1 billion HYPE burn could shock supply – Can Hyperliquid hold $20?

ambcryptoОпубліковано о 2025-12-18Востаннє оновлено о 2025-12-18

Анотація

Hyperliquid (HYPE) is showing notable activity as its price slipped below $30 but remained up 3% following a proposal from The Hyper Foundation to burn 1 billion HYPE tokens from the Assistance Fund. If approved by validators on December 24, this burn could cause a supply shock, potentially driving prices upward. However, current market conditions show weak demand, with HYPE down 56% from recent highs and approaching a critical support level at $20. Perpetual futures volume has also dropped sharply. Additionally, an upcoming token unlock of 10 million HYPE in December may introduce short-term selling pressure, partially counteracting the positive impact of the proposed token burn.

Hyperliquid [HYPE] is showing notable fundamental activity.

The token slipped below the $30 level but remained up more than 3% on the day at press time. This modest rally followed a proposal from The Hyper Foundation aimed at reducing supply.

The key question now is whether this move will drive prices higher, or if the upcoming December unlocks will counteract the effect.

Hyper Foundation proposes to burn 1B HYPE

The Assistance Fund held 1 billion HYPE tokens, which the Hyper Foundation proposed to burn. Validators will signal their intention for governance on December 21st, with voting results expected on December 24th, when users can start staking.

At press time, the Assistance Fund held more than a billion tokens valued at more than $37 billion.

If the Foundation’s proposal prevails in the voting stage, it will significantly decrease the total and circulating supply, indicating a positive outlook.

Due to the magnitude of the tokens burned, a supply shock would follow. When supply reduces and meets rising demand, prices tend to move up, a classic trend in supply dynamics.

However, the current scenario did not show evidence of demand, as price and activity were in decline.

Will bulls defend the $20 zone?

On the charts, the HYPE price was breaking lower levels, aligning with the broader crypto market. The altcoin breached the $35 zone, which had previously prevented further breakdown more than five times.

After hitting $27, HYPE was down about 56% and looked headed toward the critical support at $20. However, the shift in supply dynamics could change this outlook.

The $20 level served as both a psychological marker and a previous higher high from April. As such, it represented a potential turning point if the bulls could defend the zone.

HYPE’s price weakness mirrored a sharp drop in Perpetual Futures (Perps) volume. Once accounting for 57% of the market, Perps volume has fallen to just 16%, as of writing.

In practical terms, trading volume declined from a mid‐October peak of about $30 billion to roughly $8 billion.

On the other hand, the Spot Volume was around $200 million from levels above $1.2 billion when HYPE was rallying.

As its activities and prices fall, more selling pressure appears to be building.

Upcoming sell pressure from unlock

While the proposal could help turn around the price direction, the upcoming HYPE token unlocks for December posed a problem.

According to a post by Ali Charts, an additional 10 million tokens will enter the market, bringing the total unlocked since November to 20 million.

While this may not fully offset the impact of burning 1 billion tokens, the increase in circulating supply could still create short‐term selling pressure.


Final Thoughts

  • HYPE proposes to burn about 1 billion tokens and has opened the voting
  • HYPE price struggles as it looks headed toward $20, though a reversal seemed possible given the potential shift in supply dynamics.

Пов'язані питання

QWhat is the main proposal from The Hyper Foundation regarding HYPE tokens?

AThe Hyper Foundation has proposed to burn 1 billion HYPE tokens currently held by the Assistance Fund.

QWhat is the key price level that bulls are trying to defend for HYPE?

ABulls are trying to defend the critical support and psychological level at $20.

QWhat potential market effect could the token burn have if approved?

AThe burn of 1 billion tokens could create a supply shock, which, if met with rising demand, could drive prices higher.

QWhat is a significant factor that could create selling pressure and counteract the positive effect of the burn?

AThe upcoming unlock of an additional 10 million tokens in December could create short-term selling pressure.

QHow has the trading volume for HYPE Perpetual Futures (Perps) changed recently?

AThe Perpetual Futures volume has sharply dropped from a peak of 57% of the market to just 16%.

Пов'язані матеріали

Dialogue with Jia Hang | Looking Back at Two Decades of Chinese Payment Going Global

**Summary: A Conversation with Jia Hang on Two Decades of China's Payment Globalization** Jia Hang, a veteran with over twenty years in payments, reflects on China's attempts to build a global payment network through three key phases: UnionPay (card networks), Alipay+ (digital wallets), and now, stablecoins. His journey began at UnionPay International, aiming to establish China's card network abroad. While successful in following Chinese tourists ("where Chinese go, UnionPay goes"), it struggled to achieve true global scale. The core lesson: card networks like Visa/Mastercard's unassailable advantage isn't just technical standards, but their deeply entrenched **governance and profit-sharing models** that create powerful network effects. Competing as the "same species" is nearly impossible. At Ant Group, he led Alipay+, a strategy to bypass card networks by interconnecting local e-wallets worldwide. While innovative, it faced a similar ceiling. Mobile QR payments and card swipes were essentially **the same species competing for the same pie**, lacking a disruptive value proposition for users or a sustainable new incentive model to replace the card networks' established flywheel. Today, at Singapore's DCS, Jia focuses on stablecoin-based payments. He argues stablecoins represent a fundamental shift. They are not competing with Visa for consumer payments but challenging the **traditional banking and account system for value movement**. Products like "U Cards" (stablecoin-linked payment cards) are transitional, leveraging existing card networks for acceptance while building new rails. The real potential lies in stablecoins enabling seamless, low-cost global value transfer, potentially reorganizing the financial infrastructure around **accounts rather than cards**. Jia believes stablecoin adoption for local retail payments, cross-border transactions, and as high-yield savings vehicles is becoming irreversible. This could gradually reduce reliance on traditional fiat channels, especially in regions with weak currencies or capital controls. The quest for the "next global payment network" continues, now centered on whether stablecoins can successfully bridge Web2 and Web3, establish new governance, and create compelling user value beyond mere cost reduction.

marsbit13 хв тому

Dialogue with Jia Hang | Looking Back at Two Decades of Chinese Payment Going Global

marsbit13 хв тому

Circle's Stock Price Plunges 76%, Hong Kong Dollar Stablecoin Set to Launch Within Two Weeks

Circle's stock price has plunged approximately 76% from its 2023 peak, reflecting a major market revaluation. Despite this, Circle President Heath Tarbert emphasized the company's focus on long-term execution and its dominant position with USDC's $73 billion circulation across 34 blockchains. The competitive landscape is intensifying. A new consortium-backed stablecoin, Open USD, is attempting to challenge incumbents by sharing reserve yields with partners. More significantly, Visa's new stablecoin platform, initially supporting Open USD while also being compatible with USDC, could erode Circle's network effects. In response, Circle is expanding into real-world payments through partnerships like the one with Japan's JCB. Separately, Tether (USDT) faces a two-year compliance window under new U.S. regulations, requiring it to adjust its reserve composition away from assets like Bitcoin and loans towards cash and U.S. Treasuries. Meanwhile, in Hong Kong, Standard Chartered-backed fintech firm Dian Dian is poised to launch a licensed HKD-pegged stablecoin (HKDAP), moving the industry into a phase where the real test is integrating licensed stablecoins into actual payment flows and corporate treasury systems. The sharp decline in Circle's stock underscores a broader shift: the stablecoin market is moving from a winner-takes-all dynamic to a multi-player competitive arena where execution, compliance, and real-world utility are becoming paramount.

marsbit14 хв тому

Circle's Stock Price Plunges 76%, Hong Kong Dollar Stablecoin Set to Launch Within Two Weeks

marsbit14 хв тому

Amidst Capital's Encirclement, Decentralization is the Sole Defense for Public Blockchains

In a landscape dominated by power and profit motives, the author argues that decentralization is not merely one desirable feature among many in blockchain design—it is the singular, non-negotiable defense against corporate and capital capture. The article adopts a Machiavellian, realist perspective on human institutions, positing that businesses will inevitably attempt to co-opt any valuable network to protect their profits and dominance. While external attacks like 51% forks are often discussed, the greater existential risk is internal capture—the gradual erosion of a protocol’s neutrality by vested interests, as seen historically with platforms like Visa and Google. The piece critiques permissioned chains, highly centralized “permissionless” layer-1s, and layer-2s without sufficient decentralization (e.g., single sequencers) as inherently vulnerable. These compromised systems, promoted by established financial players, are framed as delaying tactics to stifle truly open networks that threaten existing high-fee, inefficient business models. Real-world examples, such as closed enterprise consortiums that exclude competitors, illustrate how such systems cement oligopolies rather than foster innovation. The author concludes that while decentralized protocols like Ethereum are imperfect and costly to operate, they represent the only viable long-term equilibrium. In a market where value naturally flows to the most secure and neutral settlement layer, only maximally decentralized public blockchains can resist being subsumed by capital and powerful incumbents.

Foresight News24 хв тому

Amidst Capital's Encirclement, Decentralization is the Sole Defense for Public Blockchains

Foresight News24 хв тому

Who Decides the Rules of Bitcoin? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate

Bitcoin's governance is once again at the center of a heated debate, this time ignited by BIP-110, the "Reduced Data Temporary Softfork." This proposal aims to curb non-monetary data (like inscriptions and Runes) by introducing seven new consensus-layer restrictions over a year, such as limiting new output scripts to 34 bytes and restoring the OP_RETURN cap to 83 bytes. The controversy stems from BIP-110's fundamental shift: it moves the battle against "spam" from node relay and miner policies to the consensus layer, rendering currently valid transactions invalid. Supporters, arguing that default policy governance has failed (highlighted by Bitcoin Core v30's relaxation of OP_RETURN limits), see this as necessary to protect node resources and Bitcoin's monetary focus. Opponents, led by figures like Michael Saylor and Adam Back, warn it dangerously centralizes governance. Saylor listed 110 reasons against it, criticizing its low 55% miner activation threshold and potential for chain splits. Back emphasized Bitcoin's "permissionless" ethos, arguing no single group should impose value judgments via consensus rules. Further complicating matters, technical critiques suggest BIP-110 may be technically circumventable, and a "BlockSlop" vulnerability in its upgrade path poses a consensus risk. The debate has drawn in diverse stakeholders: miners (with pools like Ocean signaling support and Foundry polling clients), node operators (like Bitcoin Knots), and new players like corporate treasury holder MicroStrategy (Saylor), whose market influence adds a novel dimension. Ultimately, BIP-110 acts as a governance stress test, exposing the unresolved question: who decides Bitcoin's rules? It pits the authority of miners, node operators, developers, and capital holders against each other, with each side claiming to defend Bitcoin's core principles of neutrality and security.

marsbit41 хв тому

Who Decides the Rules of Bitcoin? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate

marsbit41 хв тому

Торгівля

Спот
活动图片