The decentralized perpetual term trading sector has a new leader: hyperliquid (hype). Launched in December 2024, hyperliquid has its own layer-1 blockchain, which exceeded Solana in 7-day costs.
What fueling its rapid growth and how is media threshing compared to the native token of Solana (soil)?
Protocols classified by 7 -day costs, USD. Source: Defillama
The basic hyperliquidal offer is its perpetual future Dex, which allows traders to access a lever effect up to 50x on BTC, ETH, Sol and other assets. It has a completely onchain order book and zero gas costs. Unlike Solana, which supports a wide range of decentralized applications (DAPP), layer 1 of hyperliquid is specially designed to optimize the efficiency of the DEFI trading.
The hyperliquide raises concerns of centralization, but the costs accumulate
The native token of hyperliquid, hype, launched via an air card in November 2024, reaching 94,000 unique addresses. This distribution fueled a market capitalization of $ 2 billion on the first day, reporting a strong adoption of the community. However, criticisms like Lawrencechiu14 have raised concerns about the centralization of the hyperliquid chain, stressing that it controls 78% of the participation.
Source: Lawrencechiu14
Hyperliquid generated $ 12.6 million in weekly costs, exceeding Solana ($ 11.8 million), Tron ($ 10.2 million) and Raydium ($ 9.8 million), according to Defillama. By comparison, Solana took more than three years to reach $ 12 million in fees (March 2024), while Raydium needed 18 months.
The effectiveness of hyperliquidal prices is notable, with only $ 638 million on TVL – half $ 1.25 billion in Raydium and a fraction of $ 4.22 billion in the United Stateswap. UNISWAP, the best DEX, won $ 22.8 million during the same period, but its higher TVL highlights the higher hyperliquid margins.
Another discord is the centralized API and the binary source closed, according to Kambenbrik. These questions must be examined closely before determining the long -term potential of the media threshing.
Hyperliquid has redemptions, but Solana offers a wider range of DAPP
A key differentiator is the structure of hyperliquidal costs: all costs are reinvested in the community, funding media threshing buyouts and liquidity incentives, according to its documentation. On the other hand, Solana costs are distributed through its ecosystem, with protocols like Jupiter and Raydium each exceeding $ 10 million in weekly income. This makes direct comparisons with the basic layer of Solana deceptive.
The market capitalization of $ 6.7 billion in hyperliquids – via Uniswap ($ 4.7 billion) and Jupiter ($ 1.8 billion) – future challenges. The locks of tokens started in December 2025, which potentially put pressure on the price of media threshing. In addition, 47 million media tokens are ready to distribute the main contributors to the first half of 2026, representing $ 940 million to current assessments.
The boom in hyperliquid also puts pressure on Solana, because some of its best Dex, including Jupiter and Drift Protocol, offer an exchange of derivatives. While Solana benefits from deep integration with the main web3 portfolios like Phantom and Solflare, as well as a diversified DAPP ecosystem with yield aggregators and liquid display, the hyperliquid media threshing buyout program helps compensate for these advantages.
For Solana, the real challenge is not only hyperliquid, but the wider trend of the protocols DEFI launching their own layer blockchains 1. If this continues, the demand for evolution of Solana could weaken. Soil holders should closely monitor hyperliquidal growth and other emerging channels like Berachain, which has already attracted $ 3.2 billion in deposits.
In the near future, hyperliquid could face competition from Berps, a perpetual trading platform on Berachain. While Berps currently manages less than $ 3 million in daily volume, he has already accumulated $ 185 million in open interest, signaling growing interests of merchants.
Currently, the daily volume of $ 9 billion in hyperliquids remains unequaled in the Dex industry. With its cost structure and buyout mechanism, it will be difficult for competitors to drain liquidity thanks to vampire attacks, hence the bullish impulse for media threshing.
This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and must not be considered as legal or investment advice. The points of view, the thoughts and opinions expressed here are the only of the author and do not reflect or do not necessarily represent the opinions and opinions of Cointellegraph.
