DCo

@nicodotfun @MavenHL @fiege_max Yes

@Decentralisedco @MavenHL @fiege_max do you guys plan to release some predictions on HIP4 impact?

@CosimoCapital This is a lovely breakdown. We alluded to as such in the previous note but had a few reservations against liquidity fragmentation for new asset types without a pre-existing market. Maybe we should learn that from you :) Dropped you a dm. x.com/decentralisedc…

We are fans of @Decentralisedco and this is by no means a shot at them, just something to add. The article frames Hyperliquid's TAM as a percentage of CME volume. CME's TAM is CME's TAM. These are the assets that CME decided were worth listing, that cleared regulatory approval, that had enough institutional demand to justify the infrastructure cost, and that fit within market hours and existing financial plumbing. HIP-3's TAM is everything that CME couldn't, wouldn't, or didn't list. And that is a completely different number. Think about what has never had a liquid market before: A seed stage startup in Nairobi that wants public price discovery without a Nasdaq listing. A prediction market on whether a specific drug trial passes Phase 3. A special situations fund that wants to list a market on a single corporate restructuring. Parametric insurance on hurricane landfall in a specific county. Reinsurance tranches traded continuously rather than annually. Energy forward contracts for micro-grids in markets too small for commodity exchanges. Compute futures that let anyone sell guaranteed GPU access six months from now. AI inference priced as a commodity with a live forward curve. Carbon credits with real time price discovery instead of opaque bilateral deals. None of these exist as liquid markets today not because the demand isn't there but because the infrastructure to create them was too expensive, too regulated, too slow, and controlled by gatekeepers who decided what was worth listing. HIP-3 removes the gatekeeper entirely. 500,000 HYPE staked and anyone anywhere can create a market for anything. The listing decision is no longer made by a committee in Chicago. It's made by whoever thinks there's enough demand to justify the stake. And here's the compounding insight the article doesn't address. You don't know in advance which of those markets becomes the next oil perp. The Iran war weekend was not predictable. Nobody at CME was going to list a 24/7 oil perp because why would they undermine their own Monday morning open. Hyperliquid didn't plan for that weekend either. The market just existed and the demand found it. That's what permissionless listing means. It means unknown markets discovering unknown demand in real time globally without anyone's permission. The long tail of assets that have never had price discovery is not a rounding error on CME's volume. It is potentially larger than everything CME has ever listed combined because it includes every asset class that was never deemed worthy of a centralized listing in the first place. The article's bear case is $60 HYPE assuming almost no HIP-3 traction. That bear case doesn't model a world where startup equity, AI compute, parametric insurance, and special situations funds are all trading 24/7 on the same platform. It models a world where Hyperliquid captures a small slice of what CME already does. The real bull case isn't CME's volume migrating. It's the markets that never existed anywhere finding a home for the first time. TL;DR The CME comparison is a floor, not a ceiling. $HYPE

@Havochl_ Your quant knows.

@Decentralisedco HYPE Is Discounted My quant

@vividhl @tradexyz @bartdothl @ositoninja1 @smartestmoney @yieldyumi @im_insulting Yes

What if @tradexyz

@DynnoHL Thank you :)

Such a good read Takes time but worth it 100% Hyperliquid

@MavenHL @fiege_max Wait till you realise we did not account for HIP-4..

@Decentralisedco @fiege_max Great article. Really solid modeling and assumptions. One of the best HYPE valuation breakdowns I’ve seen 👏

@Dexari @fiege_max Thinking mobile rn (Downloads app)

@Decentralisedco @fiege_max Think bigger. Hyperliquid

@Kristian_Kho There is a future in which privacy comes to Hyperliquid. We don't think it's too far off, but for the moment, the open nature of the market does enable unique experiences and research. Current favorite is @hypurrdash social feeds and copy-trading.

Incredible bullposting by the team, Kudos. Also to consider the user experience of Hype vs other centralized structures. Because every trade is public, it becomes a more honest PvP experience. Day traders and scalpers have more open access to information and the playing field is effectively leveled. Tldr; HYPE is underpriced.

Trading on Velo is now live. Data, news, and trading at velo.xyz

@velo_xyz Crypto's frontpage.

@web3_lord Yes

Prediction: One day, by leveraging HIP-3, a team with a well-executed GTM strategy will drive billions in volume to the 24/7 Forex market on Hyperliquid

@umang_veerma We spend a lot of time internally thinking about this :)

There are only 3 defensible moats for crypto businesses: - Being the first mover in a new category - Owning relationship with the end consumers - Owning deep protocol liquidity Easy to work on GTM once you're clear which one is achievable for your product

@crypto_relevant :)

@Decentralisedco Man, this article is a goldmine. I'll have to re-read it to fully grasp everything, but it's indeed great work.

Take rates are not standardized across categories and it becomes quite hard to compare with historical context (early web) where protocol maturity was slightly different. We have been working on internal frameworks, taking into account take rates in context of protocols. Happy to chat if of help to monad.

Great article that definitely deserves more eyeballs. This article reminds me that for crypto protocols (and startups more generally), a helpful datapoint is not P/S or P/E, but a third thing in between. To elaborate: - S (sales) (revenue) is total topline revenue - E (earnings) (profit) is total excess profit after accounting for all costs, such as headcount costs Sales is too inclusive, because in some business models, a lot of the topline revenue goes to other marketplace participants (e.g. in a lending protocol, most of the interest goes to lenders). In finance terms, business models vary substantially by COGS Ratio. Profit (after everything is said and done) is certainly helpful, but also affected heavily by the extent to which the startup is investing in growth. And almost all crypto protocols are startups, i.e. are investing everything (and then some) into growth. What we would like is P/PF, where PF is "protocol fees", the topline revenue going to the protocol rather than to market participants. AFAIK, DeFiLlama has their "revenue" page actually tracking this number. Is there a reason this study was done over P/S rather than P/PF?

@DTAPCAP We've been wondering the same! Thank you :)

@Decentralisedco How can this have only 110 likes? Great work here.

@0xSrMessi It is. Some of us have lost sleep over it :)

@Decentralisedco that's such a nice concept

Unruggables ICOs