Hyperliquid processed roughly $40.7 billion in perpetual futures volume in the past week and held about $9.57 billion in open interest, outpacing competing decentralized venues by a wide margin. These figures, cited from on-chain and market trackers, underline a concentration of liquidity and trader activity that has reshaped the decentralized derivatives market.
Industry trackers attributed Hyperliquid’s lead to a combination of extremely high throughput and concentrated user engagement. Reported metrics showed the platform captured as much as 71% of the decentralized perpetuals market in 2025, peaking at roughly ~79% at times. Daily active users trading perpetuals on decentralized exchanges were reported to be concentrated on Hyperliquid, representing about +69% of that cohort.
The shift matters because it signals durable demand for high-throughput, low-cost execution; traders have migrated toward venues that combine CEX-style performance with on-chain custody and transparency.
Hyperliquid’s technical base is a proprietary Layer‑1 chain with sub‑second blocks and a claimed capacity near 200,000 orders per second. The platform offered zero trading fees and retained a self‑custody model, which industry coverage linked to its ability to attract sustained, high-volume flows rather than ephemeral incentive-driven activity.
Its approach deliberately blurred centralized execution performance and decentralized custody. The founder’s decision to block market makers was described as an effort to preserve neutral market access and long‑term trust. At the same time, coverage flagged pressure on Hyperliquid’s governance token (HYPE) stemming from emission concerns, separating platform utility from token economics.
Product design, execution and the limits of token-driven growth
Rivals that leaned on token incentives saw sharper reversals. Lighter experienced a marked retreat after an airdrop cycle: reports said its volume plunged threefold from a December 2025 peak (noted at over $600m) and its governance token hit a record low. Coverage linked that volatility to reward-driven engagement that dissipated once distributions ended. As BitMEX CEO Stephan Lutz put it, such token incentives had become “paid advertising” that produced short-lived activity rather than enduring liquidity.
Aster remained significant in raw weekly trading volume (reported at $31.7B) but struggled to convert new account growth into comparable open interest and execution depth against Hyperliquid’s lead.
For investors, product teams and compliance functions the takeaways are practical: performance and custody matter in derivatives; token incentives can distort liquidity signals; and governance/token design affects long‑term risk profiles.
Investors and risk managers are now watching token emission schedules, governance metrics and quarter‑over‑quarter volume and open‑interest data to judge whether Hyperliquid’s on‑chain utility will sustain valuation and whether competitors can rebuild organic liquidity after incentive cycles. That scrutiny will shape product roadmaps and compliance assessments across the perp DEX ecosystem.
