On-chain analyst focused on Hyperliquid. Tracking real fees, burns & unlocks, not narratives. Data Hype. Brutally realistic.
Onchain
Joined August 2017
- Tweets2.4K
- Following871
- Followers408
- Likes42.3K
il.hl retweeted
Thanks for having me on the podcast! It was a great conversation about a new category of integration: the first centralized exchange directly tapping into Hyperliquid's onchain infrastructure.
Following the recent launch of Perps on VALR, and our integration of @HyperliquidX, VALR's Co-Founder and CEO @farzamehsani sat down with Hyperliquid's Co-Founder and CEO Jeff Yan (@chameleon_jeff) to discuss the integration, the future of CeFi and DeFi, and their aspirations to move finance forward.
2026 YTD scoreboard:
BTC -29.7%
BNB -33.8%
SOL -36.0%
HYPE +171.9%
Everyone's blaming "altseason rotation." But today (July 6) is when that theory actually gets tested. π
The receipts:
πΈ HYPE spot ETFs pulled ~$111M net inflows in late June β same window BTC/ETH ETFs bled billions
π ~97-99% of protocol fees go straight into buyback + burn (Assistance Fund)
π
TODAY: ~9.92M HYPE unlocks (~1% of supply) to Core Contributors β est. $645M-$708M, depends on which source's price you use
Numbers move fast here. Verify before you trade on any of this.
The mainstream line: "HYPE just rode the broader altcoin rotation, nothing HYPE-specific about it." That's literally how CMC's own AI read the July 3 pump.
But if it's just sector rotation, why are BTC/ETH ETFs bleeding money while HYPE ETFs are absorbing fresh inflows? That split looks coin-specific, not market-wide beta.
So the real question isn't "why is HYPE up" β it's whether buyback pressure + ETF demand can absorb a $645M+ unlock without cracking the chart.
πVALR β Africa's largest crypto exchange by volume β just plugged into Hyperliquid to launch 200+ perps markets.
The obvious read: "crypto exchange embraces DeFi."
The less obvious read: a regulated exchange just admitted it's cheaper to rent onchain infrastructure than build your own book. π§
π‘Thesis: this is a build-vs-buy decision, not an ideological one.
Regulated exchanges are starting to outsource their derivatives engine to Hyperliquid β because the liquidity is already sitting there, ready to use.
πWhat's confirmed (VALR's own release, 2 Jul 2026):
The new "Perps" product spans 200+ markets β equities (NVDA, TSLA, SpaceX pre-IPO), indices, gold, oil, forex, and crypto.
VALR calls it the first time a regulated exchange has natively integrated an onchain L1 for liquidity + execution.
Mainstream narrative says "DeFi disrupts CEXs." I'd argue it's the opposite β CEXs are becoming distribution shells on top of DeFi rails.
This isn't entirely new, either. Wallets like MetaMask and Phantom already route perps through Hyperliquid via builder codes.
What's different here is VALR is a licensed exchange, not just a wallet UI β worth watching if this becomes the template others follow.
βIf a regulated exchange's "backend" is a public blockchain, what's actually left to differentiate one exchange from another besides UX and licensing?
NFA, DYOR.
VALR, Africa's largest crypto exchange by trading volume, is using Hyperliquid as the onchain infrastructure layer to bring perpetuals to its users.
This marks the first time a centralized exchange has integrated Hyperliquid directly. By building on Hyperliquid, VALR can focus on the experience and interface its users trust. Users benefit from Hyperliquid's deep liquidity and onchain transparency, while never having to leave the VALR platform.
π§΅Trade[XYZ] x Hyperliquid data is now live on TradingView. Most people will read this as "crypto gets more visibility." I'd flip it: TradingView needed this data more than trade.xyz needed the listing. π
π‘Thesis: this isn't really a distribution story. It's a mainstream charting platform quietly admitting that onchain venues now set the continuous reference price when TradFi markets are shut.
πWhat's actually confirmed: trade.xyz runs on Hyperliquid's onchain orderbook (HyperCore). It launched the first officially licensed S&P 500 perp with S&P Dow Jones Indices (Mar 2026), plus pre-IPO perps for Cerebras and SpaceX that tracked real listing prices closely once those companies actually went public.
It's also been reported to hold a large share of Hyperliquid's non-crypto (HIP-3) open interest β that figure is from a mid-May 2026 snapshot though, so treat it as dated and verify on DefiLlama before repeating it. β οΈ
πContrarian POV: the mainstream narrative is "crypto adoption." I think it's the opposite β TradFi retail is quietly being trained to treat onchain prices as the default weekend reference, not a niche alternative.
βIf a derivatives venue can price SpaceX and the S&P 500 more continuously than the actual exchanges do, what does "market hours" even mean in 5 years?
Trade[XYZ] and Hyperliquid data is now live on @tradingview. Putting this data where traders live has been a top priority for us.
Markets are increasingly shaped by events unfolding around the clock, and price discovery shouldn't stop when traditional venues close.
Users now have real-time visibility into 24/7 price discovery on the world's most-used charting platform.
"a16z is selling $10M of HYPE."
That claim spread fast this week.
On-chain, it doesn't hold up. π§΅
The claim traces to wallet 0xb5E4d...c24e, which sent 153K HYPE to OKX, Gate, and Bybit this week β presumed to be a16z.
But per @MarketsAlpha's on-chain analysis: π
The wallet also interacts with Cumberland, Wintermute, Galaxy Digital, SharpLink β and mints USDT directly from Tether.
That's not a VC wallet. That's a custodian profile.
@MarketsAlpha's conclusion: this address belongs to Anchorage, not a16z.
The actual selling wallet is likely a second address: 0x6f90B...57fE
It received:
β 198.6K HYPE from Bybit
β 296.6K HYPE from two other Anchorage addresses
@MarketsAlpha's read: another Anchorage customer β identity unknown.
"Since it is a fresh wallet funded by a CEX and only has transfers from/to Anchorage, the actual entity remains unknown."
That last sentence matters. π
Mainstream reaction: "a16z dumping = bearish signal."
What the on-chain data actually shows: unknown entity, routed through Anchorage custody.
That's a very different story β and a good reminder that wallet labels on CT travel faster than verification. β‘
Open question: if the real seller's identity stays unknown, does the narrative damage already stick regardless?
Is a16z selling HYPE?
Multiple sources have been claiming that a16z sold roughly $10M of HYPE this week, but is that actually true?
The claim starts with the address 0xb5E4d21240e9356caFc3a1261d10383f62DFc24e.
This wallet, presumably linked to a16z, sent 153K HYPE this week to OKX, Gate and Bybit.
However, this address has some clear characteristics:
- Has inflows and outflows with different entities such as Cumberland, Anchorage, a16z, SharpLink, Wintermute, Galaxy Digital, etc.
- Mints USDT directly from Tether
- Repeatedly transfers large amounts of stablecoins such as USDe, USDT, and USDC
- Withdraws from and deposits to different CEXs
- Receives HYPE that is later sent to addresses staking into the @HyperStrat validator
- Also receives and sends HYPE from / to a16z
Taking all this into account, our conclusion is that this address belongs to Anchorage, not a16z.
The HYPE sent to CEXs, likely to be sold, appears to come from this address instead: 0x6f90B71d598B47435F31c395F0984d7484a357fE
This address received HYPE from two sources:
- 198.6K HYPE from Bybit
- 296.6K HYPE from two other Anchorage addresses
Our final conclusion is that this wallet likely belongs to another Anchorage customer, not a16z.
Since it is a fresh wallet funded by a CEX and only has transfers from / to Anchorage, the actual entity remains unknown.
TLDR: a16z does not appear to be selling HYPE.
Hyperliquid now has more open interest than half of Bybit.
Not volume. Not fees. Open interest β the metric that shows real capital at risk.
50.3% of Bybit's OI. From a DEX. No KYC. π§΅
HL vs CEX Β· Open Interest :π
β HL global perp OI share: 8.7%
β HL vs Binance: 21.1% of Binance OI
β HL vs Bybit: 50.3% of Bybit OI
β HL vs OKX: 74.0% of OKX OI
Two years ago: near 0% on all metrics.
For context: these figures shifted even in the ~2 weeks since the last snapshot.
β Global share: 8.6% β 8.7% β
β Binance: 20.6% β 21.1% β
β Bybit: 51.3% β 50.3% β
β OKX: 75.5% β 74.0% β
Not a straight line. The trend is up long-term, but individual CEX ratios oscillate week to week.
Mainstream narrative: "DEXs are gaining steadily." π
Reality: it's more volatile than the trend line suggests β and that's worth knowing.
8.7% of all global perp OI. 74% of OKX. 50% of Bybit.
The "DEX can't compete with CEX on liquidity" narrative doesn't have much data left to stand on. β‘
But the real question isn't whether HL passes OKX next.
It's whether institutional capital from ETFs β now $303M+ in β starts showing up in OI figures over the next 90 days.
A fee mechanism most people have never heard of just hit 6.7% of Hyperliquid's total revenue.
Two months ago, it was near zero. π§΅
"Priority" burns since launch : π
β Total burned: $2.9M = 48.7K HYPE
β Write priority: $1.5M (24.9K HYPE)
β Read priority: $1.4M (23.8K HYPE)
Share of total protocol revenue:
β Latest day: 6.63%
β 7-day avg: 6.7%
β Trend: near-zero in April
β sharp acceleration since early June, recent spike above 10%
Most HYPE valuation threads focus on trading fees and the Assistance Fund burn.
This is a separate, smaller revenue stream β but the trajectory matters more than the size right now.
From effectively 0% to 6.7% of total protocol revenue in under 3 months isn't a rounding error. It's a new line item emerging in real time. π
If this keeps compounding at the same rate, it stops being a footnote.
Most people quoting HYPE's revenue numbers are still using trading fees + stablecoin float.
This priority burn mechanism isn't in most of those models yet. β‘
If it keeps growing at this rate β does it become the next line item analysts have to add to the valuation stack?
HYPE ETFs have absorbed $303M in net inflows in just 33 trading days.
Meanwhile, HIP-4 prediction markets just saw daily traders crash 59%.
Same ecosystem. Opposite momentum. π§΅
ETFs (33 days listed):
β Cumulative net inflows: +$303.49M
β Daily volume: $17.61M (Jun 29)
HyperCore:
β Daily active users: 61.3K (+28.3% 24h, 7D avg)
HIP-4 prediction markets:
β All-time volume: $158.16M
β Daily active traders (30D): 994 β down 59% vs prior period
Transparency note: a snapshot from ~6 days ago showed ETF cumulative inflows at $35.4M over 12 trading days. This snapshot shows $303.49M over 33 days.
That's a massive jump in a short window. Could be genuine acceleration (large single-day inflows are visible in the chart), or methodology differences between dashboards.
I won't guess which β but the magnitude of the gap means both figures need independent verification before being treated as comparable. π
Mainstream take: "Institutional demand (ETFs) and retail engagement (prediction markets) move together."
Right now they're diverging. ETF inflows accelerating.
HIP-4 trader activity nearly halved.
Two different user bases, two different cycles. β‘
Open question: is this rotation β institutional capital replacing retail speculation β or just noise in two young products?
2.7 million addresses hold HYPE on HyperEVM.
Only 1,500 of them hold β₯1K HYPE.
And 117 wallets control 54.9% of everything. π§΅
HYPE on HyperEVM : π
Total on EVM side: 55.82M HYPE (~18.7% of circulating supply)
Concentration among the 1,500 meaningful holders:
β 5 wallets (β₯1M each): 18.8%
β 117 wallets (100Kβ1M): 54.9%
β 344 wallets (10Kβ100K): 21.0%
β 1,034 wallets (1Kβ10K): 5.3%
Top 10 wallets alone: 25%Top 100: 69%
Mainstream take: "HyperEVM is growing β more addresses = more decentralization."
2.7M addresses. 1,500 with meaningful balances.
That's a 0.056% conversion rate from address to meaningful holder.
And within those 1,500 β 122 wallets (5 + 117) control 73.7% of all EVM HYPE.
This isn't unusual for early EVM ecosystems. But it does mean HyperEVM's HYPE distribution is effectively institutional-tier concentrated β not retail-driven. π
85.3% of EVM HYPE sits native. Only 14.3% is staked. 0.4% wrapped.
At this concentration level β if even a fraction of those 122 large wallets shift behavior, EVM HYPE liquidity moves materially.
Question: as HyperEVM matures and CoreWriter expands β does this concentration compound, or does retail finally bridge over? β‘
Everyone's watching the β₯10K whale tier go up.
Nobody's talking about the β₯1M tier.
It's down 42.4% from its all-time high. π§΅
HYPE holder tier breakdown :π
β β₯10 HYPE: 49,893
β β₯100 HYPE: 22,628
β β₯1K HYPE: 7,118
β β₯10K HYPE: 1,917
β β₯100K HYPE: 312
β β₯1M HYPE: just 19 wallets
One tier is up all-time. Every other tier β including the mega-whales β is down. π
Mainstream narrative: "Whales are accumulating HYPE."
Zoom in: the β₯10K tier (+1.2%) tells one story. The β₯1M tier (-42.4% from ATH) tells another.
The most likely explanation isn't selling β it's fragmentation.
Large wallets splitting into smaller ones. One β₯1M wallet becomes three β₯100K wallets. The HYPE stays β but the on-chain count shifts tiers.
That's not distribution. That's restructuring. π
Every tier is still below its all-time high in holder count.
But 24h tells a different story β ALL tiers are adding holders right now. β₯10 added 60. β₯100 added 41. β₯1K added 22. β‘
The divergence: all-time trends declining, but short-term momentum reversing.
Is this the start of a new accumulation cycle β or just noise in a quiet market?
