The pitch is AWS, not Goldman. Jeff Yan told Bloomberg's Odd Lots on October 15 that Hyperliquid wants to supply trading technology to financial institutions, not replace Wall Street firms.
The mechanism is a regulatory split. Yan argues compliance should fall on the firms that operate and control markets built on Hyperliquid, not on the blockchain itself, much like financial firms using internet infrastructure. In my read, that maps onto HIP-3 style builder-deployed markets, where the operator chooses the market design.
There's a live test case. Hyperliquid's perps stay closed to US users, but Kraken's parent Payward plans to offer US investors derivatives using Hyperliquid's technology through a regulated exchange. That's the model Yan is describing, with a licensed operator in front.
Worth saying plainly what this is: an advocacy position. Bloomberg noted the distinction would let Hyperliquid expand toward Wall Street without a traditional exchange's full compliance burden. US regulators are still working out how to bring offshore venues into the domestic framework, and none has endorsed this split.
What stands out to me is the token question. If institutions build on Hyperliquid, does the value accrue to HYPE or to the operators? August data showed HIP-3 deployers keeping half of fees on their markets, with one deployer driving nearly all of that volume. Infrastructure is a good business only if the toll stays with the infrastructure.
The AWS analogy has a limit too. In some jurisdictions, regulators already treat big cloud providers as critical third parties to finance, so "just infrastructure" may not mean "unregulated."
I'd watch whether Payward's product actually launches, and whether any regulator signals it accepts the operator-not-chain framing.
$XRP #BTC Price Analysis# #Altcoin Season# $HYPE
The mechanism is a regulatory split. Yan argues compliance should fall on the firms that operate and control markets built on Hyperliquid, not on the blockchain itself, much like financial firms using internet infrastructure. In my read, that maps onto HIP-3 style builder-deployed markets, where the operator chooses the market design.
There's a live test case. Hyperliquid's perps stay closed to US users, but Kraken's parent Payward plans to offer US investors derivatives using Hyperliquid's technology through a regulated exchange. That's the model Yan is describing, with a licensed operator in front.
Worth saying plainly what this is: an advocacy position. Bloomberg noted the distinction would let Hyperliquid expand toward Wall Street without a traditional exchange's full compliance burden. US regulators are still working out how to bring offshore venues into the domestic framework, and none has endorsed this split.
What stands out to me is the token question. If institutions build on Hyperliquid, does the value accrue to HYPE or to the operators? August data showed HIP-3 deployers keeping half of fees on their markets, with one deployer driving nearly all of that volume. Infrastructure is a good business only if the toll stays with the infrastructure.
The AWS analogy has a limit too. In some jurisdictions, regulators already treat big cloud providers as critical third parties to finance, so "just infrastructure" may not mean "unregulated."
I'd watch whether Payward's product actually launches, and whether any regulator signals it accepts the operator-not-chain framing.
$XRP #BTC Price Analysis# #Altcoin Season# $HYPE