Hyperliquid with Trillions in Trading Volume: How to Break the Thin Profit Curse

比推2025-12-18 tarihinde yayınlandı2025-12-18 tarihinde güncellendi

Özet

Hyperliquid, a decentralized exchange, processes massive trading volumes (annualized $617B in perps) but captures minimal fees—only ~3.9 bps—compared to retail-centric platforms like Coinbase (35.5 bps) and Robinhood (33.5 bps). This reflects a structural divide: Hyperliquid operates at the "market layer" (like Nasdaq), offering low-margin execution, while brokers profit from higher-margin services like custody, lending, and subscriptions. Hyperliquid’s open architecture—via Builder Codes (third-party frontends) and HIP-3 (external product deployment)—fuels growth but risks commoditizing its core exchange, as third parties capture user relationships and routing leverage. Recent strategic shifts aim to defend its position: halting subsidies for external frontends, launching USDH (a native stablecoin) to capture reserve yields, and introducing portfolio margin to earn interest on lending. The protocol is evolving toward a hybrid model—balancing open infrastructure with broker-like revenue streams (e.g., balance-based earnings)—to avoid being trapped in low-margin wholesale execution. The key challenge for 2026 is achieving this shift without undermining its ecosystem-friendly approach.

Source: BlockRearch

Original Title: Hyperliquid crossroads: Robinhood or Nasdaq economics

Compiled and Edited by: BitpushNews

Hyperliquid is currently in the phase of clearing Nasdaq-level perpetual contract (Perp) trading volume, but earning only thin profits. Over the past 30 days, it cleared $205.6 billion in notional value of perpetual contracts (annualized quarterly rate of $617 billion), yet generated only $80.3 million in fees, with a monetization rate of just about 3.9 basis points.

Its monetization model resembles more of a wholesale execution venue.

In comparison, Coinbase reported its Q3 2025 trading volume as $295 billion, with trading revenue of $1.046 billion, implying a Take Rate of 35.5 basis points.

Robinhood exhibits similar retail monetization characteristics in the cryptocurrency space: its $80 billion in cryptocurrency notional trading volume brought in $268 million in trading revenue, implying a monetization rate of 33.5 basis points; meanwhile, its stock trading notional value for Q3 2025 was $647 billion.

The gap is even larger than what the fee rates suggest, as retail platforms possess multi-dimensional monetization paths. In Q3 2025, Robinhood generated $730 million in transaction-based revenue, plus $456 million in net interest income and $88 million in other revenue (primarily driven by Gold subscription services).

In contrast, Hyperliquid currently relies heavily on trading fees, and these fees are structurally constrained at the protocol level to single-digit basis points.

The Difference in Positioning: Distributor vs. Market Layer

This difference is best explained by positioning: Coinbase and Robinhood belong to the broker/distribution business, monetizing through balance sheets and subscription services; whereas Hyperliquid is closer to the exchange layer (market layer). In traditional market structure, the profit pool is divided between these two layers.

The core divide in traditional finance (TradFi) is "Distribution" vs. "Market":

  • Distribution Layer (e.g., Robinhood and Coinbase): They own the customer relationship and occupy the high-margin环节.

  • Market Layer (e.g., Nasdaq): They exist as exchanges, with pricing power structurally constrained, and execution businesses tend towards "commoditized" economics due to competition.

1. Broker-Dealer = Distribution + Customer Balance Sheet

Brokers own the customer relationship. Most users do not access Nasdaq directly but enter the market through brokers. Brokers handle deposits, custody, margin/risk management, customer service, and tax documents, then route orders to various trading venues. This ownership of the relationship creates monetization capabilities beyond trading:

  • Balances: Cash sweep spreads, margin lending, securities lending.

  • Packaging: Subscription services, bundles, co-branded cards/advisory services.

  • Routing Economics: Brokers control the flow and can embed payments or revenue-sharing mechanisms in the routing chain.

    This is why brokers' profitability often surpasses that of trading venues: the profit pool is concentrated where distribution and balances reside.

2. Exchange = Matching + Rulebook + Infrastructure (Constrained Take Rate)

Exchanges operate the venue: matching, setting market rules, deterministic execution, and connectivity. Their monetization methods include:

  • Trading Fees: Compressed by competition in high-liquidity products.

  • Rebates/Liquidity Programs: Often forced to return most nominal fees to makers to attract liquidity.

  • Market Data, Connectivity/Co-location Services.

  • Listing Fees and Index Licensing.

Robinhood's routing logic clearly demonstrates this architecture: the broker (Robinhood Securities) owns the users and routes orders to third-party market centers, with routing revenue shared throughout the chain. Distribution is the high-margin layer: it controls customer acquisition and the monetization domains around execution (payment for order flow, margin, securities lending, subscriptions).

Nasdaq is the thin-margin layer. Its product is commoditized execution capability and queue access, and its pricing power is mechanically suppressed because venues need to pay maker rebates to win liquidity, regulation caps access fees, and routing is extremely flexible. In Nasdaq's disclosures, this is reflected in net cash equity capture per share of just fractions of a cent.

The strategic consequence of these low margins is evident in Nasdaq's revenue mix. In 2024, its Market Services revenue was $1.02 billion, accounting for only 22% of total revenue of $4.649 billion; this proportion was 39.4% in 2014 and 35% in 2019. This aligns with its strategy of shifting from market-sensitive execution business to more sustainable software/data businesses.

Hyperliquid's "Nasdaq Path"

Hyperliquid's effective take rate of about 4 basis points aligns with its deep focus on the "market layer." It is building an on-chain Nasdaq simulator: an architecture with high throughput, margin management, and a clearing stack (HyperCore), employing maker/taker pricing and maker rebates, aimed at optimizing execution quality and shared liquidity, rather than单纯的 retail monetization.

This is reflected in two design separations, similar to TradFi, that most crypto venues lack:

A) Permissioned Distribution/Layer (Builder Codes)

"Builder Codes" allow third-party interfaces to be deployed on top of the core trading venue and charge their own economic fees. Builder fees are capped at 0.1% (10 bps) for perps and 1% for spot, and can be set per order. This creates a competitive market for distribution, rather than a single-app monopoly.

B) Permissioned Listing/Product Layer (HIP-3)

In TradFi, exchanges control listings and product creation. The HIP-3 protocol externalizes this function: builders can deploy perpetual contracts that inherit the HyperCore stack and API, with the deployer responsible for defining and operating the market. Economically, HIP-3 formalizes revenue sharing between the venue and the product: spot and HIP-3 perp deployers can retain up to 50% of the trading fees from the deployed assets.

Builder Codes have already won on distribution; by mid-December, about one-third of users were trading through third-party frontends rather than the native UI.

Structural Pressure and Defense

The problem is: this structure that fosters distribution growth will also predictably depress the venue's earnings:

  • Price Compression: Multiple frontends selling the same backend liquidity will push competition towards the lowest total cost; Builder fees can be adjusted per order, pushing pricing towards the bottom line.

  • Monetization Domain Drain: Frontends own deposits, bundling, subscriptions, and workflows; they capture the broker-layer profits, while Hyperliquid can only retain the thin venue earnings.

  • Strategic Routing Risk: If frontends become true cross-platform routers, Hyperliquid will be forced into a race for wholesale execution, retaining流量 only by cutting fees or increasing rebates.

Hyperliquid deliberately chose the thin-margin market layer (via HIP-3 and Builder Codes), while allowing a thick-margin broker layer to emerge on top of it. If third-party frontends continue to expand, they will increasingly dictate user-facing economics, control retention domains, and gain routing leverage, thereby structurally depressing Hyperliquid's take rate in the long term.

Commoditization is clearly the biggest risk. If third-party frontends can consistently underprice the native UI and eventually achieve cross-platform routing, Hyperliquid could be reduced to an extremely thin-margin wholesale clearing channel.

Strategic Pivot: Defending Distribution & Broadening Revenue

Recent design choices indicate that Hyperliquid is attempting to prevent the above outcome while broadening its revenue sources.

  1. Distribution Defense: Maintaining Native UI Economic Competitiveness

    A previously proposed staking discount would have allowed builders to receive up to a 40% discount by staking HYPE, which would have made third-party frontends structurally cheaper than Hyperliquid's own interface. Withdrawing this proposal removed direct price subsidies for external frontends. Meanwhile, HIP-3 markets, initially positioned for distribution by builders, are now being included in Hyperliquid's native frontend's "strict list." The signal is clear: Hyperliquid remains open at the builder level but is unwilling to compromise on core distribution rights.

  2. USDH: Shifting from Trading Monetization to Float Monetization

    The launch of USDH aims to recapture stablecoin reserve收益 that would otherwise flow externally. Its structure is a 50/50 split of reserve收益: 50% to Hyperliquid, 50% for USDH ecosystem growth. Fee discounts for USDH trading pairs further confirm this: Hyperliquid is willing to compress per-trade收益 for a larger, stickier profit pool from asset balances. Effectively, it adds an annuity-like revenue stream that scales with the monetary base (not just trading volume).

  3. Portfolio Margin: Introducing Prime Broker-like Financing Economics

    Portfolio margin unifies spot and perp margin, allowing risk offsetting, and introduces native borrowing loops. Hyperliquid retains 10% of the interest paid by borrowers. This makes the protocol's economics increasingly dependent on leverage utilization and interest rates, moving closer to a broker/prime broker economic model rather than a pure exchange model.

Conclusion: Moving into 2026

Hyperliquid has reached top-tier venue levels in terms of throughput scale, but its monetization still resembles a market layer: massive trading value paired with single-digit basis point effective take rates. Its gap with Coinbase or Robinhood is structural. Retail platforms occupy the broker layer, own user relationships and asset balances, and profit from multiple profit pools (financing, idle cash, subscriptions). Pure trading venues sell "execution," and execution is inherently commoditized due to liquidity and routing competition. Nasdaq is the epitome of this constraint in TradFi.

Hyperliquid initially leaned towards the "pure trading venue" prototype. By separating distribution and product creation, it accelerated ecosystem growth. The cost is that this architecture can lead to profit spillover.

However, recent moves can be interpreted as a deliberate pivot to defend distribution and enrich the revenue mix beyond trading fees. The protocol has become less willing to subsidize external frontends to be cheaper than the native UI, has started showcasing HIP-3 more natively, and has added balance-sheet-driven profit pools. USDH is a prime example of pulling back reserve收益, and portfolio margin introduces financing economics through a 10% cut of borrowing interest.

Hyperliquid is evolving towards a hybrid model: an execution轨道 as the underlying layer, overlaid with distribution defense and balance-driven profit pools. This reduces the risk of being trapped in the thin-margin wholesale环节, allowing it to move closer to a broker-like revenue组合 without abandoning its core advantages of unified execution and clearing.

Looking ahead to 2026, the core suspense is: Can Hyperliquid successfully pivot towards a broker-like profit model without破坏 its "outsourcing-friendly" model?

USDH (Hyperliquid's native stablecoin) is the clearest litmus test: the current supply of about $100 million indicates that the growth rate of this outsourced issuance is slow when a protocol does not directly control the distribution channels. An obvious alternative could have been setting defaults at the UI level, for example, automatically converting the protocol's ~$4 billion in USDC reserves into the native stablecoin (similar to Binance's当年 auto-conversion of user assets to BUSD).

If Hyperliquid wants to access broker-level profit pools, it might have to act more like a broker: stronger control, tighter native product integration, and drawing clearer boundaries with ecosystem teams that compete at the same distribution and asset balance layer.

Twitter:https://twitter.com/BitpushNewsCN

Bitpush TG Discussion Group:https://t.me/BitPushCommunity

Bitpush TG Subscription: https://t.me/bitpush

Original article link:https://www.bitpush.news/articles/7596866

İlgili Sorular

QWhat is Hyperliquid's current effective take rate on its massive perp trading volume, and how does it compare to retail platforms like Coinbase and Robinhood?

AHyperliquid's effective take rate is approximately 3.9 basis points (0.039%) on its perp trading volume. This is significantly lower than retail platforms; Coinbase reported a take rate of 35.5 basis points, while Robinhood Crypto's implied take rate was 33.5 basis points.

QAccording to the article, what is the fundamental structural difference in profit pools between the 'distribution layer' (like brokers) and the 'market layer' (like exchanges)?

AThe distribution layer (brokers like Robinhood and Coinbase) owns the customer relationship, which allows for high-margin monetization through multiple avenues beyond trading fees, such as balance sheet activities (cash sweep spreads, margin lending), subscriptions, and routing economics. The market layer (exchanges like Nasdaq) provides execution and infrastructure, but its pricing power is structurally constrained by competition, leading to commoditized, low-margin economics primarily from transaction fees, rebates, and data services.

QWhat two TradFi-like separation designs does Hyperliquid employ that most crypto venues do not?

AHyperliquid employs two key separation designs: 1) A permissioned distribution layer via Builder Codes, which allow third-party frontends to deploy on top of the core exchange and charge their own fees. 2) A permissioned listing/product layer via HIP-3, which externalizes market deployment and allows deployers to share up to 50% of the trading fees from their deployed assets.

QWhat are the three recent strategic shifts Hyperliquid has made to defend its economics and broaden its revenue, as mentioned in the article?

AThe three recent shifts are: 1) Distributive Defense: Withdrawing a proposed staking discount that would have made third-party frontends cheaper than its native UI and more natively featuring HIP-3 markets. 2) USDH: Launching a native stablecoin to recapture reserve yields that would otherwise flow externally, sharing the收益 50/50 between the protocol and ecosystem growth. 3) Portfolio Margin: Introducing a unified margin system that allows for risk netting and includes a native borrowing loop, with the protocol taking a 10% cut of the interest paid by borrowers.

QWhat does the article identify as the core悬念 (suspense) for Hyperliquid heading into 2026 regarding its business model evolution?

AThe core suspense is whether Hyperliquid can successfully shift towards a broker-like profit model with higher margins without破坏 (disrupting) its 'outsourcing-friendly' architecture that relies on third-party frontends and product deployers. The success of its native stablecoin, USDH, is cited as a key test case for this challenge.

İlgili Okumalar

Injective software package hit by malicious supply chain attack – Details

In a software supply chain attack, malicious actors compromised the Injective Labs TypeScript SDK (@injectivelabs/sdk-ts v1.20.21) by uploading a tainted version to the npm registry. The attackers gained access to a legitimate contributor's GitHub account to distribute malicious commits. The compromised package, disguised as a routine update, contained malware that activated only when developers used specific wallet generation functions, stealing private keys and mnemonic seed phrases. This breach impacted approximately 50,000 weekly downloads and spread through transitive dependencies in 17 other Injective packages. While a clean version (v1.20.23) was later released, the malicious package remained accessible. Affected users are advised to rotate credentials, create new wallets, and move their funds.

ambcrypto1 saat önce

Injective software package hit by malicious supply chain attack – Details

ambcrypto1 saat önce

After Aave's Exit and TVL's Sharp Fluctuation, Where Does MegaETH's Valuation Anchor Lie?

Following the withdrawal of Aave and a sharp drop in its Total Value Locked (TVL), the valuation of the high-performance DeFi blockchain MegaETH faces scrutiny. Once a highly anticipated project with a fully diluted valuation (FDV) reaching around $2 billion, MegaETH saw its TVL plummet from a May peak of $245 million to just over $30 million in July, a roughly 70% decline. Its native token, MEGA, currently trades around $0.048 with a market cap of approximately $54 million and an FDV of about $480 million. The report identifies a core vulnerability: MegaETH's TVL was heavily dependent on a single protocol, Aave V3, which at its peak contributed around 90% of the chain's TVL. A significant portion of this capital is attributed to leveraged yield-farming strategies involving stablecoins like USDe. When the profitability of these strategies diminished, capital rapidly exited, exposing the lack of diversified, sustainable activity. Three key mismatches between MegaETH's valuation and its fundamentals are highlighted: 1. **Valuation vs. Real Usage:** With an FDV of ~$4.8B but only ~$1M in annualized protocol revenue and ~2,600 daily active addresses, the valuation appears disconnected from current economic activity. 2. **Token Narrative vs. Ecosystem Reality:** Despite its DeFi narrative, nearly 80% of the chain's recent protocol revenue comes from a trading card game, Monster, not from core DeFi applications like Aave. The chain's native stablecoin, USDM, also shows low trading volume and a declining market cap. 3. **Short-Term Hype vs. Long-Term Delivery:** Initial hype from token generation, blue-chip integrations, and influencer support has faded. Major protocols like Uniswap now hold minimal TVL on the chain, indicating that early capital was largely transient and driven by incentives rather than organic demand. The situation reflects a broader market trend where investors are becoming less tolerant of valuations based on inflated TVL and narrative, demanding clearer evidence of sustainable transactions, revenue, and ecosystem development. While MEGA's price may experience short-term rebounds from market sentiment, a fundamental re-rating likely depends on the team's ability to convert its remaining resources into tangible, user-retaining applications and genuine ecosystem growth.

链捕手1 saat önce

After Aave's Exit and TVL's Sharp Fluctuation, Where Does MegaETH's Valuation Anchor Lie?

链捕手1 saat önce

Goldman Sachs In-Depth Report: Who Will Be the Long-Term Winners in China's AI Large Model Industry?

Goldman Sachs Report: China's AI Models at an Inflection Point China's open-source/open-weight large language models (LLMs) have reached performance parity with top global proprietary models, according to a Goldman Sachs report. This is driven by architectural innovations and higher parameter efficiency, allowing Chinese models to achieve comparable capabilities at 2%-10% the parameter size and significantly lower cost. The market is evolving into a two-tiered structure: a high-end segment (e.g., GLM5.2, Qwen3.7 Max) with premium pricing and a low-end, price-sensitive segment for global SMEs and individual users. Key points: * **Cost & Performance:** Innovations like Mixture of Experts (MoE) enable high performance with smaller models. Projects like Meituan's LongCat 2.0, trained on domestic hardware, highlight progress in tech self-sufficiency. * **Open-Source Strategy:** Most Chinese players use open-source/open-weight models for flexibility and ecosystem growth. However, Goldman notes this may underreport actual deployment and revenue. A shift toward "open-weight + community license" models with revenue sharing (e.g., MiniMax) could improve monetization. * **Market Shift & Global Expansion:** Enterprise AI adoption is shifting from "token maximization" to "ROI-first." International expansion, especially in non-US markets, is a major growth driver. Chinese models are increasingly available on global platforms like AWS Bedrock and Microsoft Copilot. * **Competitive Landscape:** Using a framework based on pricing power, cost advantage, and financial strength, Goldman identifies **Zhipu AI and DeepSeek** as the strongest in foundational text models, and **ByteDance** as the leader in multimodal/video generation. The report maintains Buy ratings on MiniMax and Kuaishou. * **Market Growth:** China's AI model API and subscription revenue is projected to grow from an estimated ¥35 billion in 2026 to ¥879 billion by 2030.

marsbit1 saat önce

Goldman Sachs In-Depth Report: Who Will Be the Long-Term Winners in China's AI Large Model Industry?

marsbit1 saat önce

Goldman Sachs Deep Dive Report: Who Will Become the Long-Term Winners in China's AI Large Model Industry?

Goldman Sachs Report: Who Will Be the Long-Term Winners in China's AI Large Model Industry? China's AI large model sector is at a historic inflection point. Goldman Sachs argues that the intelligence of Chinese open-source/open-weight models is approaching top global proprietary models. Rapid adoption by domestic enterprises and global SMEs is creating a data flywheel effect that will further drive model iteration. The evolution is summarized as moving from "DeepSeek's cost-efficiency moment last year to GLM's model-intelligence moment this year." Chinese models achieve near-state-of-the-art performance at significantly lower cost, primarily due to architectural innovations like Mixture of Experts (MoE) and higher parameter efficiency. Models like DeepSeek V4 Pro (1.6T params), GLM5.2 (0.7T), and MiniMax M3 (0.4T) are much smaller than global leaders. Recent advancements in coding capability are attributed to better data curation and RLHF. Landmarks like Meituan's LongCat 2.0, trained fully on domestic AI chips, demonstrate progress in hardware stack independence. The market is forming a "two-tiered structure." The high-end tier (e.g., GLM5.2, Alibaba's Qwen3.7 Max) prices around $1 per million tokens, about 10-25% of US top models, with estimated inference gross margins of 10-20%. The low-end tier (priced as low as $0.06-$0.2 per million tokens) targets price-sensitive global SMEs and individuals. MiniMax derives 60-70% of revenue overseas. Goldman forecasts China's AI model API/subscription revenue to grow from an estimated RMB 35bn in 2026 to RMB 879bn by 2030. Most Chinese players adopt open-source/open-weight strategies for deployment flexibility and community feedback, though this limits monetization as deployments on third-party platforms (e.g., Alibaba Cloud) may not generate direct revenue. A shift towards "open-weight + community license" models with revenue-sharing agreements (like MiniMax's approach) could improve unit economics. International expansion, particularly in non-US markets, is the key growth driver. The global enterprise AI paradigm is shifting from "token maximization" to "ROI prioritization." Chinese models are already hosted on major global platforms like AWS Bedrock and are under consideration for integration into Microsoft Copilot. Using a competitive framework based on pricing power, cost advantage, and financial strength, Goldman identifies the strongest players: In foundational text models, Zhipu AI (initiated coverage) and DeepSeek lead. In multimodal/video generation, ByteDance's Seed is the frontrunner, with Kuaishou's Kling and MiniMax's Hailuo also well-positioned. Goldman maintains a Buy rating on MiniMax, citing its attractive valuation.

链捕手1 saat önce

Goldman Sachs Deep Dive Report: Who Will Become the Long-Term Winners in China's AI Large Model Industry?

链捕手1 saat önce

Circle secures final OCC approval for national trust bank to strengthen USDC infrastructure

Circle has received final approval from the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) to establish Circle National Trust, a federally regulated national trust bank. This marks a key regulatory milestone, bringing core parts of the company's USDC stablecoin infrastructure under direct federal oversight. The new bank will initially provide digital asset custody services for Circle and its affiliates, with a pathway to serve institutional clients and potentially manage the USDC reserve in the future. The approval advances Circle from the conditional stage it reached alongside other crypto firms in late 2025. This move reflects a broader trend of integrating crypto infrastructure into the existing U.S. banking framework through national trust charters, which specialize in custody and fiduciary services rather than traditional lending.

ambcrypto1 saat önce

Circle secures final OCC approval for national trust bank to strengthen USDC infrastructure

ambcrypto1 saat önce

İşlemler

Spot
活动图片