一文速览Hyperliquid生态热门项目

Odaily星球日报Pubblicato 2025-06-20Pubblicato ultima volta 2025-06-20

Introduzione

大部分项目仍在进行积分活动，或将近期进行TGE。

原创 | Odaily星球日报（@OdailyChina）

作者 | Asher（@Asher_ 0210 ）

一文速览Hyperliquid生态热门项目

HyperSwap：Hyperliquid 生态头部 DEX

一文速览Hyperliquid生态热门项目

HyperSwap 是 Hyperliquid 生态上原生 DEX，当前 TVL 近 8000 万美元，每日交易量在 5000 至 6000 万美元，其产品愿景为将 DeFi 的精髓引入 HyperEVM 链、为生态系统用户提供无需许可的高效工具等。

目前，HyperSwap 仍在进行积分活动，包括 HyperSwap 积分与忠诚度积分，用户可通过在平台组 LP 活动积分奖励博未来代币空投。

Kittenswap：Hyperliquid 生态头部 DEX

一文速览Hyperliquid生态热门项目

Kittenswap 为 Hyperliquid 生态上的头部 DEX，当前 TVL 超 3000 万美元，每日交易量在 1000 至 2000 万美元。用户可以在平台提供代币流动性获得对应的积分奖励，博未来的代币空投，为了鼓励用户参与，Kittenswap 官方计划将代币空投的比例从 30% 提高至 35% 。

一文速览Hyperliquid生态热门项目

积分活动示意图

目前，Kittenswap 积分活动已结束，其他积分相关活动或将在近期公布，值得关注。

Unit：Hyperliquid 生态跨链项目

一文速览Hyperliquid生态热门项目

Unit 是 Hyperliquid 上的跨链项目，支持多种资产的无缝存取，目前支持加密资产如 BTC、ETH、SOL、FARTCOIN 在 Hyperliquid 及其原生区块链之间流动。使用 Unit，Hyperliquid 用户可以：

将 BTC、ETH、SOL、FARTCOIN 从个人钱包或交易账户直接存入 Hyperliquid；
在 Hyperliquid 的现货订单簿上交易、转移或以其他方式利用这些主要资产以及现有资产；
将资产直接提取到相应资产的原生区块链上的地址。

根据社区反馈，Unit 或将在近几个月发币，因此可在其平台存取款 BTC、ETH、SOL、FARTCOIN 四种资产，或在 Hyperliquid 交易这四种资产的现货买卖。

Felix：Hyperliquid 生态头部 DeFi 项目

一文速览Hyperliquid生态热门项目

Felix 是一个部署在 Hyperliquid L1 上的 DeFi 协议，致力于为用户提供安全、低摩擦、风险可控的流动性释放与收益获取方式，平台目前提供两大核心功能模块：

CDP 市场：这是一个基于 Liquity v2 架构设计的借贷系统，用户可以通过抵押资产（如 BTC、HYPE）铸造平台原生稳定币 feUSD。该市场通过聚合 feUSD 借款人和稳定池存款人，形成一个稳定的货币市场；
Vanilla 市场：这是一个实时撮合资产出借人与抵押借款人的市场，与 CDP 模块不同，Vanilla 市场不设固定利率、不提供赎回机制，借贷利率完全由资金利用率自动调整，市场化程度更高。

目前 Felix 正在开展积分激励活动。用户不仅可以通过抵押资产铸造 feUSD 稳定币获取积分，也可以将 feUSD 存入平台稳定池赚取额外积分，用于未来空投或其他奖励机制。

HypurrFi：Hyperliquid 生态头部 DeFi 项目

一文速览Hyperliquid生态热门项目

HypurrFi 是一个专注于提供去中心化金融借贷和收益增值服务的平台。HypurrFi 允许用户存入原生 Hyperliquid 资产并借入 USDXL 以获取杠杆收益。其应用的主要功能包括稳定收益、质押资产赚取收益、借贷与循环操作等。致力于将波动的收益稳定为以 UST 为支撑的稳定币 USDXL，目前平台 USDXL 借款年利率为 16.18%。

具体参与 HypurrFi 交互的方式如下：

抵押借贷：将 HYPE 等资产作为抵押，借出平台稳定币 USDXL，需密切关注账户“健康度”，以避免因抵押比例过低而被清算；
金库存款：将手中的 USDXL 存入金库，不仅可以获得稳定收益，还能积累 HypurrFi 积分，用于未来奖励或活动兑换；
交易参与：在 HypurrFi 平台上进行代币兑换或其他交易操作，有助于提升个人账户的链上活跃度；
跨链交互：支持通过 HypurrFi 的跨链桥，将资产从其他链转入平台，参与更多生态玩法。

HyperLend：Hyperliquid 生态头部 DeFi 项目

一文速览Hyperliquid生态热门项目

HyperLend 是 Hyperliquid 生态中的借贷协议，当前 TVL 已超 3 亿美元，是整个 HyperEVM 生态中仅次于 Hyperliquid 的协议。目前参与交互的方式为：

参与平台借贷：存入 BTC、ETH 或 HYPE 等资产为平台提供流动性，可获得年化收益和积分奖励；
好友邀请获返佣：通过邀请码邀请好友，不仅可以获得返佣，还能获取邀请积分。

Drip.Trade：Hyperliquid 生态 NFT 市场

一文速览Hyperliquid生态热门项目

Drip.Trade 是 Hyperliquid 生态 NFT 市场，Drip.Trade 覆盖了 Hyperliquid 生态上 NFT 的全流程服务，从发行到交易一站式完成，目前几乎所有 Hyperliquid 生态上的 NFT 项目都是通过该平台发布的。目前参与交互的方式为：

买卖 NFT，刷交易量：通过 HYPE 代币在 Drip.Trade 买卖热门 NFT 来刷交易量；
持有官方 NFT 博空投：Hypers 是 Drip.Trade 的官方 NFT，目前 Hypers NFT 的地板价是 4.6 HYPE ，NFT 数量为 8888 个。

一文速览Hyperliquid生态热门项目

Hypers NFT 合集

此外，忠诚度越高，积分加成越多，最高可达 100%。当用户拥有 100% 忠诚度、且有 25 枚 HYPE 的交易记录时，可以在平台内每天签到，玩转盘游戏赚取更多的积分。

Letture associate

Glue Finance Founder: ETH Has Entered a Phase of Non-Consensus, an Inflection Point Is Approaching

Glue Finance founder argues that Ethereum's current price underperformance, despite high on-chain activity, stems from its incomplete state and lingering dependency on central stewards like the Ethereum Foundation. The core thesis is that the market is discounting ETH not for lack of use, but because the protocol remains a "machine under construction." Key unresolved issues include centralized L2 sequencers with limited escape hatches, state bloat, vulnerable public mempools, and the looming quantum computing threat. This perpetual "work-in-progress" status forces reliance on a small group of maintainers, undermining the network's promise of credible neutrality and immutability. The author, a self-described Ethereum maximalist, rejects two flawed paths: a "wartime mode" of centralizing for speed (surrendering Ethereum's unique value) or merely replacing the Foundation with another governing entity. The only solution is to complete and then "freeze" the protocol's neutral core through a focused "Manhattan Project" dubbed "Lean Ethereum." This project aims to bundle critical upgrades—consensus layer overhaul, massive scaling via ZK-proofs, quantum resistance, and statelessness—into a decisive push to finalize the base layer. Once the core rules are cryptographically solidified and beyond anyone's control (passing the "walk-away test"), Ethereum would shed its dependency discount and earn a "rigidity premium" for its credible neutrality and programmability, potentially surpassing Bitcoin's valuation. The race is between completing this hardening and the risks of protocol capture or stagnation.

链捕手1 min fa

Glue Finance Founder: ETH Has Entered a Phase of Non-Consensus, an Inflection Point Is Approaching

链捕手1 min fa

Deconstructing HyperEVM: Which Applications Can Truly Reap the Core Benefits of Hyperliquid?

### Summary HyperEVM, positioned as a smart contract layer, enables applications to directly access and utilize HyperCore's trading, collateral, positions, and risk data. Its core value lies in making the exchange programmable, distinguishing it from typical "chain-first" approaches. Valuable HyperEVM-native applications must leverage EVM flexibility, rely on HyperCore's unique state, and enhance Hyperliquid's utility as a financial venue. Applications can be categorized within a 2x2 matrix based on their need for general EVM logic and integration with HyperCore. Key categories include: - **Local EVM Finance:** Portable DeFi primitives (e.g., AMMs, lending markets) that form the essential base layer. - **Core-Native Extensions:** Applications that tokenize or wrap Hyperliquid-native assets to enhance their utility. - **Programmable HyperCore:** The most promising category, where applications deeply integrate EVM logic with HyperCore's state and execution to create novel products. The ultimate vision is a unified financial account where a single user balance can seamlessly power trading, lending, yield generation, hedging, and payments, all built on HyperCore's robust infrastructure and controlled by the user via HyperEVM's open application layer.

Foresight News9 min fa

Deconstructing HyperEVM: Which Applications Can Truly Reap the Core Benefits of Hyperliquid?

Foresight News9 min fa

Hackers Steal Nearly $17 Million in 40 Days as 'Zombie Contracts' Become Their ATMs

According to an analysis published by ZeroDrift on June 22, 2026, attackers have stolen approximately $16.9 million over 40 days from five deprecated but still operational smart contracts across various blockchains. The primary issue is not a specific vulnerability but the incomplete decommissioning of legacy contracts. These "zombie contracts" often retain economic value, operational permissions, and callable functions, making them prime targets long after teams cease active development. The most significant loss occurred at DxSale, where an old locker contract lost about $7.3 million due to a forgotten control path becoming accessible again. Other affected projects include TrustedVolumes (~$5.87M), Raydium's legacy AMM pool (~$1.34M), Aztec Connect (~$2.28M), and Huma Finance V1 pool (~$101k). These incidents involved diverse systems—RFQ settlement, credit pools, liquidity lockers, AMMs—demonstrating the widespread nature of the risk. The analysis highlights that automated tools are lowering the cost for attackers to systematically scan for these long-tail targets, which have public code and weaker monitoring. In contrast, defensive practices for contract retirement remain underdeveloped. While the DeFi industry has mature audit processes for new deployments, it lacks strict protocols for securely sunsetting old contracts, which only become truly "retired" after all funds, permissions, authorizations, and trust assumptions are removed.

marsbit59 min fa

Hackers Steal Nearly $17 Million in 40 Days as 'Zombie Contracts' Become Their ATMs

marsbit59 min fa

Valuation Rout of Old Titans: The Demise of a Generation's Asset Valuation Framework

"The Old Titans' Valuation Collapse: The Death of an Era's Valuation Framework" Between Alibaba's 2014 NYSE debut at $93.89 and its 2026 price of ~$95, twelve years have passed with zero price appreciation. This stagnation symbolizes a wholesale valuation reset for an entire generation of Chinese internet assets. Companies like Tencent, Pinduoduo, Meituan, Bilibili, and Kuaishou have seen catastrophic declines of 80-98% from their peaks. The core question arises: what framework now prices these companies, or has the framework itself expired? The valuation logic for Chinese internet stocks followed a clear "anchor-setting and anchor-removing" process. From 2014-2017, the dominant narrative was "US comparable discounting" – applying a growth premium and governance discount to US peers' multiples. This anchor loosened with the 2018 US-China trade war and the VIE structure risk, then was violently uprooted by the 2020-2021 regulatory crackdowns (Ant Group, Didi, anti-monopoly fines). The 2022 delisting panic and subsequent 2025-2026 geopolitical shocks (US military lists, AI espionage accusations) completed the demolition. The old "US对标打折" model is dead. However, this is not solely a China story. A structural mirror exists in US "old titan" stocks ("老登股"). In 2026, even Microsoft – with robust fundamentals – saw its PE compress from a 34x median to 22x, its worst performer status among the "Magnificent Seven" driven by a $190 billion annual AI capex crushing free cash flow. The core dilemma is universal: legacy platform giants, whether Alibaba or Microsoft, are spending colossal sums to chase an AI paradigm that may颠覆 their own high-margin, user/subscription-based business models. They have shifted from "companies defining the future" to "companies needing to prove they won't be淘汰ed by the future." This phenomenon of a dying valuation坐标系 has a historical precedent: post-1989 Japan. After its bubble burst, the "Japan premium" narrative ("most efficient manufacturing + perpetual growth") collapsed. A 25-year valuation vacuum ensued until Warren Buffett provided a new language in the 2010s: "low valuation + high dividend + governance reform." China's internet sector is now in a similar vacuum six years into its reset. While different from Japan's deflationary context, the parallel is clear: the old macro assumption of "deep integration with global capital" is falsified, but a new pricing framework is absent. Potential "new languages" for Chinese internet valuations are contradictory. AI transformation requires gutting profitable core businesses (e.g., Alibaba's ad-driven e-commerce) for an unproven consumption-based model, risking a Microsoft-like cash flow crunch. Alternatively, shareholder returns (buybacks/dividends) could build a floor, following Buffett's Japanese playbook, but current scales are insufficient to form a standalone anchor. The current state mirrors mid-1990s Japan: the old framework is dead, the new one unborn. The market waits in a vacuum for a重新定义ing force – a person, event, or proven business model shift – to answer "why buy." This may only be the middle phase of a prolonged re-rating.

marsbit1 h fa

Valuation Rout of Old Titans: The Demise of a Generation's Asset Valuation Framework

marsbit1 h fa

STRC Trading at Significant Discount, mNAV Falls Below Break-Even, Strategy's Valuation Logic Has Been Rewritten

Title: STRC Deeply Discounted, mNAV Falls Below Break-even, Strategy's Valuation Logic Redefined The recent volatility in MSTR and STRC highlights the need to reassess the core business model of Bitcoin reserve companies. These entities function more like leveraged, single-asset banks rather than software/tech firms. Consequently, they should be valued using banking metrics, not based on their total Bitcoin holdings. The key valuation metric is mNAV (market net asset value), akin to a price-to-book ratio. It compares the company's market capitalization to the equity value of its Bitcoin holdings after deducting all senior debt and preferred equity (like STRC). As of June 24, Strategy's mNAV was 1.10x. The focus should be on "net Bitcoin per share" (the Bitcoin claim per share after senior claims) and its growth rate, equivalent to a bank's book value and return on assets. Given STRC's 19% discount to its $100 par value (yielding 14.2%), issuing new MSTR equity at the current price to buy more Bitcoin is inefficient. It slightly dilutes the widely watched "total Bitcoin per share" metric while providing minimal improvement to the more critical "net Bitcoin per share." The article analyzes four potential uses for $1 billion in new equity: 1. **Buy Bitcoin:** Least effective. Improves net Bitcoin per share only marginally while diluting total Bitcoin per share. 2. **Repurchase STRC:** Most effective for balance sheet repair. The discount creates immediate value, increasing net Bitcoin per share by 1.0%, reducing debt burden, and lowering future dividend obligations. 3. **Boost Cash Reserves:** Dramatically improves the "cash coverage ratio" for STRC dividends from 9.8 months to 16.8 months, a crucial liquidity metric in a tightening funding environment. 4. **50/50 Split (STRC buyback & cash):** A balanced approach improving all key metrics. Strategy's own Q1 report indicates its internal break-even mNAV for profitable equity issuance to buy Bitcoin is 1.22x. With the current mNAV at 1.10x, such a move would be value-destructive. The core assumptions of its previous expansion model—issuing STRC at par and maintaining ample dividend coverage—have broken down. The recommended path is to use new capital to optimize core financial health: repurchasing discounted STRC and/or bolstering cash reserves. This would repair the balance sheet, signal liquidity strength, support STRC's price, lower its yield, and potentially reopen the par-value issuance channel. The current STRC discount represents a low-cost capital opportunity to restart this positive cycle. Bitcoin reserve companies must be evaluated as banks, focusing on book value, leverage, and liquidity resilience.

Foresight News1 h fa

Trading

Spot