Hyperliquid Generated 67.6% of Perpetual DEX Fees in 30 Days

Hyperliquid generated $84.55 million, or 67.6%, of the fees collected by 38 perpetual decentralized exchanges (DEXs) in a 30-day period. The concentration highlights the scale of the platform’s trading business as it expands into markets beyond cryptocurrencies, while its revenue remains tied to trading activity and the fees that activity produces.

The 38 exchanges collected about $125 million in fees altogether. The five largest platforms accounted for 85.6% of the total, leaving Hyperliquid with most of the fees generated across the group. That share puts the platform’s trading activity at the center of the market snapshot, though the figures do not break down fees by individual market or trader type.

Hyperliquid directs roughly 97% to 99% of its fees to buy and burn HYPE through the Assistance Fund. The cumulative value of those purchases and burns has exceeded $4 billion. At the same time, about 86% of HYPE-holding addresses have never traded perpetual contracts, separating many token holders from the activity that generates fees.

Trading activity carries costs for users

Perpetual contracts generally balance gains and losses between traders before fees. The platform and third-party app builders collect fees from the trading activity, so the market becomes negative-sum for traders once those costs are included. The fee model means revenue can accrue from trading volume even when the traders on either side of a contract have offsetting results before costs.

The tracked wallets accessed Hyperliquid through Phantom, MetaMask, Rabby, Trust Wallet, Invo and fomo; the group included nearly 400,000 wallets. The wallets had accumulated losses of about $280 million, with fees making up more than half of that amount. The estimate describes losses across the tracked wallets; it does not mean every wallet in the group lost money.

About $126 million of the losses occurred after Nov. 10, 2025, during a period of rapid growth for the apps. The other losses were recorded before November 2025 or came from Hyperliquid trades made outside those apps. The distinction matters because the tracked wallets could also trade on Hyperliquid through other routes, while the apps add their own Builder Fee on top of the base rate.

A $100 order through the apps costs roughly 6.5 cents to 14.5 cents in fees. The amount is small on an individual order, but repeated trading can make fees a significant part of cumulative results. In the tracked group, they accounted for more than half of the estimated losses.

Among new traders using those apps, about one in seven remains active after three months. That retention rate leaves growth dependent on attracting new traders to replace those who stop trading. It also connects user churn to the fee model: trading activity generates charges, and continued activity requires a continuing pool of traders.

Market expansion leaves the fee model in place

HIP-3 and HIP-4 allow third parties to deploy markets tied to assets and events beyond cryptocurrencies. That broadens the range of markets available on Hyperliquid, including markets involving stocks, commodities and prediction events. The expansion changes what users can trade, but the platform’s basic economics still depend on activity and associated fees.

Hyperliquid has also pitched shared-market infrastructure for finance. The fee and wallet figures put that ambition alongside a business currently measured through trading fees and user activity.

HIP-3 and HIP-4 widen the markets the platform can host, while trading fees remain the measurable engine described by the 30-day figures.