Max Uper

I am currently making the final changes to the Hyperliquid v2 paper. If anyone has any important information that was not included in the first paper, my DMs are open and I welcome any helpful information to make the paper even more detailed, precise and better. Thank you for your attention. Hyperliquid to Trillions!

So many tiny bugs on my sites like Nomads and Remote OK that I never got too because they were not worth to spend a day on to fix but still annoying enough to require a fix "one day" I now just ask Claude Code to fix in 1 minute Really turbo blasting through my todo Maybe I can finally outrun my todo list for the first time in my life (I know maybe by definition that's an illusion but still) What a great time to be a coder

unpopular take but there was a window from 2020-2025 when protocol tokens had a chance to become justifiable trillion dollar projects. but that window has passed, and i don't know that it's ever coming back. i'll try to explain. it's popular to roast infra valuations based on revenue. eth trades at a 200x multiple on its fees! (nvidia is 40x). this makes sense in valuing a *business* and i expect will be the revenue model moving forward. but there was a deeper opportunity, from 2020-2025, for infra to be much more than a business. it could have been a digital nation-state. by "digital nation-state," i'm not talking about annoying shangri-las like the network state. i mean something like *we actually had* in 2021, when people used eth as the currency to buy and sell digital goods. a nation-state is, basically, a series of contracts ensuring the validity of transactions in its native currency. the "USA," at some level, is a series of laws to ensure the transaction of USD. smart contracts create a permissionless version of this system without borders or police that lets *anyone* transact. there was a delusional time, a few years ago, when you could have believed that crypto would be the nation-state 2.0: one open for anyone to use, cocreate, and govern. why does this matter for valuations? USD isn't valued based on the "revenue" of the US as a business. this revenue is taxes, and while taxes matter to sustain the economy, the far more important metric for the value of a dollar is GDP. similarly, in a world where everyone is transacting with a digital native currency like eth, the value of eth is not in revenue. it's in GDP. even a year or two ago, it was possible to believe both that 1) GDP was a better valuation framework than revenue for infra, 2) GDP itself was so significant that the growth potential meant that eth at 4k was undervalued. at some level we had to believe these things. because the alternative was that eth was simply a memecoin, and it would go up because we were in a golden era of ponzis. it's not really possible to believe either of these today. ethereum as a culture has never fought for eth as a reserve currency of the internet, and instead has embraced stablecoins—which are the obvious future of the industry. meanwhile, the golden era of ponzis seems itself to have climbed the ponzi mountain. it's reached the top, and post-memecoin, pre-recession, there isn't anywhere to go. finally, for the first time, you can use revenue frameworks to justify buying crypto tokens... as long as these tokens are revenue-generating apps. the new paradigm is the old paradigm, the one that always rears its head in the end: revenue is king. good for apps. not good for infra. crypto had a chance to invent a more revolutionary, and more interesting paradigm a few years ago, one where GDP was king. but it was ruled by technologists, not economists, and it never took the swing. the irony is that crypto's massive success today, as institutions flood the space, stablecoins proliferate, and apps generate very real profit, are all signs that the original hopes of crypto are dead. there is nobody, not even me, fighting for a new system in which the people's currency overtakes the US dollar as the reserve token of global finance. instead, everyone has simply accepted that the future of fintech is crypto, and that it's a better way to transact dollars in apps. the queen is dead, long live the queen.

Why are the HyperEVM token launches "Underwhelming?", with the recent $HPL drop I thought It’d be a good time to provide some perspective Lets explore a little For most "Big" launches outside of hyperliquid they focus on a few things differently to hyperliquid First of all Hyperliquid tokens are mainly launched on Hypercore or HyperEVM, sometimes both, sometimes individually. Why is this already a big change within how typical launches go, if we are comparing to SOL or ETH network launches e.g. lets just use $JTO (Liquid staking on SOL) and $AAVE (Borrow/Lending Protocol on ETH) as examples to compare to Kinetiq and now HyperLend Jito upon launching was listed on Binance, Coinbase, Kucoin, Bybit, OKX and Gate Aave listed on Binance, Coinbase, Kraken and FTX CEX launches usually require quite a few things 1 - Designated Market Makers, this is a MM that will ensure a healthy orderbook on their CEX, MM’s will have loans of both the native token usually a decent amount of the supply paired with a stablecoin e.g. usdt, Market makers will maintain a maximum spread of 0.1%-0.2% and keep thick liquidity depth. Some CEX’s will actually provide their own market makers for your token e.g. upbit 2- Fees & campaigns, Many of the time you will see a CEX listing with a follow up campaign e.g. a “trading competition with 100k prizepool” to incentivise trading and liquidity of the new token. On top of this they promote to their audiences for “marketing fees” or make sure that the project uses KOL’s to promote their token launch to reach a vast audience. Compared to launching on HyperCore or HyperEVM these are quite different Hyperliquid has the HLP which is their version of a Market maker HLP is where projects use vaults where the community can provide liquidity that serves as the “maker” on hyperliquid, unlike Traditional MM’s who do it with their own scripts / manually. Community wise where CEX’s have millions of users and have more than 100x the size of hyperliquid’s userbase there is a huge gap in the audience and using potential onboarding measures of that e.g. the aforementioned campaigns, the reach is of course going to be drastically smaller. Binance has about 300m users, hyperliquid at about 600k, and that's both at peak, not active users. But it goes to show the difference of audience Now lets move onto expectations. As most people who are on hyperliquid we have seen launches such as JTO and AAVE before where they ran to billions in FDV but these were in very different market conditions, in different environments. Current conditions of Crypto, Hyperliquid and HyperEVM are much different to how things like $AAVE or $JTO were when they launched. Currently is actually one of the most peak fear times in all of crypto, and on a blockchain that is relatively new doesn't have that much of a user base at this point. Having unreal expectations is never healthy, for the project and for your bags, for everything, it leads to disappointment from the start which is unfair to the project who could not live up to the unreal expectations set before it. Of course a network with around 62k daily users compared to a network with over 1m daily users is going to be a completely different game. But none of this is necessarily a bad thing for tokens on Hyperliquid On the contrary it actually gives time for those who believe and see the future vision of hyperliquid and the network to double down on their convictions. We have seen that CEX launches are typically downhill from launch which is why most hyperliquid projects choose to launch without a CEX as well as being aligned to the HL ethos. Many times when a token is listed on Binance or a CEX its actually used for exit liquidity for private investors and VC’s to be able to dump their tokens, even OTC deals are much easier done through CEX’s, with things like HPL there is no manipulation and is strictly organic price discovery by real market participants. Hyperliquid tokens in the long term actually have an advantage of not having tokens locked up in Market makers hands, or exchange listing fees hands, and being in the hands of those who have absolutely no idea why they hold the token, the value behind it and the use case of the token. Most CEX users don't use the networks of the token that they are holding and would be onboarded via the campaigns behind it, which just leaves more tokens to be dumped in the future. On hyperliquid there is no issue of this since practically all users understand what each token does. Currently the audience is small, but that's perfectly fine and healthy, as Hyperliquid grows, many of the ecosystem projects will grow alongside of it, that is what all of us hyperliquid builders see as the future of crypto to be like and why we choose to keep building regardless of the conditions. The Hyperliquid road might not be the easiest road to walk on and there could be more profitable roads to chase in the short term, but the hyperliquid road is the one with the best chance we have at a brighter web3 and will be well worth the hard work put in. A CEX listing is a marketing event. A HyperCore/EVM launch is a network-building event. One is designed to capture your attention, the other is designed to capture the future of finance. I'll take the 'underwhelming' build over the 'overwhelming' dump any day. The strong will survive, and thrive with the chances to 100x from here. Hyperliquid.

somebody explain to me what regular people are supposed to do when AI takes their job and everything still costs more every month. what’s the actual plan here because i haven’t heard one