hyperliquid

There is an old lesson from African communities: when a road becomes successful, more people start using it. Eventually, the same road that once moved everyone easily becomes crowded.
That is a useful way to look at Hyperliquid today.
Hyperliquid has built one of crypto's strongest on-chain trading ecosystems, but growing activity also exposes infrastructure limitations. HyperEVM has faced periods of congestion and elevated transaction costs, creating a challenge for applications that need fast, inexpensive execution.
This is where Elysium, Kinetiq's proposed Layer 2 for Hyperliquid, becomes interesting.
Rather than creating another isolated blockchain, Elysium is designed around the existing Hyperliquid ecosystem. HYPE is intended to serve as gas, while Elysium is designed for tighter interaction with HyperCore and high-performance applications.
The objective is straightforward: create additional execution capacity without disconnecting applications from Hyperliquid's liquidity and trading infrastructure.
Why builders and traders should care
One of Elysium's more interesting ideas is its approach to market creation.
The proposed lifecycle is:
AMM → PropAMM → HyperCore Spot → HIP-3 Perps
In simple terms, a new asset could begin with automated liquidity, progress to professional market-making through PropAMMs, develop into a native HyperCore spot market and, if it gains sufficient demand, potentially reach perpetual markets.
That creates a clearer path from token launch to deeper liquidity and sophisticated trading.
For traders, the potential benefit is better execution and liquidity. For builders, it means an environment designed specifically for applications requiring high-frequency activity and closer access to Hyperliquid's financial infrastructure.
But these are design objectives, not results that should already be treated as proven. Elysium still has to demonstrate real-world throughput, liquidity and adoption.
The KNTQ connection
Kinetiq already occupies an important position in Hyperliquid DeFi. Current DefiLlama data places Kinetiq around $1.23B TVL, compared with roughly $1.44B in Hyperliquid L1 DeFi TVL. TVL methodologies can involve overlap, so the figure should not be interpreted literally as Kinetiq controlling that percentage of all network activity.
Its core product, kHYPE, allows users to stake HYPE while retaining a liquid asset that can be used across DeFi.
Elysium adds another potential value-accrual layer.
Its proposed sequencer-fee distribution is:
25% Builders | 25% Treasury | 50% KNTQ buy & burn
The important part is not simply the 50% headline.
If Elysium generates genuine transaction activity, half of those sequencer fees would be directed toward buying KNTQ from the open market and burning the purchased tokens.
That creates a potential feedback loop:
More usage → more fees → more KNTQ purchases → more tokens removed from supply.
The remaining 50% also matters. Builders receive an economic incentive to create useful applications, while the treasury receives resources to support the wider ecosystem.
My perspective
Calling Elysium “value-accretive” is reasonable as a description of its proposed economics, but it is not yet proof of success.
A burn mechanism only becomes meaningful when there is substantial fee generation. Likewise, better infrastructure matters only if developers and users actually choose to use it.
What makes Elysium worth watching is therefore not the hype around another L2. It is the attempt to connect scaling, trading liquidity, builders and token economics into one system.
The real test now is simple: can Elysium turn the architecture into sustainable activity?
That is what will determine whether this is genuinely a new era for Hyperliquid or simply another ambitious crypto infrastructure experiment.
@kinetiq_research
#Web3 #Hyperliquid #Kinetiq #Elysium #DeFi

Layer 2 (L2) solutions have become the backbone of scaling blockchains, but most follow a familiar pattern: they extract value from their Layer 1 (L1) without returning it. Arbitrum, Optimism, and zkSync all rely on #Ethereum for settlement, yet their sequencer fees and gas dynamics accrue primarily to the L2 operators, not Ethereum stakers. Hyperliquid’s Elysium breaks this mold. It is designed not as a parasitic L2, but as a value-accretive engine that strengthens #Hyperliquid and #Kinetiq at their core.
⚖️ Traditional L2s vs. Elysium
Traditional L2s:Gas is paid in ETH, but sequencer fees flow to the L2 operator.Ethereum acts as a settlement layer, not a growth engine.Value leakage: activity on the L2 does not directly reinforce Ethereum’s token economy.Elysium:Gas is paid in HYPE, embedding demand for Hyperliquid’s native token.Sequencer fees are redistributed to builders, the treasury, and KNTQ buy & burn.Instead of siphoning value, Elysium recycles it back into Hyperliquid and Kinetiq, creating a closed-loop economy.
This makes Elysium the first L2 designed to amplify its parent ecosystem rather than drain it.
🚨 Why Hyperliquid Needs Elysium Now
Hyperliquid’s HyperEVM has been a powerful foundation for decentralized perpetuals, but it faces bottlenecks:
Throughput limits: Spot trading and PropAMMs are constrained by execution ceilings.Latency: Builders deploying new markets encounter delays in settlement and liquidity routing.Scalability gap: Without higher throughput, Hyperliquid risks losing ground to faster competitors.
Elysium addresses these pain points by unlocking high-performance rails for spot trading, programmable AMMs, and token launches, all natively integrated into Hyperliquid.
Core Innovations of Elysium
HYPE as GasEvery transaction consumes HYPE, creating direct demand pressure.Unlike ETH-based L2s, this ensures Hyperliquid’s native token is the heartbeat of the system.Supercharged Spot Trading & PropAMMsElysium enables high-throughput spot markets and programmable AMMs.Builders can deploy custom liquidity strategies without hitting HyperEVM’s ceiling.This expands market diversity and deepens liquidity.Token Generation LifecycleElysium provides rails for new token launches directly within Hyperliquid.Projects can bootstrap liquidity, integrate with PropAMMs, and plug into Kinetiq’s staking ecosystem.This keeps innovation native, rather than forcing projects to migrate elsewhere.
💰 Sequencer Fee Model – Aligning Incentives
Elysium’s fee distribution is radical in its alignment:
25% → Builders: Rewards innovation and market creation.25% → Treasury: Funds ecosystem growth, audits, and security.50% → KNTQ Buy & Burn: Permanently reduces supply, making KNTQ hyper-deflationary.
This model ensures:
Builders are incentivized to expand the ecosystem.The treasury sustains long-term resilience.KNTQ holders benefit from relentless deflation, turning governance into a value-capturing asset.
🔥 Human-Centric Perspective
For traders, Elysium means faster, cheaper markets.
For builders, it means direct rewards for innovation.
For holders, it means their governance token becomes scarcer with every block.
This is economic engineering. By embedding $HYPE into gas and routing sequencer fees into KNTQ deflation, Hyperliquid and Kinetiq have created a closed-loop system where every transaction strengthens the core.
Conclusion
Elysium represents a new era for Hyperliquid: the first L2 that accrues value back to its parent ecosystem. It solves HyperEVM’s bottlenecks, supercharges trading and token launches, and introduces a sequencer fee model that makes KNTQ structurally deflationary.
If successful, Elysium could set a precedent for how L2s should be designed not as extractors, but as amplifiers of their L1s. Hyperliquid doesn’t just need Elysium; it needs it now, as the technical and economic lifeline that ensures its long-term dominance.

Conclusion up front: this Hyperliquid “giant whale” has made and lost almost the same amount of money historically. But right now, it’s sitting on a $9.95 million unrealized gain from a fully-loaded long position—risk and reward are both maximized.
Full address: 0xa9b95f2a2e7ef219021efc5c04c32761b8553bbd. Over the past 172 days, it opened and closed 189 trades, with 159 profitable trades—an 84% win rate. Cumulative realized profit was $3.31 million. Fees totaled only $610,000, which is an extremely small proportion of the traded volume.
The issue is drawdown: over these 172 days, the maximum drawdown was $3.2 million, almost matching the realized profit of $3.31 million. Historically, this account has been extremely close to wiping out the profit and going into the red.

Among the hundreds of tokens screaming “to the moon” every day on the timeline, there’s a name quietly growing on the rarest thing in crypto: real revenue and a transparent token buyback mechanism. That is $HYPE —the native token of the decentralized derivatives exchange Hyperliquid.
What is HYPE doing differently?
While most altcoins survive on narrative and expectations, Hyperliquid operates a model similar to... a genuinely profitable exchange. The protocol takes about 99% of fees from the order book to buy back HYPE on the open market—more like a stock-company-style “buyback” than a pure speculative token. Monthly buyback figures currently range roughly from $58–80 million, coming from the protocol’s actual revenue (estimated at around $2.8 million/day at the recent peak period).

Over the past 24 hours, liquidations across the entire network totaled $411 million, with Binance alone accounting for $165 million—40%, the highest among all.
To see how badly the longs are suffering, you have to look at Hyperliquid: $62.52 million liquidated, with 99.6% being longs—almost no shorts. Binance longs account for 87.5%, OKX is 82.8%—none are this extreme.
Bitcoin and Ethereum together accounted for nearly 60% of liquidation losses.
$BTC $ETH
#爆仓 #Hyperliquid #Binance
How many more days do you think the longs on Hyperliquid can hold out?
Check in real time: https://www.coinboss.com/zh/liquidations

Conclusion first: this address has balanced 252 trades over the past 173 days—215 profitable trades, a win rate of 85%, and cumulative profits of $5.15M. There are still five positions remaining in the account now: four are in profit, and only one is in loss.
Full address: 0xd21d931890d27b6e7e2e668f27931e17698e90f1. Cumulative trading volume: $190M. Fees only cost $70k, which is less than 1.4% of the money made. Over 173 days, the largest drawdown was $1.54M—about 30% of the money earned. It isn’t the most extreme risk control, but it also didn’t cause significant damage.
The current positions are laid out very clearly: HYPE is long with a $6.84M position, $1.77M in unrealized profit, for a return rate of 174%; PUMP is long with a $5.23M position, $0.64M in unrealized profit; ZEC is long with a $3.85M position, $0.37M in unrealized profit; LIT is long with a $3.00M position, $0.20M in unrealized profit. The only one in a loss is VVV: a $2.49M position with an unrealized loss of $0.21M, for a return rate of -23%.

Let’s state the conclusion first: in 281 days, this old Hyperliquid player only won about 30% of the positions, yet netted $6.846 million on that 30%—with drawdowns kept extremely tight.
Full address: 0x8f78cb4c11dd66b99b2172b4c1ae05843bde87e7. Out of 191 completed trades, 53 were selected as fully closed positions. They only won 16 trades, with a win rate of 30%; the remaining 37 all lost. On the surface, it doesn’t look particularly smart.
But the 16 winning trades were absolutely brutal: cumulative trading volume of $186 million, profit of $6.846 million, ROI of 469%, and fees of only $0.698 million—just over 1% of the profit.
What best explains it is risk control: over 281 days, the maximum drawdown was only $752,000, accounting for 11% of the $6.846 million profit. When losing, they cut losses quickly; when winning, they had the nerve to hold.

Conclusion first: In the past 10 days, this Hyperliquid account went flat across 280 positions—every one of the 280 trades was profitable, none were losses, and the win rate is 100%.
Complete address: 0x469e9a7f624b04c24f0e64edf8d8a277e6bf58a5. In 10 days, the trading volume was 172 million USD, and it was exchanged for 3.647 million USD in net realized profit, a return rate of 58.9%.
The fees were only 25,000 USD, accounting for less than 0.7% of the money made. This shows the difference profit wasn’t ground out by high-frequency hedging—it means the directional judgment really was completely right.
The most striking part is the drawdown: after 280 trades, the account’s maximum drawdown was only 5,900 USD. Compared with a profit of 3,647,000 USD, it’s not even enough to count as loose change. In these 10 days, there was hardly any noticeable unrealized loss.

This address took a tumble as soon as it entered: the earliest record in the system is a long liquidation order worth 1.59 million USD.
Full address: 0x795cfd1b03eafc11c4ec958b8a94cfc9aa64a242. Over the next 177 days, it didn’t disappear—instead, it closed out 463 positions trades, with 326 winning trades and a win rate of 70.4%. Cumulative trading volume was 501 million USD, and it netted 6.37 million USD.
The fees were 169,000 USD, accounting for 2.6% of the take-home profit. That’s not too expensive. During this period, the maximum drawdown was 1.18 million USD, which was only 18.5% of net profit—indicating that later there wasn’t a repeat of that kind of all-in, gamble-like start.
The main assets traded are Ethereum, Bitcoin, Hyperliquid’s native token HYPE, Solana, and Dogecoin. They didn’t keep betting stubbornly on one direction to grind it out repeatedly.