Bukkycares

Layer 2s are usually introduced as a scaling solution. More transactions, lower costs, faster execution.
But for #Hyperliquid , Elysium raises a different question: can another execution layer expand the ecosystem without pulling activity away from the infrastructure that already powers it?
That is the idea behind #Elysium . It isn’t being positioned as just another faster chain. It is being designed around an existing financial ecosystem, with the goal of making Hyperliquid’s infrastructure more useful while keeping the economic activity connected to it.
For #Web3 , that distinction matters because scaling usually focuses on where transactions happen, while the more important question can be where the economic value created by those transactions ends up.
Why Hyperliquid Needs Another Execution Environment
Hyperliquid already has something many ecosystems spend years trying to build: a purpose built trading engine in HyperCore. The challenge is that HyperEVM has to host a different class of applications while staying connected to HyperCore, and that architecture gets awkward once applications need high frequency execution.
According to Kinetiq Research, the Elysium thesis points to the dual block architecture, limited throughput, and periods when even a simple swap became expensive, costing as much as $20. It also highlights weak spot activity, including a stretch when weekly spot volume relative to Binance hit a 15 month low and HIP-2 native orderbook bootstrapping was at a low point.
Those figures describe the conditions cited when Elysium was introduced, not a permanent verdict on today’s market. But they illustrate the problem well. Hyperliquid has strong native trading infrastructure, yet the EVM side can become a bottleneck for anything that needs sustained execution capacity.
The answer doesn’t have to be replacing HyperEVM. Elysium is designed to take on workloads that need a different performance profile while staying connected to what already exists.
Elysium Is Designed Around Hyperliquid, Not Beside It
According to Kinetiq’s technical documentation, Elysium is a high performance EVM environment built on Arbitrum Orbit, settling to HyperEVM and co located with HyperCore. The target is 300 Mgas per second with 100 to 200 millisecond blocks, compared with HyperEVM’s constrained execution model. For applications where speed and capacity shape the user experience, that gap matters.
There’s another design choice that’s easy to overlook: $HYPE is the gas token. Nobody has to acquire a new asset just to pay fees, and $HYPE moves between HyperEVM and Elysium as native value with no wrapped gas asset in between. That keeps the new layer tied to the same native asset instead of creating another economic silo.
The real value of an execution layer isn’t its transaction count. It’s what developers can build with the capacity.
The Spot Market Opportunity
This is where Elysium becomes more than a throughput story.
Hyperliquid’s native spot market has the orderbook infrastructure, but bootstrapping deep liquidity is hard. Elysium creates an environment where AMMs and professional market makers can operate close to HyperCore while reading native Hyperliquid market data. Kinetiq calls particular attention to PropAMMs, which can offer more sophisticated liquidity than a conventional long tail AMM.
That creates an opening for #DeFi applications and professional liquidity strategies that can help deepen Hyperliquid’s spot markets.
The data side is especially important. Elysium is designed to extend Hyperliquid’s L1Read access beyond the limited market data currently available on HyperEVM. The planned customized precompile is intended to expose much more, including orderbook depth, prices, balances and positions, allowing Hyperliquid itself to serve as the native market data source for builders.
For a PropAMM, that means the potential for tighter quoting, better hedging and better risk management. For traders, it means the possibility of deeper, more responsive markets.
There is one important timing detail to keep in mind: Kinetiq’s own writing puts this read and write functionality roughly four weeks after mainnet. Day one Elysium will be faster, but not yet fully wired into HyperCore data.
So the opportunity isn’t just making an AMM faster. It’s bringing EVM applications closer to the market infrastructure that already lives inside Hyperliquid.
From Token Launch to a Full Market Lifecycle
Another part of the design deserves more attention, because it changes how token launches could work.
The proposed lifecycle is AMM → PropAMM → HyperCore Spot → HIP-3 Perps.
A token can start on an AMM for initial liquidity and price discovery. If demand shows up, professional liquidity can come in through PropAMMs. A successful asset can then graduate to a HyperCore spot orderbook and eventually earn a perpetual market through HIP-3.
That’s a progression between kinds of liquidity, instead of forcing every project to pick one market structure on day one. And every stage stays connected to Hyperliquid’s trading infrastructure.
A token doesn’t have to launch on one chain, build liquidity on another, find a separate derivatives venue and scatter its users across several ecosystems.
If it works as intended, Elysium becomes a place where assets grow through different stages of market maturity without leaving Hyperliquid.
The Real Elysium Thesis: Value Accrual
This is where the Elysium argument goes beyond scaling.
Kinetiq calls Elysium the first value accretive L2, and its September 16 post explains what that means. Most #Layer2 networks make their base layer more scalable without necessarily making it more valuable, because what they pay for settlement and data is tiny next to the activity they process.
Kinetiq’s example, using L2BEAT data, is Base: roughly 11M operations a day while paying Ethereum only about $1.5K a day in operating costs over the past year. Elysium settles cheaply too, so settlement fees aren’t the thesis. The thesis is what Elysium can cause to happen elsewhere in Hyperliquid.
The starting point makes sense to me. Kinetiq says HyperCore perps bring in roughly $1m to $6m a day, while HyperEVM adds around $1m a year. That leaves very little for an L2 to cannibalize.
Then two channels do the heavy lifting.
The first is USDC. Under AQAv2, roughly 90% of cost adjusted reserve yield on USDC held on Hyperliquid goes to the Assistance Fund. If Elysium brings in USDC from outside the ecosystem, that base grows.
Kinetiq’s illustrative math: if Elysium attracted as much native USDC as Base holds today, about $4.3B, then at an assumed 3% yield that’s roughly $116M a year. Kinetiq is clear that this shows the scale of the mechanism, not a prediction, and that the USDC has to be genuinely new. Moving existing Hyperliquid USDC onto Elysium expands nothing.
The second is arbitrage. With read and write access to HyperCore, a price gap between an Elysium PropAMM and a HyperCore order book can be arbitraged away, generating volume on both sides.
More HyperCore volume means more fees, and part of those fees reaches the Assistance Fund, where $HYPE is bought and burned. Not every fee gets there, and this isn’t a contractual payment from Elysium to Hyperliquid. It’s Elysium’s liquidity driving activity on the L1.
I find this more convincing than the “first and only” line in the manifesto, because it names the channels and shows the math. But both depend on things that don’t exist yet: net new stablecoin inflows, deep liquidity, and interest rates staying meaningful. So I’d call it a well argued mechanism, not a forecast.
It also means KNTQ and $HYPE gain in different ways. The manifesto presents KNTQ as the direct beneficiary of the network’s sequencer activity through the burn, while $HYPE can benefit indirectly through gas demand, AQAv2 revenue and HyperCore volume.
Where KNTQ Enters the Picture
The sequencer economics make the thesis concrete.
Elysium splits sequencer revenue three ways: 25% goes to builders using Elysium blockspace, 25% goes to the Kinetiq treasury, and 50% goes to open market purchases of KNTQ. The purchased KNTQ is sent to the Hyperliquid Assistance Fund and permanently removed.
This 50% mechanism is what makes KNTQ look strongly deflationary on paper. I’d put it more precisely: it’s a usage linked supply sink. More blockspace means more sequencer revenue, and more revenue means a bigger pool for buying and burning KNTQ.
So the relationship looks like this:
Elysium usage → sequencer revenue → KNTQ purchases → permanent removal from supply.
But there’s a real difference between mechanism and outcome. The burn is programmed into the model. The activity that produces the revenue isn’t. A buy and burn doesn’t guarantee price appreciation. What matters is whether Elysium attracts sustainable usage, and that’s the variable I’d watch most closely.
Why the Alignment Matters
The split gives different participants a reason to pull in the same direction.
Builders get a share of sequencer economics for incentives and growth. Users and traders potentially get faster applications, deeper liquidity and new markets. Kinetiq gets treasury revenue, while KNTQ benefits from the 50% purchase and burn.
Hyperliquid has the potential to gain applications, stablecoin liquidity and trading activity that stay connected to HyperCore.
That’s a feedback loop, not a simple fee extraction model. The question is whether the loop gets big enough to sustain itself.
The Part That Still Needs to Be Proven
There are still some important things Elysium has to prove.
Elysium is still pre launch, so its performance targets haven’t been tested under real economic conditions. The design starts with a single sequencer and an AnyTrust data availability committee, with a roadmap toward more decentralisation. So the technology has to prove it can process transactions quickly and reliably while attracting real builders, traders and liquidity.
The economics face an equally important test. High throughput means little without sustained demand for the blockspace. PropAMMs need real trading opportunities. Token launches need genuine users. The USDC and arbitrage channels need real inflows and real volume. And the KNTQ burn depends on the revenue all of that generates.
That is the point where the design has to meet actual demand.
My Perspective
What I really want to see with Elysium isn’t simply faster blocks. We’ve seen plenty of infrastructure projects compete on speed.
The bigger experiment is whether an execution layer can expand an existing financial ecosystem without separating itself from the economic engine that gives that ecosystem its value.
Elysium is trying to connect pieces that are usually fragmented: high performance EVM execution, $HYPE as native gas, HyperCore market data, PropAMM liquidity, a path from AMM to HyperCore Spot and HIP-3 Perps, and a sequencer model that sends half its revenue toward KNTQ purchases and permanent removal.
If those pieces work together, Elysium could become more than an L2 for Hyperliquid. It could become an execution layer whose growth is structurally tied to the growth of the ecosystem around it.
That’s what I’ll be watching as Elysium develops. Not whether it can process more transactions, but whether more execution capacity turns into more useful markets, more economic activity for Hyperliquid and a sustainable value capture mechanism for Kinetiq and KNTQ.
#Kinetiq is building around a question that goes beyond Layer 2 infrastructure: can an execution layer contribute to the economic system it extends?
That’s the part of Elysium I’ll be paying attention to as it moves from an idea on paper to something people can actually use.
Sources
Kinetiq, “How Elysium could accrue $100M+ a year to Hyperliquid,” 16 Sep 2026
https://kinetiq.xyz/blog/elysium-hyperliquid-value-accretive-l2
Kinetiq, “Elysium: A New Era for Hyperliquid” (manifesto), X post 24 Aug 2026; blog copy 27 Aug 2026
https://x.com/Kinetiq_xyz/status/2091888509472932145
https://kinetiq.xyz/blog/elysium-hyperliquid-l2
Kinetiq, Elysium Technical Overview
https://kinetiq.xyz/docs/elysium-technical-overview
Kinetiq, KNTQ Docs
https://kinetiq.xyz/docs/kntq
Hyperliquid Docs, Aligned Quote Assets (AQAv2)
https://hyperliquid.gitbook.io/hyperliquid-docs/hypercore/aligned-quote-assets
L2BEAT, Layer 2 Onchain Costs Dashboard
https://l2beat.com/layer2s/compare?projects=base,arbitrum,robinhood,op-mainnet,lighter&charts=costs:unit=eth
I’m sharing this as my own analysis for educational purposes, not as financial advice.

AIエージェントは、別の段階へと移行しつつあります。
もはや回答を生成することに限定されません。Webサイトを閲覧し、ファイルを管理し、コードを書き、情報を扱い、そして複数ステップのワークフローを実行できます。
その追加された機能は、新しいエンジニアリング上の課題を生み出します。
ソフトウェアがあなたの代わりに動けるようになったとき、何が許可されていて何が許可されていないのかをどう管理しますか？中断されたタスクが消えてしまわないように、どう確認しますか？そして、データと計算の裏側でそれを支えるインフラを、どう保護しますか？
それが、@NEAR Protocol からの IronClaw 1.0 を調べる価値がある理由です。

最初に DAO Labs が Social Mining プラットフォームを ilo.dao-labs.com から whotweets.com に移したと聞いたとき、私はそれが単なるリブランディングだと思い込みました。結局のところ、技術の世界でドメイン名を変えるのは珍しいことではありません。
しかし、よく調べてみると、新しい住所は、はるかに大きな変革のうちの「見えている部分」にすぎないと分かりました。
この移行は、コミュニティと共に成長するプラットフォームの姿を映しています。アイデンティティを洗練させ、貢献者の働き方をより良くし、Social Mining の未来に向けた強固な土台を築いているのです。だからこそ、このアップデートは注目する価値があります。

Web3では、持続可能性は単なるハイプではなく、デザインに関することです。 $AITECH はそれを偶然には任せません。その動的な焼却と獲得のモデルは、すべてのインタラクションとともにエコシステムがより強く成長することを保証します。
🔥 バーンエンジン：希少性 + 持続可能性
ユーザーがエージェントを展開したり、AIコンピュートを使用したり、オンチェーンでやり取りしたりするたびに、トークンの一部が永遠に焼却されます。つまり：
🔻 時間が経つにつれて供給が減少する = 希少性が増す
🚫 インフレ圧力はありません
この焼却メカニズムは、長期的な価値を創造し、トークン経済をクリーンで効率的、かつデフレ的に保つのに役立ちます。

Web3におけるAIの未来は単に頭脳を必要とするだけでなく、帯域幅も必要です。
そしてそれがまさに$AITECH がSolanaにブリッジすることで得ているものです。
これはルーチン拡張ではありません。速度、規模、戦略のアップグレードです — Solidus AI TechにチェーンネイティブなペースでAIワークロードを実行するための火力を提供します。
🧠 スマートなものは速さを必要とします
AIエージェント。クラウドインフラ。オンチェーン実行。
これは軽量なタスクではありません — 使用が急増しても壊れない即時低コストのトランザクションが必要です。Ethereum L2は助けになりましたが、Solanaはより強力なものをもたらします：