Hyperliquid (HYPE)

$hype looks like its getting ready to make the move to ath tradingview integrated hyperliquid and tradexyz data recently as well if you are reading between the lines, you will understand that tradingview has many broker integrations and they also have 100m active users globally imo a builder code hyperliquid integration is coming the team is thinking on a scale we cant fathom, i never would have even thought of this and its bigger than any single broker integration there is every serious trader on earth is using tradingview charts as their primary source what happens when they can trade any market, 24/7, directly from that interface????? $hype $300+

Since mNAV is below 1 there likely weren’t any ATM shares issued that week, but they did increase their HYPE holdings, which explains the cash decrease. If mNAV keeps falling, they may start buying back shares. If it moves back above 1.10x, they may start issuing ATM shares again. My guess is that last week there weren’t any HYPE buys or ATM issuance. I think the mNAV compression is mostly coming from the Saylor/DAT FUD, as investors are now more cautious around DATs, but we’ll see what happens.

Most crypto revenue charts are misleading, not because the numbers are wrong, but because they don't show the cost behind them. I've been looking at 30-day revenue across crypto, and honestly, the numbers tell a story most people don't want to talk about. Top revenue (30d): - @tether → ~$470M (US Treasury yield) - @trondao → ~$200M+ (stablecoin transfer fees) - @circle → ~$180M+ (RWA yield) - @HyperliquidX → ~$60M+ (perps trading fees) - @CantonNetwork → ~$50M+ (institutional infrastructure) - @Polymarket → ~$25M+ (prediction market fees) - @Pumpfun → ~$25M+ (meme launch + trading) - @SkyEcosystem → ~$25M+ (stability fees / RWA) - @ethereum → ~$15M+ (gas fees) - @PancakeSwap / @aave → ~$10–15M (DEX + lending) Different products. Different narratives. But if I had to simplify, there are only three real revenue engines in crypto today: Stablecoin/RWA yield, Trading (spot, perps, memes, prediction markets), and Base-layer fees. Everything else is either still early... or simply not making meaningful money. But revenue isn't the metric that matters most. Cost is. Because revenue without context is misleading. I've seen protocols generate tens of millions in fees while spending even more on token emissions, liquidity incentives, airdrops, and user acquisition. That's why not all revenue is equal. Tether prints yield with minimal marginal cost. Trading platforms capture fees with relatively clean margins. But much of DeFi is effectively paying to exist—high revenue on paper, yet little or even negative real profit underneath. I think this is exactly where the market is starting to evolve. We're moving from "Which protocol generates the most revenue?" to "Which protocol actually keeps the most after paying for growth?" A strong project doesn't just need to prove its business model works. It also needs to prove it can retain value after accounting for every growth expense. Otherwise, a large part of that "profit" is simply funded by token emissions, unlocks, or value transferred back from users. So when evaluating a token, revenue and narrative alone aren't enough. I want to know where the cash flow comes from, what it costs to generate it, and how much value the protocol actually retains. Because in the end, what matters isn't how much you make. It's how much you keep. Personally, I think this will become one of the most important filters in the next cycle. And for now, projects with clear revenue, efficient fee capture, and disciplined cost structures—like $HYPE —still stand out.

Shorting some $HYPE Using profits from $SOL and $DASH longs Tight stops Little risk for me https://t.co/nYJH9imqIV

clear token ownership models solves this... right now its looking more extractive to buy tokens because you're certain that any upside will benefit the team and there investors. this further makes is unnecessary to buy any token because its pure -EV

a rotation back into AI names dragged HYPE lower alongside the rest of crypto what stood out wasn’t the drawdown. It was what it revealed even one of crypto’s strongest fundamentals-led assets still trades inside the same global liquidity pool as high-beta tech when capital rotates, it doesn’t stop to distinguish between buybacks, revenue, or tokenomics. it simply chases the next pocket of expected returns thats not a knock on Hyperliquid, its a reminder that macro liquidity still sets the tempo. fundamentals decide who recovers first

Robinhood has lighter. VALR has Hyperliquid. Pick your side. https://t.co/PLPIsHfUIq

Hyperliquid whales still hold more short positions. However, the gap is gradually narrowing. https://t.co/nR52POOrdH

it’s over Hyperliquid.