Author | Golem, Odaily Planet Daily
As TradeXYZ's business scale continues to expand, and it consistently occupies over 90% of the Hyperliquid HIP-3 market share, recent community discussions about the possibility of TradeXYZ breaking away from Hyperliquid to independently build its own trading platform have been intensifying.
Former Messari researcher Sam posted on the X platform, stating that as an investor bullish on HYPE due to the explosion of the RWA perpetual contract market, one should ask themselves three questions: First, if TradeXYZ leaves Hyperliquid and launches its own exchange, where will users go to trade; Second, what impact would TradeXYZ launching its own stock/token have on HYPE's valuation; Third, how high is the probability of the above two scenarios actually happening.
This post garnered over 470,000 views in just a few days. The reason for the rapid rise in discussion around this question is essentially that more and more market participants are beginning to realize that within the cooperative relationship between TradeXYZ and Hyperliquid, the value contribution of both parties is changing, with TradeXYZ gradually accumulating stronger market influence and bargaining power compared to Hyperliquid.
In business collaborations, once one party gradually gains more resources and market voice, and the distribution of benefits between the two becomes significantly skewed, "betrayal" often occurs.
A recent example comes from the AI industry. Cursor was once the largest programming AI Coding tool on the market, built on the underlying Claude model from Anthropic. They were a "golden duo" in terms of cooperation, until Anthropic made a betrayal—launching Claude Code, a direct competitor to Cursor. By mid-2026, Claude Code's ARR officially surpassed Cursor's, pushing it off the table.
The blockchain industry also has similar examples. When a single product becomes large, it often breaks away from its original infrastructure to build its own chain ecosystem, such as Uniswap, dYdX, etc. This cycle's hottest project, Polymarket, has also been rumored multiple times to be leaving the existing Polygon infrastructure to build independent infrastructure.
Returning to the current question, how likely is it for TradeXYZ to leave Hyperliquid and go its own way? If this situation were to actually happen, what impact would it have on both Hyperliquid and TradeXYZ? Odaily Planet Daily will provide a brief analysis in this article.
Is Going Solo Inevitable?
A phenomenon exists in the blockchain industry where projects start and grow on a public chain or infrastructure, and then later choose to build their own independent infrastructure (L2 or independent L1) for reasons of performance, control, underlying fee capture, or a bigger narrative for financing. TradeXYZ has indeed grown large enough now.
According to flowscan data, as of now, the total trading volume on Hyperliquid HIP-3 exceeds $469.62 billion, with TradeXYZ contributing over $437.4 billion, accounting for 93%; as of the time of writing, the total open interest (OI) on Hyperliquid HIP-3 reached $3.9 billion, with TradeXYZ contributing over $3.8 billion, accounting for 99.7%.
Total Hyperliquid HIP-3 Trading Volume and TradeXYZ's Share
The combined market share of the remaining trading platforms doesn't even reach 10%. The HIP-3 market has formed a massive Matthew Effect. Looking at it this way, it's not an exaggeration to say that the Hyperliquid HIP-3 market is completely dominated by TradeXYZ. The narrative premium that RWA on-chain contracts development has brought to Hyperliquid is, in essence, the narrative premium that TradeXYZ has brought to Hyperliquid.
Whether from a valuation or protocol revenue perspective, TradeXYZ has long been far from optional for Hyperliquid. Instead, it plays a crucial role in carrying the banner in the current situation where the crypto market is sluggish and trading volume for crypto derivatives like Bitcoin is shrinking.
According to official data, the HIP-3 share of Hyperliquid's total trading volume has reached 71.92%, setting a new historical high. Based on TradeXYZ's dominant position in HIP-3, this means that TradeXYZ's contributed trading volume accounts for over 70% of Hyperliquid's total trading volume; the HIP-3 share of Hyperliquid's total OI reaches 36%, which similarly means that TradeXYZ's contributed OI accounts for over 35% of Hyperliquid's total OI.
HIP-3's Share of Hyperliquid's Total Trading Volume and Total OI
Therefore, TradeXYZ has already grown into a behemoth capable of influencing traditional financial markets, leveraging Hyperliquid's infrastructure. Now, within its cooperative relationship with Hyperliquid, its leverage, influence, and voice are also beginning to dominate. So, should the grown child go its own way? Under what triggering factors might TradeXYZ choose to build its own infrastructure?
Setting aside unpredictable capital operation factors like financing and token issuance, and looking purely from a practical business perspective, if TradeXYZ truly chooses to go solo, the most likely reason would be to capture the underlying transaction fees.
In Hyperliquid's HIP-3 market, the trading fee split between TradeXYZ and Hyperliquid is a fixed 50/50. Furthermore, because the standard trading fee for HIP-3 assets is twice that of the core perp market, Hyperliquid's actual protocol fee per HIP-3 transaction is the same as from the core perp market.
According to statistics, as of the time of writing, TradeXYZ has generated close to $50 million in total fee revenue. Under the stipulated split ratio for HIP-3, TradeXYZ can take at most $25 million.
Fees Generated by TradeXYZ
It's hard to imagine that a project which has created over $400 billion in trading volume has a total revenue less than one ten-thousandth of its total volume. Giving away nearly half of its revenue is unbearable for most projects. Given TradeXYZ's current leverage and influence over Hyperliquid, it is entirely possible for it to negotiate with Hyperliquid to change the revenue split to 70/30 or higher. If a satisfactory agreement cannot be reached, TradeXYZ is very likely to embark on the path of going solo.
Why Wouldn't TradeXYZ Leave?
Of course, going solo has its appeal for TradeXYZ, but there are also constraints.
The first constraint is Hyperliquid's powerful performance. TradeXYZ's perpetual contracts are deployed on Hyperliquid's HIP-3 platform, where matching, order types, funds, liquidation, and automatic deleveraging are all managed by HyperCore. Technically, TradeXYZ only manages oracle prices, mark prices, external prices, and related components.
If TradeXYZ chooses to go solo, they would need to assemble their own team to build the underlying infrastructure. This itself is not a difficult problem, but building an L1 with performance as powerful as Hyperliquid's in a short time is a challenge. Even TradeXYZ founder Shoku himself has admitted the excellence of the Hyperliquid team. In March 2024, Shoku posted on X, saying he wasn't sure how big Hyperliquid could ultimately become as an L1 in terms of traditional metrics like TVL and trading volume, but he was completely certain that the quality and rigor of Hyperliquid's on-chain products and dApps would have no rivals across the entire crypto space.
These rivals naturally include himself. If the infrastructure TradeXYZ builds upon going solo cannot compete with Hyperliquid, it would negatively impact its product experience and the narrative of providing price discovery earlier than traditional financial markets.
The second constraint is that channels and distribution are also crucial. Why is Circle willing to give away over 50% of USDC's savings interest to Coinbase? The reason is that Coinbase has indeed made tremendous contributions to the market distribution and promotion of USDC. According to Coinbase's latest Q2 financial report, over 30% of circulating USDC is stored on Coinbase. Whoever controls the channels and distribution controls everything. This rule also applies between TradeXYZ and Hyperliquid.
In essence, Hyperliquid's frontend is just one interface to access TradeXYZ's liquidity markets, but it's not the only way. Users can currently also access TradeXYZ's liquidity markets directly through the TradeXYZ official website, and the trading interface is highly similar to Hyperliquid's. To further facilitate users, TradeXYZ's internal accounts are even interoperable with Hyperliquid's, meaning that connecting the same wallet on the TradeXYZ website allows direct use of any balance from Hyperliquid.
TradeXYZ's Own Trading Frontend
Nevertheless, among TradeXYZ's over 350,000 trading users, most still access TradeXYZ's liquidity markets through Hyperliquid's frontend. This is a user habit cultivated over time and is not easy to change. There might even be a certain proportion of trading users who don't even distinguish between TradeXYZ and Hyperliquid, simply trusting the Hyperliquid brand and passively choosing to trade TradeXYZ's products.
Therefore, Hyperliquid not only provides technical support for TradeXYZ but is also the main channel for distributing TradeXYZ's liquidity. The cost and time of building infrastructure can be calculated, but the value lost from losing a channel is immeasurable.
The third constraint is the inherent trust and "childhood friendship" between the founders of the two projects. Solana's well-known KOL Ansem believes the possibility of TradeXYZ going solo is almost zero, reasoning that tradexyz and Hyperliquid are the most compatible teams in the cryptocurrency space. "The two founders show no signs of greed and are both very smart. I believe they can choose a development path that is most beneficial for both teams."
This statement is not without merit. Shoku was one of the earliest investors to bet on Hyperliquid. As early as 2023, Shoku connected with Jeff and began contributing to the Hyperliquid ecosystem. In 2024, he developed the Hyperliquid Bitcoin cross-chain bridge, Unit. He once told friends that Hyperliquid was one of the few exciting things in the crypto world.
All signs indicate that Shoku deeply admires Hyperliquid and Jeff. From a personal relationship perspective, the likelihood of a "betrayal" is low.
If TradeXYZ Goes Solo, the Result is Lose-Lose
If we are to discuss this topic thoroughly, this article shouldn't end here. We should also discuss a low-probability event: what would the outcome be if TradeXYZ truly broke away from Hyperliquid and went solo? The answer I deduced is a lose-lose situation.
Because in the current state, TradeXYZ and Hyperliquid have a win-win situation. If TradeXYZ splits, the enormous uncertainty will harm both parties. After TradeXYZ goes solo, Hyperliquid could certainly support other HIP-3 market participants, but it would turn from a collaborator with TradeXYZ into a competitor. This wouldn't have too much impact on Hyperliquid's revenue because over 70% of Hyperliquid's main revenue still comes from the core Perp market; the HIP-3 market only accounts for a small portion. The biggest impact would be on its valuation.
First, after TradeXYZ migrates, Hyperliquid's total trading volume would decrease by over 50%, and HYPE might also be halved. This is because Hyperliquid would no longer be the leading on-chain RWA perpetual contract trading platform. Instead, it would be redefined as a crypto derivatives trading platform that has lost its biggest growth driver and narrative foundation.
TradeXYZ itself wouldn't fare much better. Both infrastructure and user habits would need to be cultivated from scratch. The aforementioned performance and channel issues become the biggest constraints on TradeXYZ's development. Moreover, such a betrayal could very likely trigger public controversy, further damaging TradeXYZ's credibility.
Additionally, TradeXYZ and Hyperliquid are not just competing with each other; the entire RWA trading market has other competitors. "When the snipe and the clam grapple, the fisherman profits." Hyperliquid would need time to cultivate new HIP-3 markets, and TradeXYZ would need time to build its infrastructure. By the time they look back, the market gap would have already been filled by other competitors.
In summary, although TradeXYZ is becoming increasingly important to Hyperliquid, going solo is clearly irrational. Even if TradeXYZ wants to increase profitability, the best approach might be to gradually shift focus towards its own issuance and user ownership while preserving the advantages of its existing integration with Hyperliquid.
