Author: 137Labs
The decentralized perpetual contract sector entered a significant watershed stage in 2026.
After a prolonged competition for subsidies and liquidity, the market began to refocus on a more fundamental question:
Which protocols truly possess the ability to convert trading activities into sustainable value?
In this context, the discussion around Hyperliquid gradually shifted from "trading volume growth" to more fundamental structural issues—Is the revenue stable? How is profit distributed? Is supply controllable? And does its market position have long-term viability?
This article will explore four core dimensions: profit structure, buyback mechanism, team unlocking process, and market share, attempting to restore the real value loop that Hyperliquid is currently building.
Profit Structure: From Traffic-Driven to Cash Flow-Driven
Hyperliquid's core revenue source is highly concentrated on perpetual contract trading fees.
Unlike many decentralized protocols that rely heavily on incentives, its trading activity is not entirely based on subsidies but rather stems from matching efficiency, liquidity depth, and the attraction to professional traders.
At the beginning of 2026, a noteworthy change was observed: the trading activity of non-crypto asset themes (especially precious metal contracts) significantly increased. This type of trading does not entirely depend on crypto market sentiment but is closer to traditional derivatives trading behavior, structurally enhancing the stability of the platform's fee income.
This is crucial because it means Hyperliquid's revenue is not solely tied to a single market cycle but is attempting to expand into a broader range of trading demand sources.
As a result, Hyperliquid has begun to exhibit characteristics of a "revenue-generating protocol":
Increased trading volume → Corresponding growth in fees → Formation of sustainable protocol cash flow.
Profit Flow and Buyback Mechanism: How Value Returns to the Token Layer
Unlike many DeFi projects that choose "high emission incentives," Hyperliquid adopts a path closer to traditional finance: systematically using protocol revenue to buy back HYPE.
Its operational logic can be summarized in three steps:
- Perpetual contract fees generate protocol revenue.
- Revenue enters a dedicated fund pool (commonly referred to as the Assistance Fund).
- The fund pool continuously buys back HYPE in the secondary market, accompanied by destruction or long-term locking.
The importance of this design lies not in "how high the ratio is," but in the continuity and traceability of the buyback behavior.
Buybacks are not a one-time event but occur dynamically with changes in trading activity, establishing a direct link between token value and platform operational results.
Structurally, this mechanism brings two significant impacts:
- Platform growth is no longer reflected solely in "usage data" but is transformed into real buying pressure.
- The pricing logic of HYPE begins to align with "cash flow-mapped assets."
In the current DeFi ecosystem, such designs remain relatively scarce, which is a key reason why Hyperliquid can gain higher fundamental attention.
Team Unlocking Process: Is Supply Pressure Overestimated?
Regarding the team unlocking issue of HYPE, common market discussions often focus on "whether the unlocking date is approaching," but this perspective alone is insufficient to assess real risks.
More importantly, it is the unlocking structure and the behavior post-unlocking.
From publicly available information, HYPE's team and core contributors' tokens are gradually entering circulation through a cliff + linear vesting method, rather than a concentrated release. This means that the new supply is smoothed over time, allowing the market to digest it.
More critically, the theoretical unlocking amount does not equal actual selling pressure.
In historical unlocking windows, some unlocked tokens did not immediately enter the secondary market but continued to participate in staking or ecosystem activities, resulting in actual selling volumes significantly lower than the accounted new circulation.
In this process, the protocol-level buyback mechanism plays a hedging role:
When unlocking occurs, if the buyback scale can cover potential selling pressure, the impact of supply shocks on price structure will be significantly weakened.
Therefore, unlocking itself is not a systematic bearish signal; what truly needs attention is:
Whether the net selling after unlocking continues to exceed the absorption capacity of buybacks and new demand.
Market Share: Does Scale Leadership Have Sustainability?
In the decentralized perpetual contract sector, Hyperliquid has long maintained a leading position, but describing its market position solely with "trading volume share" is insufficient.
A more explanatory approach is the combination of two dimensions:
- Trading Volume: Reflects market heat and participation frequency.
- Open Interest: Reflects the willingness of real funds to stay.
Compared to trading volume, which can be easily inflated by short-term incentives, open interest better reflects the platform's capital stickiness. From this dimension, Hyperliquid has maintained its lead across multiple time windows, indicating that it attracts not just short-term traffic but also sustained trading capital.
Its competitive advantage is not a single factor but a multi-layered overlay:
- Depth and matching efficiency create path dependence for professional traders.
- Scale advantages continuously reinforce network effects.
- The buyback mechanism feeds growth back to the token layer, enhancing long-term expectations.
This makes Hyperliquid closer to "on-chain derivatives infrastructure" rather than easily replicable functional products.
Is the Value Loop Established?
By merging the above four dimensions, a clear logical chain can be observed:
- Market share and trading activity bring stable fee income.
- Fee income is transformed into continuous buybacks through the fund pool.
- Buybacks hedge potential pressure from unlocking on the supply side.
- The stability of the supply-demand structure, in turn, supports the platform ecosystem and capital retention.
The advantage of this structure lies in its high transparency, verifiability, and independence from a single narrative.
However, it is also important to point out its vulnerabilities:
The entire system is highly dependent on trading activity.
If the market enters a long-term low-volatility phase, derivative demand will decline, and the intensity of buybacks will also weaken, which is a core risk that this model cannot avoid.
In Conclusion
If Hyperliquid is only viewed as a "rapidly rising token," it is easy to miss the point.
What is more worth paying attention to is that it is attempting to turn on-chain derivatives into a business with cash flow, returns, and discipline. This is not common in DeFi.
The long-term value of HYPE does not depend on short-term market conditions but on whether this chain can continue to operate under different market environments.
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。
