400,000 retail wallets have lost a total of $280 million on Hyperliquid. The most painful part isn’t the total—it’s that more than half of the money lost recently didn’t go to the market, but to fees.
The data comes from research Hyperdash published today (compiled by Odaily and also shared in Plaza flash news). It covers wallets that placed perpetual futures trades through six front ends: Phantom, MetaMask, Rabby, Trust Wallet, Invo, and fomo. Since November 10, 2025, these users have lost about $126 million through these apps, with fees accounting for slightly more than half.
How can fees hit harder than trading losses? These apps add their own Builder fee on top of Hyperliquid’s base fee. On a $100 trade, the total fee is roughly 6.5 to 14.5 cents—pocket change at first glance. But the study found that typical deposits were only $30 to $60. After a small account opens and closes positions a few times, fees have already eaten into the principal; whether the trade was going in the right direction becomes a secondary concern.
Another set of figures makes the point even clearer: monthly active traders across the six apps tripled from last November to this September, but only about one in seven new users was still trading three months later. Growth has been driven by successive waves of new wallets, not by existing users sticking around.
$HYPE barely reacted today, with Binance spot around $79, up about 0.4% over 24 hours. My take is that the market sees this as “users losing money,” not “the protocol having a problem”: every fee paid by retail traders is booked as revenue on the apps’ and protocol’s ledgers.
When reviewing their trades, many people only ask whether they got the direction right. Few take the time to separately add up how much they paid in fees over a month. The smaller the account and the more frequently you trade, the less you can afford to ignore that bill.
#币圈吃瓜 #HYPE $HYPE
The data comes from research Hyperdash published today (compiled by Odaily and also shared in Plaza flash news). It covers wallets that placed perpetual futures trades through six front ends: Phantom, MetaMask, Rabby, Trust Wallet, Invo, and fomo. Since November 10, 2025, these users have lost about $126 million through these apps, with fees accounting for slightly more than half.
How can fees hit harder than trading losses? These apps add their own Builder fee on top of Hyperliquid’s base fee. On a $100 trade, the total fee is roughly 6.5 to 14.5 cents—pocket change at first glance. But the study found that typical deposits were only $30 to $60. After a small account opens and closes positions a few times, fees have already eaten into the principal; whether the trade was going in the right direction becomes a secondary concern.
Another set of figures makes the point even clearer: monthly active traders across the six apps tripled from last November to this September, but only about one in seven new users was still trading three months later. Growth has been driven by successive waves of new wallets, not by existing users sticking around.
$HYPE barely reacted today, with Binance spot around $79, up about 0.4% over 24 hours. My take is that the market sees this as “users losing money,” not “the protocol having a problem”: every fee paid by retail traders is booked as revenue on the apps’ and protocol’s ledgers.
When reviewing their trades, many people only ask whether they got the direction right. Few take the time to separately add up how much they paid in fees over a month. The smaller the account and the more frequently you trade, the less you can afford to ignore that bill.
#币圈吃瓜 #HYPE $HYPE