuant, enabling deeper, evidence-based market insights. He believes in the power of transparency and the data that underpins the blockchain ecosystem. His academic background in Marketing Management from Denmark further complements his analytical approach, adding a strong understanding of communication strategy and content positioning to his work.

https://www.blocmates.com/articles/a-complete-guide-to-hyperliquid

Hyperliquid, a decentralized perpetual futures exchange, reported significant growth in fee revenue for August, marking a 31% increase compared to the previous year. This surge is attributed to higher volume, an increase in active users, and an expanded market share. The exchange’s native asset, HYPE, has seen a notable upward movement, reflecting positive market sentiment and increased on-chain activity. The latest data suggests that HYPE’s price hovers around $73.53.

Advertisement

In the prediction market, the odds for Hyperliquid reaching $100 by the end of 2026 have increased, suggesting a more optimistic outlook from market participants. The current pricing shows a 42.5% chance of Hyperliquid reaching the $100 mark by December 31, up from 16% a week ago. This change is supported by the recent financial results, which appear consistent with the scenario where Hyperliquid continues its upward trajectory.

Key Takeaways Market activity suggests that participants view Hyperliquid’s recent performance as supportive of a YES outcome for reaching $100 by year-end. The 31% year-over-year increase in fee revenue appears consistent with positive sentiment towards Hyperliquid’s growth prospects. HYPE’s price increase and market dynamics may indicate strengthened confidence among participants in the decentralized perpetuals sector. What to Watch Watch for upcoming developments, such as potential announcements of partnerships or new integrations that could further influence Hyperliquid’s competitive position. Additionally, any shifts in market share or changes in user engagement metrics could impact the prediction market’s current outlook. The evolving sentiment around Hyperliquid’s performance will be crucial in determining future price movements and market expectations.

Get live prediction-market analysis, powered by Vera. Sign up for Vera.

Term Structure

Contract Odds Δ since publish Volume 24h December 31 42.5% — — View market → January 1 2027 3.6% — — View market → January 1 2027 2.9% — — View market → January 1 2027 82% — — View market → January 1 2027 5.7% — — View market → January 1 2027 3.1% — — View market → January 1 2027 54.5% — — View market →

Bitcoin is surging again. The cryptocurrency climbed above $78,200 on Friday for the first time since May. But it wasn’t the only crypto asset posting big gains. Hyperliquid, the decentralized perpetual futures exchange, reached a record $75, leaving its HYPE token up over 195% so far this year, according to CoinGecko.

Hyperliquid’s gains have drawn market share that might otherwise have flowed into Bitcoin, according to Ish Asad, a research analyst at crypto index fund manager Bitwise Investments.

“If Hyperliquid and perpetual futures weren’t so popular, people would just be buying spot Bitcoin,” Asad told Fortune.

Hyperliquid, which lets users trade through self-custody wallets rather than a traditional centralized exchange, has emerged as a major force in crypto derivatives trading over the past year. During the first quarter of 2026, the platform processed more than $633 billion in combined spot and perpetual futures volume, over six times its total during the second quarter of 2024, according to investment manager VanEck.

Its growing success has “sucked away volume” from direct purchases of smaller crypto tokens. Perpetual futures let traders speculate on a cryptocurrency’s price, often with leverage, without buying or holding the token itself, making the platform attractive to active traders.

“All the crypto trading happens on Hyperliquid now, so most of the other crypto assets are getting less buying pressure,” Asad added. 

Hyperliquid’s most recent price jump came two days after President Donald Trump said his administration was working to bring the platform to the U.S.

“I understand that [Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chair] Mike [Selig] is also working to bring Hyperliquid into the United States in a fully compliant and legal fashion, working very hard on that,” Trump said at a White House event. 

Behind the rally Despite Hyperliquid drawing some capital away from direct Bitcoin purchases, the cryptocurrency still gained nearly 25% over the past week. Macro factors, including the Treasury Department’s recent bond-buyback announcement, helped set the rally in motion, but Asad said liquidations drove Bitcoin’s most recent surge.

On Tuesday, as Bitcoin traded around $64,000, traders liquidated $1.3 billion in short positions in a single day. Another $1 billion in Bitcoin shorts were liquidated over the following 48 hours, bringing the week’s total to $4.5 billion, according to Bitwise.

Political developments also helped support the rally. At a meeting with crypto industry leaders this week, Trump urged Congress to pass the Clarity Act, a bill that would establish a long-awaited market structure framework for digital assets. On Thursday, Selig said he had directed the CFTC to begin developing clearer crypto rules if Congress does not pass the legislation before the end of the year.

In the meantime, worries over U.S. debt surpassing $40 trillion and a weakening U.S. dollar have renewed investor interest in alternative assets such as gold and Bitcoin.