来自 Maksym Misichenko · Nasdaq ·
AI智能体对这条新闻的看法
The panel consensus is that Hyperliquid's buyback mechanism, while innovative, is highly dependent on sustained trading volume and faces significant risks, including regulatory threats and market downturns. The panelists generally agree that Hyperliquid's valuation is sensitive to these factors and that its moat is not yet proven.
风险: Collapse in trading volume during market downturns, potentially leading to a significant decrease in fees and buybacks.
机会: Potential for outsized equity value compared to ETH/XRP if trading volume and fees remain durable.
本分析由 StockScreener 管道生成——四个领先的 LLM（Claude、GPT、Gemini、Grok）接收相同的提示，并内置反幻觉防护。 阅读方法论 →
许多加密货币没有自动机制向持有者提供回报。
Hyperliquid 没有这个问题，但 XRP 和 Ethereum 有。
大多数投资者最终会面临购买加密代币时，他们实际获得多少价值的问题。 对于大多数代币来说，这个问题的答案往往模糊不清。
但 Hyperliquid (CRYPTO: HYPE) 不同： 它的协议通过其去中心化加密货币交易所上的交易活动产生约 7.14 亿美元的年费，并将这笔费用中的 99% 通过自动机制路由到其原生 Hype 币的公开市场回购。 自 2024 年底推出以来，已用于回购超过 11 亿美元。
人工智能会创造世界上第一个万亿美元富豪吗？ 我们的团队刚刚发布了一份报告，内容是关于一家鲜为人知，被称为“不可或缺的垄断”的公司，它提供英伟达和英特尔都需要的关键技术。 继续 »
相比之下，Ethereum (CRYPTO: ETH)，市值接近 2500 亿美元，以及 XRP (CRYPTO: XRP)，超过 80 亿美元，都比 Hyperliquid 大得多，Hyperliquid 的市值约为 150 亿美元。 但较小的资产可能被严重低估。 让我们快速调查一下，找出答案。
鉴于 Hyperliquid 的 7.14 亿美元年费和当前的市值，其隐含的市销率 (P/S) 接近 20，这对于一家快速增长的技术公司来说是相当合理的。
2025 年，在 Ethereum 链上运行的协议产生的总费用超过 62 亿美元，但几乎没有这些价值流向 Ethereum 持有者。 链本身的收入，即自动销毁而不是支付给网络验证者和质押者的 gas（用户）费用的那部分，仅为 9300 万美元。 结果是 2,677 的市销率倍数，这是一个令人震惊的数字，对于一个其费用经济面临日益严格审查的网络而言，尽管（或可能正是由于）其 gas 费用在过去五年中下降了 99%。
因此，未来链上交易将燃烧的 Ether 币数量可能不会成为持有者回报的主要驱动因素，因为链会进一步扩展并迫使每笔交易的平均支付费用降低。 当然，Ethereum 仍然可能是一种相当有价值的网络，因为它拥有超过 420 亿美元的去中心化金融 (DeFi) 价值。
相反，XRP Ledger (XRPL) 上的费用被有意设计为可以忽略不计，以激励金融机构使用该网络进行巨额资本，并且其费用被销毁而不是分配。 例如，在 5 月 26 日，它仅产生了 536 美元的交易费用。 因此，计算市销率是没有意义的，因为它会比 Ethereum 的高得更离谱。
因此，XRP 的价值，在多大程度上存在，取决于其发行方 Ripple 的行动如何说服投资者，该币将增加价值。
因此，仅从代币经济学角度来看，Hyperliquid 比 XRP 或 Ethereum 更具价值的理由很难反驳。
如果我们扩大估值讨论，超出代币经济学，Hyperliquid 仍然很有前途，但与 Ethereum 和 XRP 相比，它的不成熟开始看起来对短期估值构成障碍。
Hyperliquid 正在扩张，于 2025 年初推出了其兼容 Ethereum 虚拟机 (EVM) 的智能合约环境，使其能够运行智能合约。 并且它最近推出了原生预测市场的能力。 它的 DeFi 层仍然很小，只有 17 亿美元的 TVL，并且由于它在链上只有 68 亿美元的稳定币，它可能仍然需要依赖 Ethereum 的基础设施来提供流动性以及智能合约工具。
当加密货币进入熊市时，Hyperliquid 平台上的交易活动可能会下降，导致其回购速度放缓。 Ethereum 和 XRP 将面临活动减少导致其代币供应燃烧更少的问题，但这种影响并不重要，因为最初燃烧的金额本身就非常小。
与 XRP 相比，Hyperliquid 的估值案例更强，因为它提供了与网络利用相关的可衡量的经济回报，而 XRP 无法提供。 Hyperliquid 可能应该比 XRP 更值钱。
然而，与 Ethereum 相比，这个论点更难成立，因为 Ethereum 的护城河在于其生态系统，而不是其费用结构，而这个护城河仍然非常强大。 但无论 Hyperliquid 的排名如何，其费用经济使其值得认真关注。
在您购买 Hyperliquid 股票之前，请考虑以下几点：
Motley Fool Stock Advisor 分析师团队刚刚确定他们认为投资者现在应该购买的 10 只最佳股票……而 Hyperliquid 并不是其中之一。 制作这份名单的 10 只股票在未来几年可能会产生巨大的回报。
请考虑 Netflix 在 2004 年 12 月 17 日被列入这份名单时的情况……如果您当时投资了 1,000 美元，您将拥有 471,072 美元！ 或者当 Nvidia 在 2005 年 4 月 15 日被列入这份名单时……如果您当时投资了 1,000 美元，您将拥有 1,303,352 美元！
现在，值得注意的是 Stock Advisor 的总平均回报率为 983%——与标准普尔 500 指数相比，市场表现优于 210%。 不要错过最新的前 10 名名单，该名单可使用 Stock Advisor，并加入由个人投资者为个人投资者建立的投资社区。
**Stock Advisor 的回报截至 2026 年 5 月 29 日。 *
Alex Carchidi 持有 Ethereum 的头寸。 The Motley Fool 持有并推荐 Ethereum、Hyperliquid 和 XRP。 The Motley Fool 有一份披露政策。
本文中的观点和意见是作者的观点和意见，不一定代表 Nasdaq, Inc. 的观点。
四大领先AI模型讨论这篇文章
"Hyperliquid's buyback model overstates durability because trading-fee revenue lacks the sticky ecosystem that supports Ethereum's value."
The article highlights Hyperliquid's automated buybacks from $714M annualized fees as superior tokenomics versus Ethereum's $93M burn or XRP's negligible fees, implying HYPE's $15B cap deserves re-rating above ETH and XRP. Yet this ignores execution risks: Hyperliquid's $1.7B DeFi TVL and $6.8B stablecoins tie it to Ethereum infrastructure, while its revenue hinges entirely on perpetuals trading volume that collapses in downturns. Ethereum's moat lies in developer activity and $42B DeFi, not fees. HYPE's P/S of 20 looks reasonable only if volumes prove durable, which history of DEXes suggests is unlikely beyond cycles.
Sustained bull-market volumes could keep buybacks compounding faster than ETH's ecosystem growth, allowing HYPE to close the valuation gap before any downturn hits.
"Hyperliquid's superior tokenomics are real but fragile—entirely dependent on sustained trading volume that crypto bear markets historically destroy, making the 20x P/S valuation contingent on a bull-market assumption the article doesn't stress-test."
The article conflates two separate valuation problems. Yes, Hyperliquid's 20x P/S on $714M annualized fees looks reasonable versus Ethereum's absurd 2,677x P/S. But that comparison is misleading: Ethereum's value isn't in fee burn—it's in $42B DeFi TVL and network effects. Hyperliquid's $1.7B DeFi layer and dependency on Ethereum's liquidity infrastructure suggest it's a *trading venue*, not a settlement layer. The real risk: buyback mechanics only work if trading volume sustains. One bear market and those $714M fees crater—potentially 50-70% based on 2022 precedent. The article acknowledges this but treats it as a minor headwind rather than an existential threat to the valuation thesis.
Hyperliquid's buyback mechanism could be a value trap: if fees collapse 60% in a downturn (as they did in 2022), the P/S multiple re-rates violently downward, and the buyback becomes a forced seller into weakness rather than a support mechanism.
"Hyperliquid's valuation relies on a reflexive buyback loop that functions more like a trading rebate program than a sustainable, long-term store of value."
The article conflates 'protocol revenue' with 'investor yield,' a dangerous trap for retail. Hyperliquid’s buyback mechanism is a powerful marketing tool, but it is effectively a circular economy: traders generate fees, which are used to buy the native token, which then supports the price of the asset used to pay those same fees. At a 20x P/S, you are paying for a high-velocity trading engine that is highly sensitive to market volatility. Unlike Ethereum, which functions as a settlement layer with massive network effects and L2 scaling, Hyperliquid is a specialized application-specific chain. If trading volume dries up, the 'buyback machine' stalls, leaving holders with a token that lacks Ethereum's deep DeFi liquidity and institutional trust.
If Hyperliquid successfully captures the majority of perpetual futures trading volume from centralized exchanges, its fee-capture model could create a reflexive feedback loop that justifies a massive premium over stagnant, non-revenue-generating assets.
"Hyperliquid's upside hinges on sustained, high trading volumes funding buybacks; if volumes falter, the buyback flow collapses and HYPE risks underperforming ETH and XRP."
While the piece makes a compelling case that Hyperliquid’s fee-driven buybacks could translate into outsized equity value vs ETH/XRP, the narrative rests on fragile, circular math. On-chain revenue can shrink fast in a downturn, and the 99% buyback flows depend on sustained trading activity and liquidity capture. The moat is not yet proven: Hyperliquid relies on Ethereum’s tooling and liquidity; any scaling delay, regulator action on DeFi, or competition from other L1s/L2s could choke fees. Valuation mixes tokenomics with ‘it’s early’ optimism; as a standalone asset, HYPE’s upside is highly contingent on continued volume growth and broad crypto cyclicality—riskier than it looks.
Strongest counter: even if Hyperliquid proves resilient, a bear market could collapse trading volumes, making buybacks insufficient to sustain value; moreover, Ethereum's network effects and XRP's real-use adoption may outpace HYPE's ability to monetize fees, making a bullish case questionable.
"Buybacks create net supply reduction distinct from prior cycles, but regulatory targeting of perps remains an unaddressed single-point failure."
Gemini's circular economy framing underplays how fee buybacks still reduce circulating supply even if traders are the source, unlike pure marketing spends. This creates a structural difference from 2022 DEX precedents where no such mechanism existed. The bigger unmentioned risk is that any CFTC action targeting on-chain perps could hit Hyperliquid harder than Ethereum's broader settlement layer.
"Supply reduction via buybacks is structurally different from 2022, but only defensible if fee sustainability—not mechanism novelty—holds through a downturn."
Grok's supply-reduction argument has merit, but conflates mechanism with durability. Yes, buybacks differ from 2022 DEXes—but that's only valuable if fees persist. Gemini's circular economy critique stands: traders fund buybacks that support the token traders use. The CFTC risk Grok flags is real, but underspecified. Regulatory action targets *activity*, not infrastructure. Hyperliquid's on-chain perps are more exposed than Ethereum's settlement layer, agreed—but the timeline and probability matter. Without specifics, it's a tail risk, not a valuation driver.
"Hyperliquid's buyback mechanism acts as a reflexive volatility dampener that may provide superior downside protection compared to Ethereum's inflationary model."
Grok and Claude are missing the structural reality of the 'circular economy' Gemini identified: Hyperliquid’s buybacks are essentially a tax on liquidity provision. If the token price drops, the cost of trading increases relative to volume, which ironically accelerates the burn rate. This reflexivity isn't just a marketing tool; it’s a volatility dampener that could theoretically sustain HYPE during drawdowns better than Ethereum’s inflationary issuance, provided the platform maintains its competitive edge in execution speed.
"Regulatory enforcement risk could kill Hyperliquid's buyback model as liquidity migrates to compliant or off-chain venues, making bear market volumes even more ruinous than price drawdowns."
Responding to Grok: you flag CFTC action on on-chain perps as existential, but not quantified. The bigger flaw is enforcement asymmetry: if regulators push on-chain venues, liquidity migrates to compliant layers or off-chain venues, destroying fee traction and buybacks even before a price crash. The model assumes ongoing permissionless activity; in a real-world regime shift, Hyperliquid could be stranded with sunk costs and a shrinking user base, far more painful than a 50% drawdown in volume.
The panel consensus is that Hyperliquid's buyback mechanism, while innovative, is highly dependent on sustained trading volume and faces significant risks, including regulatory threats and market downturns. The panelists generally agree that Hyperliquid's valuation is sensitive to these factors and that its moat is not yet proven.
Potential for outsized equity value compared to ETH/XRP if trading volume and fees remain durable.
Collapse in trading volume during market downturns, potentially leading to a significant decrease in fees and buybacks.