# Onchain Trading Platforms Retain Different Shares of Fee Revenue

By Enna Lee

Canonical URL: https://www.tokenpost.com/news/investing/33214
Published: 2026-10-16T11:33:45.000Z
Updated: 2026-10-16T11:33:45.000Z
Section: Investing

> Payments to creators, liquidity providers, market makers and referrers shape how much platforms keep from trading-related fees.

Gross fees from onchain trading can overstate what a platform keeps. Payments to creators, liquidity providers and other identified recipients reduce retained revenue, while fee models produce different results across major services.

An onchain transaction can involve fees for an app, a trading venue and the network that processes it. The gross total does not show how much each business retains after payments to suppliers and participants. Retained revenue is the value left after those identified payments, but it comes before payroll, infrastructure and other operating costs. It is not net profit.

Pump directs portions of its collected fees to creator shares, liquidity-provider incentives and related support channels. Those payments reduce the amount it retains.

That gap shows why more trading activity does not necessarily mean a platform keeps a larger share of every fee dollar. At Pump, payments tied to the platform’s supply side absorb part of the total.

GMGN charges a handling fee, separate from network gas and trading slippage. It collects fees and retains a smaller amount after rebates. Most of that retained value goes to its operating team; no native token has a direct claim on that profit.

GMGN’s fee model illustrates how a customer-facing interface can collect substantial fees without supplying the underlying liquidity. Its handling charge is distinct from network costs and trading slippage, while rebates reduce the amount left after fees are collected.

Hyperliquid allocates value to the protocol and holders. Its HIP-3 model gives market deployers a separate share. As a result, higher trading volume does not necessarily translate proportionally into protocol retained revenue.

Polymarket International’s rules exempt geopolitical and major international macro-event markets from fees, so heavy attention to those markets does not automatically generate platform income. Payments to market makers and referrers also form part of the platform’s fee structure.

The four examples measure different paths from gross activity to retained value. Pump directs collected fees toward creators and liquidity providers, while GMGN collects a handling charge through a customer-facing interface. Hyperliquid allocates part of its economics to market deployers, while Polymarket’s fee exemptions and participant payments affect how much it retains.

The remaining value also does not automatically belong to tokenholders. Hyperliquid’s allocation includes the protocol and holders, but that does not make retained revenue the same as a direct token claim. GMGN has no native token with a direct claim on its retained profit. For each model, gross fees, participant payments, operating costs and any holder rights describe different parts of the economics.