The focus of the margin contract market is rapidly gravitating towards Hyperliquid: on one side are long whales who have been continuously accumulating positions and betting on price range breakthroughs over the past two months, while on the other side are short whales who have recorded about $33 million in profits from high-leverage shorts. Jinse Finance cites data from Onchainlens, stating that the whale address @0x58bro deposited 3,811 ETH (about $9.03 million) to Binance over the past month, leaving only 0.5 ETH on-chain, while still holding a 25x leveraged ETH short and a 40x leveraged BTC short on Hyperliquid, totaling profits of approximately $33 million. This inflow and outflow clearly outlines a typical path of "off-chain cashing out + on-chain high-leverage hedging."

In contrast, glassnode reported on April 24, 2026, through multiple media outlets that large perpetual contract traders on Hyperliquid have continuously increased long positions over the past two months, betting on price breakouts from the current range and demonstrating a strong bullish sentiment for BTC's subsequent market. Bullish whales’ chips are accumulating on Hyperliquid, while short whales are utilizing high leverage and cross-platform capital allocation to form a highly tense long-short standoff structure on the platform.

In terms of revenue volume, Hyperliquid has not yet matched the fee scale of leading public chains. Odaily Planet Daily reported on April 24 at 16:02, citing Artemis data that Ethereum earned $2.7 million in transaction fees within 24 hours, significantly higher than Hyperliquid's $1.7 million. Even though long and short whales have formed a high-leverage game on Hyperliquid, its fee income still lags behind Ethereum by about $1 million, indicating that this long-short confrontation is occurring in an environment that is still expanding.

On the infrastructure side, capital and transaction access channels are being constructed simultaneously. TechFlow reported that on April 23, 2026, PrimePiper launched an enterprise-level prime broker platform for AI agents, now supporting unified access to several trading venues including Hyperliquid, OKX, Tiger Brokers, IBKR, etc. It provides enterprise-level API Key management, spending limits, circuit breaker mechanisms, and auditing capabilities, and has been selected for the latest Founders Inc incubator. As this type of infrastructure begins to natively support Hyperliquid, in the future, both AI trading strategies and institutional capital will have lower-friction access paths, further amplifying the potential evolution space for the current hedging pattern between bullish whales and short whales.

Bullish whales have been increasing positions for two consecutive months

With the access threshold further lowered by infrastructure, glassnode's on-chain and exchange monitoring results indicate that the financial side has already taken the lead. Odaily Planet Daily on April 24, 2026, cited its data, stating that whales on Hyperliquid have been "constantly betting on a breakout of the range" over the past two months, with bullish positions showing a steady upward trend. The core direction of their bets is a price breakout to the upside out of the current trading range, rather than simply participating in intraday fluctuations.

During the same time period, multiple media outlets have cross-referenced this conclusion. TechFlow reported on April 24, citing glassnode, that whales on Hyperliquid have not only continued to increase long positions over the past two months but also "anticipate a price breakout from the current range," with bullish confidence and positions rising in tandem. Foresight News also reiterated glassnode's viewpoint around 16:45-17:00 on the same day, clearly defining this group as "large perpetual contract traders on Hyperliquid," emphasizing their strong bullish sentiment for the subsequent market, especially for BTC. Different media releasing similar information within the same time window reinforced the market consensus that "the increase in long positions comes from large-scale perpetual participants."

From a market structure perspective, this sustained two-month long accumulation of bullish positions has more of an impact on Hyperliquid's perpetual market in the dimension of "possibility," but the direction can be broadly framed: first, the accumulation of bullish positions by whales theoretically helps to elevate the overall open interest and order book depth of the platform, providing liquidity buffers for subsequent large-scale transactions; second, if the leverage and position ratio on the bullish side continues to be high, funding rates may temporarily tilt unfavorably for the bulls to guide short positions to replenish; this mechanism, under the current structure, is likely to be amplified rather than weakened; third, given the high concentration of bullish positions, if the market does not upward break as expected, triggering concentrated profit-taking or forced liquidation, short-term volatility on Hyperliquid may be further amplified. The aforementioned impacts do not yet have definitive evidence and can only be viewed as a cautious extrapolation of potential market evolution paths based on the position structure disclosed by glassnode.

It is noteworthy that Odaily's evening news on April 24 at 19:29 included glassnode's information regarding the increase of bullish positions by Hyperliquid whales as a key news item of the day, presented alongside that day's fee data, objectively raising the profile of this bullish behavior among market participants and laying the groundwork for how subsequent capital may follow or hedge against this "two-month accumulation" force.

Short whales cash out $30 million in gains

Before the narrative of bullish whale accumulation was amplified, on-chain data provided another clue. From noon to afternoon on April 23, Onchainlens's monitoring indicated that whale address @0x58bro deposited 2,791 ETH, approximately $6.64 million, to Binance in the past 24 hours; the total deposited in the past month reached 3,811 ETH, about $9.03 million. Jinse Finance further pointed out that this address currently has about 0.5 ETH left on-chain, which means that the vast majority of its previously accumulated ETH spot chips have been concentrated and transferred to the exchange, with almost empty on-chain positions.

In contrast to a simple "cashing out," this flow of funds has not ended on the derivatives side. The same data cited by Jinse Finance mentions that @0x58bro still holds a 25x leveraged ETH short and a 40x leveraged BTC short on Hyperliquid, with total profits of around $33 million. In other words, this account is cashing out or reallocating spot profits by depositing large amounts of ETH into Binance while maintaining a high-leverage directional short, continuing to bet on the continuation of the current trend, thus playing a significant short role in the overall long-short structure.

Chronologically, this series of actions on-chain and at the contract layer occurred from noon to afternoon on April 23, just before glassnode's public statement about the bullish accumulation by Hyperliquid whales on April 24. Overlapping this, on one side is the bullish whale that has continuously increased positions for two months betting on the range breakthrough, while on the other side is the short whale that has already achieved approximately $33 million in paper profits, still maintaining a 25x ETH short and a 40x BTC short. The confrontation of long and short forces has been structurally amplified.

In the context of warming bullish sentiment, such high-leverage, high-profit short positions may lead to two completely different scenarios: first, if the price continues to evolve in favor of the shorts, high-leverage shorts can withstand longer periods of volatility due to existing profit cushions, suppressing chasing high long positions; second, if the price significantly deviates toward the bulls, these positions may, in extreme cases, become a potential incremental force for passive liquidation and reverse buying. It is important to emphasize that the above is based solely on the currently disclosed data scenarios and is not a definitive judgment of future market directions but rather a warning that beyond the bullish whale narrative on Hyperliquid, there is still a heavyweight short force in play.

Ethereum fees pressuring Hyperliquid

In the face of increasingly intense confrontations between whales, shifting the focus from individual positions back to "the overall ledger," a key reference comes from fee income. Odaily Planet Daily on April 24, 2026, at 16:02 cited Artemis data, stating that Ethereum earned about $2.7 million in transaction fees within 24 hours, while Hyperliquid earned about $1.7 million in the same time window. A simple comparison shows that Hyperliquid's current 24-hour fee volume is roughly equivalent to about two-thirds of Ethereum's, with a gap nearing $1 million.

This comparison first presents the difference in "volume level"—in the same 24-hour window, the total fees paid by users for on-chain interactions on Ethereum are significantly higher than the fees paid by Hyperliquid users for trading activities. As a result, Ethereum's network carried a higher total economic activity during that day and correspondingly placed higher costs on its users; meanwhile, despite high-frequency reallocations by whales and direct confrontations of longs and shorts, Hyperliquid's fee income remains distinctly lower than Ethereum's.

The reason fee income is repeatedly compared is that it simultaneously overlays three layers of meaning:
● For public chains, fees represent "congestion fees" for on-chain interactions; generally, higher amounts indicate transaction activity and usage intensity at a high level;
● For trading platforms, fees are a "transaction tax" for settlement actions; the scale depends on trading volume and fee structure level;
● For users, all these revenues represent locked-in cost expenditures, which determine part of their willingness to participate and behavioral boundaries.

From this perspective, the $2.7 million / $1.7 million comparison between Ethereum and Hyperliquid indicates not only that the former's overall activity is denser within that day but also that Hyperliquid's current usage intensity and platform monetization capabilities have not reached the same level as leading public chains. It is worth noting that the report did not provide a detailed breakdown of Hyperliquid's fee structure (such as the ratio of matching fees to funding fees), so we cannot determine which type of business is the primary source of income, and related inferences can only stay at the possible explanations at the mechanism level, not conclusions.

Returning to the scene where bullish whales coexist with high-leverage shorts, this fee difference invites two opposing interpretative paths. On one hand, Artemis data shows that Hyperliquid's 24-hour fee income has reached the $1.7 million level, indicating that the current long-short battle revolving around BTC and ETH perpetual contracts has already accumulated considerable income on the platform, providing a "cash flow basis" for further product optimization and liquidity competition; on the other hand, compared to Ethereum's network-level income of about $2.7 million, Hyperliquid's income is still in a clear catch-up phase; its users' payment costs and overall trading scale have not yet entered the same echelon, implying that there is potential upwards space and adjustment leeway in trading volume and pricing strategies in the future.

However, this gap cannot be directly extrapolated to "inevitably catch up" or "certainly lag behind" conclusions. Fee income is merely a result at a given time slice, constrained by short-term market fluctuations and the trading tempo of whales, as well as more extended cycles of product iteration and competitive landscape changes. What we can currently confirm is that Hyperliquid, under the support of bullish whale narratives and complex long-short structures, has already entered the range of daily income at the million-dollar level, but still remains in a growth phase compared to Ethereum; as for whether this "pressured state" will evolve into catching up or surpassing, or maintaining the gap, will need longer timelines of on-chain and platform data for validation.

AI brokers introduce new capital guidance

To keep the operation of the whales and complex long-short structure sustained, relying only on the iterative development of a single platform is not enough; upstream infrastructure needs to bring in more capital and strategies. On April 23, 2026, TechFlow reported that PrimePiper announced the launch of an enterprise-level prime broker platform aimed at AI agents, closely timed with Hyperliquid's shift to million-dollar fee income levels, providing a clear technological entry point for subsequent new capital guidance.

From a structural perspective, PrimePiper supports unified access for multiple trading venues at the infrastructure level, with the first batch covering mainstream platforms like Hyperliquid, OKX, Tiger Brokers, and IBKR. For funds or trading teams, this means they can integrate their AI agents into different derivative and brokerage platforms through a single access system without the need to separately maintain risk control and access logic for each individual firm. Thus, Hyperliquid is incorporated within the same "centralized control panel," able to be routed alongside traditional brokerage platforms.

Unlike a simple "aggregation API," PrimePiper has imposed relatively granular constraints on AI agents in terms of risk control and compliance capabilities. TechFlow reported that the platform provides enterprise-level API Key management, spending limits, and circuit breaker mechanisms:
● By centralizing API Key management, the permissions of different strategies and trading teams are separated to reduce the risks of singular key leakage or permission abuse;
● Setting funding "guardrails" with spending limits for AI agents to prevent models from amplifying positions due to misjudgments or parameter anomalies under extreme market conditions;
● In the event of unusual volatility or strategy failure, using circuit breaker mechanisms to halt orders, providing a window for manual intervention from the platform and capital parties.

In terms of compliance and auditing, PrimePiper offers audit-level reporting capabilities to funds and traders, ensuring that cross-platform instructions issued through the platform can be uniformly traced back to specific strategies, specific permissions, and specific timestamps. TechFlow also disclosed that PrimePiper has been selected for the latest Founders Inc incubator and is currently in the Alpha stage, with team members from Galois Capital, Kraken, DRW, and AWS. This combination of backgrounds reflects its positioning towards institutions and professional trading teams, rather than light tools aimed at retail investors.

For Hyperliquid, the launch of such AI broker-type infrastructure does not equate to immediately gaining new trading volume, but at least clears the technological pathway connecting AI agents, fund accounts, and platform order books. In the future, if more funds and quantitative teams choose to route their AI strategies uniformly via PrimePiper, then:
● Hyperliquid, as an already integrated venue, has a chance to accommodate some of the new order flow;
● Strategy combinations may no longer be limited to single-direction long or short, but instead build more complex hedging, spreads, and volatility structures across different platforms.

It should be emphasized that PrimePiper is currently still in the Alpha stage, and relevant integration scale and actual transaction volume have not had public data; whether AI agents connected to Hyperliquid through this platform will evolve into substantial new capital strength remains a potential direction rather than a foregone conclusion. However, from the on-chain and platform-side narratives of bullish whales to the deployment of upstream AI broker infrastructure, Hyperliquid at least meets the necessary preconditions for "being integrated" in terms of attracting more complex institutions and AI strategies.

The next steps in the long-short battle

From the disclosed data, Hyperliquid is currently in a stage where long and short forces are highly intertwined. On one side are the bullish positions that glassnode has observed have been increasing over the past two months, reflecting large perpetual contract traders' strong bullish expectations for range breakthroughs and further BTC market; on the other side is the information revealed by Onchainlens that @0x58bro maintains a 25x ETH short and a 40x BTC short on Hyperliquid, with paper profits of around $33 million and has cumulatively deposited 3,811 ETH into Binance in the near month. The two sets of data are close in time, indicating that during the same phase, there are simultaneously high-confidence bullish accumulations and high-profit short positions on the platform, with both long and short capital actively engaging rather than withdrawing on one side.

From a volume perspective, the fee comparison provided by Artemis offers an important reference: Ethereum recorded $2.7 million in fee income within a certain 24-hour period, significantly higher than Hyperliquid's $1.7 million. This suggests that Hyperliquid, compared to Ethereum’s mainnet, still has a significant gap in income and potential trading activity; the current long-short battle on the platform is occurring in an environment that has yet to fully unleash its potential, indicating further upward opportunities in trading volume. In other words, the ongoing whale confrontation is already intense enough, but from the income scale perspective, there is still room for more funds of various directions and styles to enter in the future.

On the infrastructure side, on April 23, 2026, PrimePiper announced the launch of an enterprise-level prime broker platform aimed at AI agents and incorporated Hyperliquid into its unified access and risk control system. Combined with the enterprise-grade API Key management, spending limits, circuit breaker mechanisms, and audit-level reporting capabilities it offers, it can be determined that both institutional capital and AI-driven automated strategies are now technically equipped with channels for bulk access to Hyperliquid. Considering that positions at 25x and 40x leverage levels are already observable on the platform, once more such funds actually land through channels like PrimePiper, Hyperliquid may likely operate within a pattern of high volatility, high leverage, and liquidity expansion coexisting in the future—where market fluctuations are amplified while order book depth also has the chance to be further filled.

It should be emphasized that this discussion strictly relies on publicly available news and monitoring data between April 23 and 24, 2026: including glassnode's view on the bullish accumulation of Hyperliquid whales, Onchainlens's tracking of @0x58bro's short positions and capital flows, Artemis's fee income comparison between Ethereum and Hyperliquid, and information regarding PrimePiper's access to Hyperliquid. These pieces of information construct a window of concentrated exposure for platform capital behavior, infrastructure layout, and revenue performance in the short term, but all judgments regarding price directions, capital flows, and volatility patterns are based on the potential scenarios of the current sample, rather than definitive predictions. For readers who have already engaged or are preparing to engage in trading on Hyperliquid, it is essential to remain aware of the interpretative boundaries when reading various on-chain and platform data, and to maintain caution regarding the leverage multiples, risk exposure, and strategy assumptions employed to avoid amplifying uncontrollable losses in high-volatility environments dominated by long and short whales.

Join our community to discuss and grow stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX benefit group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance benefit group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。