Key Notes
- Castle Labs’ October 7 chart puts Hyperliquid’s cumulative ecosystem revenue at about $1.4 billion across several income streams.
- The research reports more than $1.26 billion in open-market HYPE purchases, while the Assistance Fund burns acquired tokens.
- Hyperliquid held over 56% of onchain perpetuals open interest in the study’s September snapshot, excluding centralized exchanges.
Hyperliquid’s cumulative ecosystem revenue has reached about $1.4 billion, while open-market purchases of its HYPE token have exceeded $1.26 billion, according to research from Castle Labs. The figures show how the onchain trading platform has connected a growing fee business with demand for its native token.
Castle’s perpetuals report also places Hyperliquid above 56% of open interest among onchain perpetual-futures venues in its September snapshot. That share measures the decentralized segment, rather than the entire derivatives market, where centralized exchanges still account for most trading.
The revenue breakdown appears in a chart dated October 7, while the buyback total is stated in Castle’s October 8 research excerpt. Both are cumulative figures, rather than amounts earned or spent during 2026 alone.
A Revenue Base Extending Beyond Perpetuals
Perpetual contracts remain the largest source of income in Castle’s chart. The breakdown also includes spot trading, listing auctions, HyperEVM gas fees, priority burns and yield on USDC reserves. Taken together, those streams describe a broader ecosystem than the original crypto perpetuals exchange.
The distinction matters when comparing dashboards. A platform-wide total can include activities that a tracker dedicated to perpetual futures leaves out. Gross fees, protocol revenue and money directed to tokenholders also measure different stages in the flow of trading income.
At the time of checking on October 10, DefiLlama’s dashboard listed approximately $1.56 billion in cumulative fees and $1.28 billion in cumulative revenue for Hyperliquid Perps. Its methodology covers native and builder-deployed perpetual markets and builder fees, while excluding spot fees.
That narrower series should not be treated as identical to Castle’s ecosystem-wide revenue chart. It also illustrates why a lifetime total cannot establish a ranking for the current calendar year: a comparison needs the same period, revenue definition and group of protocols.
How Trading Activity Funds HYPE Purchases
Hyperliquid’s official fee documentation describes an automated mechanism that converts trading fees into HYPE through the Assistance Fund as part of the blockchain’s execution. It says HYPE in the fund is burned and permanently removed from circulating and total supply.
The documentation also identifies other recipients of fees, including the Hyperliquidity Provider vault and market deployers. Spot and builder-deployed perpetual-market operators can retain up to 50% of the trading fees generated by their assets, making the product mix relevant to how income is distributed.
For the buyback mechanism, trading generates the resources used to acquire tokens. The cumulative dollar total records purchases already made; the pace of future purchases depends on incoming revenue and the fee arrangements applying to the activity that produces it.
CoinScreamer recently covered a different approach in Pyth’s buyback framework, which directs eligible DAO receipts toward a PYTH reserve. Those acquired tokens remain treasury assets. Hyperliquid’s documented burn mechanism gives its repurchases a different supply outcome.
Open Interest Shows the Scale of the Trading Business
Castle’s comparative analysis recorded average daily Hyperliquid volume of $7.9 billion and average daily open interest of $6.79 billion between August 17 and September 15. Open interest measures outstanding positions, while volume measures contracts traded during a period.
A venue can therefore lead one measure without holding the same share of the other. Repeatedly opening and closing positions increases volume, whereas open interest shows how much exposure remains outstanding. Neither figure represents the amount the protocol earns in fees.
The study also tested execution across venues. On $1 million orders in major crypto assets, Hyperliquid recorded median slippage of 3.7 basis points, compared with 3.8 basis points on Binance. That result applies to the tested assets, order sizes and sampling windows; it is not a guarantee for every market.
More recent DefiLlama readings showed approximately $206.3 billion in rolling 30-day perpetual volume and $7.7 billion in open interest when checked on October 10. Those current-period figures provide a separate view from Castle’s historical comparison and will change as trading continues.
Wallets Can Bring Their Users to the Same Markets
Distribution is another part of the model. Hyperliquid’s builder codes let applications earn a fee on orders they route for users. The fee is processed onchain, and users must approve a maximum charge for each builder, with permission revocable at any time.
Builder fees are a separate charge attached to routed orders. The protocol caps them at 0.1% for perpetuals and 1% for eligible spot trades, within the maximum each user authorizes. These payments reward the application supplying the order flow.
This gives a wallet or trading interface a way to offer access to existing markets while earning income from its customer relationship. Liquidity and execution can remain on Hyperliquid even when the trader enters through another application.
CoinScreamer’s earlier coverage of the Base App integration offers an example of that wider distribution strategy. Eligible users can reach Hyperliquid-powered perpetual markets through an established wallet interface, subject to regional restrictions.
Disclaimer: CoinScreamer is an independent media brand owned and operated by NuvexMedia LLC, publishing news, research, and market insights on digital assets and related technologies. NuvexMedia LLC invests in and collaborates with companies across the digital asset, blockchain, and technology sectors. These relationships do not influence CoinScreamer’s editorial coverage, and the publication maintains full editorial independence to provide accurate, timely, and objective information. © 2025 NuvexMedia LLC. All rights reserved. This content is for informational purposes only and should not be considered legal, tax, investment, financial, or other professional advice.
