The decentralized perpetual futures trading sector has a new leader: Hyperliquid (HYPE). Launched in December 2024, Hyperliquid has its own Layer-1 blockchain, which has surpassed Solana in 7-day fees.
What’s fueling its rapid growth, and how does HYPE compare relative to Solana’s native token SOL (SOL)?
Protocols ranked by 7-day fees, USD. Source: DefiLlama
Hyperliquid’s core offering is its perpetual futures DEX, which enables traders to access up to 50x leverage on BTC, ETH, SOL, and other assets. It features a fully onchain order book and zero gas fees. Unlike Solana, which supports a broad range of decentralized applications (DApps), Hyperliquid’s layer-1 is purpose-built to optimize DeFi trading efficiency.
Hyperliquid raises concerns of centralization, but fees are piling up
Hyperliquid’s native token, HYPE, launched via an airdrop in November 2024, reaching 94,000 unique addresses. This distribution fueled a $2 billion market capitalization on day one, signaling strong community adoption. However, critics like LawrenceChiu14 have raised concerns about the level of centralization on the Hyperliquid chain, pointing out that it controls 78% of the stake.
Source: LawrenceChiu14
Hyperliquid generated $12.6 million in weekly fees, surpassing Solana ($11.8 million), Tron ($10.2 million), and Raydium ($9.8 million), according to DefiLlama. For comparison, Solana took over three years to reach $12 million in fees (March 2024), while Raydium needed 18 months.
Hyperliquid’s fee efficiency is notable, with just $638 million in TVL—half of Raydium’s $1.25 billion and a fraction of Uniswap’s $4.22 billion. Uniswap, the top DEX, earned $22.8 million in the same period, but its higher TVL underscores Hyperliquid’s superior margins.
Another point of contention is the reportedly centralized API and closed binary source, according to KamBenbrik. These issues should be closely examined before determining HYPE’s long-term potential.
Hyperliquid has buybacks, but Solana offers a wider range of DApps
A key differentiator is Hyperliquid’s fee structure: all fees are reinvested into the community, funding HYPE buybacks and liquidity incentives, according to its documentation. In contrast, Solana’s fees are distributed across its ecosystem, with protocols like Jupiter and Raydium each surpassing $10 million in weekly revenue. This makes direct comparisons to Solana’s base layer misleading.
Hyperliquid’s $6.7 billion market cap—outpacing Uniswap ($4.7 billion) and Jupiter ($1.8 billion)—faces challenges ahead. Token unlocks begin in December 2025, potentially pressuring HYPE’s price. Additionally, 47 million HYPE tokens are set for distribution to core contributors in the first half of 2026, representing $940 million at current valuations.
Hyperliquid’s rise also pressures Solana, as some of its top DEXs, including Jupiter and Drift Protocol, offer derivatives trading. While Solana benefits from deep integration with major Web3 wallets like Phantom and Solflare, as well as a diverse DApp ecosystem featuring yield aggregators and liquid staking, Hyperliquid’s HYPE buyback program helps offset these advantages.
For Solana, the real challenge isn’t just Hyperliquid but the broader trend of DeFi protocols launching their own layer-1 blockchains. If this continues, demand for Solana’s scalability could weaken. SOL holders should closely monitor Hyperliquid’s growth and other emerging chains like Berachain, which has already attracted $3.2 billion in deposits.
In the near future, Hyperliquid could face competition from BERPS, a perpetual futures trading platform on Berachain. While BERPS currently handles less than $3 million in daily volume, it has already accumulated $185 million in open interest, signaling growing interest from traders.
Currently, Hyperliquid’s $9 billion daily volume remains unmatched in the DEX industry. With its fee structure and buyback mechanism, it will be difficult for competitors to drain liquidity through vampire attacks, hence the bullish momentum for HYPE.
This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.
