Author: Haotian
I'd like to ask, what exactly is everyone thinking about @HyperliquidX? If it's a pure Perp Dex application, a 45B FDV is already too high. If it's a new innovative L1, a 15B circulating market capitalization might even be underestimated. Even more confusing, how should Hyperliquid's followers benchmark their expectations?
1) If HL is regarded as a Perp Dex and compared with its predecessors such as dYdX and GMX, its valuation is already very high. However, if it is regarded as the valuation ratio of on-chain Binance and other L1s such as Solana and BNBChain, HL still has a lot of room for growth.
Objectively speaking, although HL's current leading market share in Perp Dex will certainly lead to a premium valuation, the overall on-chain DEX market size is limited. Its valuation is already very high, as it is close to or even exceeds the peak of products such as @GMX_IO and @dYdX.
But if it is expected to be an on-chain Binance, I am afraid that only when we see a significant siphoning of data indicators from traditional CEX exchanges can we give a valuation comparable to benchmarks such as BNBChain?
Clearly, current market pricing is based somewhere between the two, leaning more towards the latter. This can lead to significant misalignment of value, especially among those who are simply following the trend of Perp Dex. They haven't even figured out the basis for HL's valuation, but are already comparing it to the benchmark. This is completely disregarding HL's technical architecture and rich and diverse ecosystem value, which is absurd.
2) Hyperliquid's HyperBFT consensus, HyperCore and HyperEVM layered design, and reconstructed on-chain high-frequency node matching engine—honestly, despite being criticized for its centralization, it does have many innovative elements.
In contrast, some follower chains still employ the traditional "off-chain matching + on-chain settlement" technical service framework. Most of these platforms haven't deviated from the original application scope of the numerous Perp Dex platforms on L1 and L2, or even simply rebranded old products. Is it too hasty to condemn existing platforms like dYdx and GMX based on this? And how can their valuations be compared to HL?
In fact, if we take a calm look, HL's real moat is not purely the transaction data itself. HyperCore's high-frequency trading matching engine is one aspect, and the application ecosystem of HyperEVM is the biggest attraction, for example:
Felix Protocol mints stablecoins based on HYPE collateral, and uses the interest income from $107M idle USDC to repurchase HYPE; Liminal Money provides a delta-neutral yield product with a 16% APY; others such as the staking agreement built by Kinetiq, the lending ecosystem built by Hyperlend, etc., have combined at least forty or fifty ecological projects.
This depth of ecosystem, characterized by atomic-level composability, is the foundation that supports Binance's current valuation, which is sprinting towards on-chain valuations. These are clearly fundamental conditions that followers lack. How can a platform-level valuation be supported solely by farming transaction volume and relying solely on an "application" itself?
Moreover, there is a very confusing valuation logic: Hyperliquid is the first Perp DEX, and its goal is to kill CEX and become the on-chain Binance, while Aster is the second Perp Dex, and its goal is to defend Binance and become the new on-chain Binance created by the Binance system. But Binance is still there, so how can there be another on-chain Binance out of thin air?
