Select Page
Hyperliquid, HyperEVM, and the Future of DeFi Dominance

Hyperliquid, HyperEVM, and the Future of DeFi Dominance

The crypto landscape for 2025–2026 is shaping up to be a battle between established giants like Ethereum and Solana, and fast-rising challengers like Hyperliquid (HYPE). With the launch of HyperEVM, Hyperliquid has the chance to expand from its stronghold in perpetual trading into broader DeFi, Real-World Assets (RWAs), and potentially rival Solana in transaction speed. But how realistic is this vision?

1. HyperEVM: The Gateway to DeFi Expansion

Until now, Hyperliquid has been synonymous with decentralized perpetual trading. It dominates the sector with more than 70% market share, $1.6 trillion in cumulative trading, and over $90M monthly revenue. But the introduction of HyperEVM changes the game.

  • EVM compatibility means Ethereum-based apps can easily port over.
  • Zero-gas transactions and sub-second finality give developers and users a frictionless experience.
  • Liquidity incentives tied to HYPE’s buyback and burn model could bootstrap early adoption.

Outlook: With these advantages, HyperEVM could capture 5–15% of DeFi market share within 1–2 years, pulling liquidity from smaller Ethereum L2s and even attracting new native projects.

2. RWAs: The Tougher Frontier

Real-World Assets are the hottest institutional narrative in crypto, with tokenized treasuries, bonds, and real estate projected to reach $10T+ by 2030.

  • Ethereum leads this space with BlackRock’s BUIDL fund, MakerDAO, and Centrifuge.
  • Hyperliquid’s zero-gas and ultra-fast settlement could appeal to smaller issuers and crypto-native RWA protocols.
  • The challenge is institutional trust and partnerships — Ethereum already has a head start with major financial players.

Outlook: Hyperliquid can carve out niches in crypto-native RWAs, but competing head-to-head with Ethereum’s institutional moat is unlikely in the near term.

3. Speed Wars: Hyperliquid vs. Solana

One of the boldest claims from Hyperliquid is its ability to process 200,000 TPS with 0.2s latency using HyperBFT consensus. On paper, this surpasses Solana’s benchmarks:

  • Solana: ~65,000 theoretical TPS, ~1,500 sustained TPS, ~400ms block time.
  • Hyperliquid: ~200,000 theoretical TPS, sub-1s block confirmation, billions in daily perp orders already proven.

Caveat: Many of Hyperliquid’s performance metrics come from high-frequency order processing rather than general-purpose DeFi activity. Solana, meanwhile, has an established NFT, gaming, and memecoin culture that generates organic demand for blockspace.

Outlook: Hyperliquid can rival or even exceed Solana technically. But ecosystem demand — not raw TPS — will decide the winner. Solana has culture; Hyperliquid needs its own beyond perps.

4. Data-Driven Comparison

FeatureEthereum (ETH)Solana (SOL)Hyperliquid (HYPE)
StrengthsInstitutional RWAs, L2 ecosystemHigh-speed, NFT & retail adoptionDominates perps, zero-gas DeFi hub
Market Cap (FDV)$400B+$100–120B~$40B
Revenue (annualized)~$3.5–4B~$250–300M~$1.1B
P/S Multiple100–120x330–400x35–40x
TPS / Latency~30 TPS / ~12s~1,500 sustained / ~400ms block timeClaims 200k TPS / ~0.2s latency
Cultural EdgeInstitutions, DeFi, RWAsNFTs, gaming, memecoinsPerps culture, DeFi traders

5. Where Hyperliquid Could Dominate

Each chain has carved its niche:

  • Ethereum: Institutional RWA + L2 hub.
  • Solana: High-speed retail + NFT culture.
  • Hyperliquid: Zero-gas perps + DeFi liquidity hub.

If Hyperliquid successfully expands with HyperEVM and builds a broader community around DeFi apps, it could become the go-to chain for active trading, leveraged finance, and liquidity aggregation.

Conclusion

Hyperliquid is not just another L1 experiment. With HyperEVM, it has the tools to:

  • Pull in DeFi projects from Ethereum.
  • Capture crypto-native RWA niches.
  • Rival Solana in transaction throughput.

The question is whether Hyperliquid can grow its ecosystem demand and cultural identity to match its technical prowess. If it does, 2025–2026 could see Hyperliquid evolve from a perps powerhouse into a full-spectrum DeFi chain capable of standing beside Ethereum and Solana.

Ready to Experience Hyperliquid?

Discover the next level of decentralized trading with Hyperliquid. Discover Hyperliquid!

Strategy’s Bitcoin Offerings: Innovation or Fragile Engineering?

Strategy’s Bitcoin Offerings: Innovation or Fragile Engineering?

MicroStrategy has transformed itself from a software company into the world’s largest publicly traded Bitcoin proxy. Through its financing arm Strategy, it now offers investors new ways to gain exposure to Bitcoin — each with its own mix of risks and rewards.

How It Works

Every time MicroStrategy or Strategy raises capital — by issuing common stock (MSTR), preferred stock (STRC), or convertible debt — the proceeds are used to buy more Bitcoin.

This creates a flywheel:

  • Bitcoin rises → balance sheet grows → easier to issue more securities.
  • Bitcoin falls → balance sheet shrinks → obligations get harder to sustain.

Both MSTR and STRC holders are diluted each time new securities are sold. What differs is how they benefit from Bitcoin’s moves.

Breaking Down the Products

MSTR (common stock):
Equity ownership. Gains are leveraged to Bitcoin’s price, but dilution reduces your share.

STRC (preferred stock):
Pays ~9% annual dividend. Works like a bond — you don’t own the company, you just expect income. Returns are capped, and dividends depend on Strategy’s ability to fund them.

BTC ETF:
Pure Bitcoin exposure. No dilution, no yield, but transparent and liquid.

Physical Bitcoin (self-custody):
The purest exposure. No counterparty risk, no dilution, no engineering. But it requires discipline: securing private keys, protecting seed phrases, and resisting the temptation to offload custody to third parties. For long-term believers, this is the safest and most sovereign way to hold Bitcoin.

Where Does STRC’s Yield Come From?

The ~9% yield on STRC doesn’t come from “Bitcoin interest” — it’s financed by Strategy’s capital structure. Dividends can be paid in three ways:

  1. From operating cash flows (MicroStrategy still sells software and services, though this is modest compared to Bitcoin exposure).
  2. From new debt or equity issuance, which brings in fresh capital.
  3. From Bitcoin appreciation, allowing Strategy to borrow against or sell Bitcoin at higher prices.

In a sustained downturn, these sources shrink. If Bitcoin falls far enough, Strategy may need to sell Bitcoin to cover obligations. That creates a potential feedback loop: selling pressure pushes Bitcoin down further, which weakens the balance sheet, forcing more selling.

This loop is the key fragility of the model. Unlike a Bitcoin ETF or self-custody, STRC’s stability depends not just on Bitcoin’s long-term direction, but also on Strategy’s ability to continually finance dividends in rough markets.

Data Snapshot (5-Year Simulation)

Starting BTC price: $116,000

BTC Future PriceDirect BTCMSTR (leveraged)STRC (dividends + principal)
$30,000–74%–90%+~+$45k total income
$60,000–48%–70%~+$45k total income
$120,000~0%~0%~+$45k total income
$200,000+72%+152%~+$45k total income

Takeaway:

  • STRC looks stable — but only if Strategy can keep paying.
  • MSTR swings harder than Bitcoin in both directions.
  • ETFs give clean exposure.
  • Holding Bitcoin directly gives you full upside with no dilution, but puts security in your hands.

Lessons from History

Financial engineering is not new. Past examples — mortgage-backed securities (2008) or structured notes in Europe (2010s) — looked stable until the underlying assets wobbled.

STRC isn’t a scheme — it’s backed by real Bitcoin. But its yield depends entirely on Bitcoin’s long-term path, and new issuances dilute existing holders

ETF: The “Endgame”?

The arrival of spot Bitcoin ETFs brings institutional legitimacy. For many investors, ETFs will be the endgame: simple, regulated, and transparent.

But for others:

  • MSTR → leverage for amplified gains (and amplified risks).
  • STRC → yield for those who want Bitcoin-linked income.
  • Physical Bitcoin → sovereignty for those who can manage self-custody.

Bottom Line

Strategy’s products are clever financial engineering — not scams, but not free of fragility either. Investors must remember: whether through MSTR, STRC, ETFs, or cold storage wallets, all paths ultimately depend on one factor.

If Bitcoin rises, every version of the strategy shines. If it falls, every version suffers — only in different ways.