21Shares Research Team Releases an In-Depth Report on Hyperliquid, with the core argument that: The market is valuing $HYPE using the valuation framework of traditional exchanges.

Hyperliquid's 2025 revenue is $873 million, with a team of 11 people, and a per capita income of $79.36 million. CME Group's revenue is $6.5 billion, with 3,875 employees, and a per capita income of $1.7 million. The efficiency gap is 47 times.
But Hyperliquid's price-to-sales ratio is only 10, while CME's is 17.3. According to 21Shares, this means the market is valuing Hyperliquid at less than half of CME's multiple.
The key change lies in the business structure.
Hyperliquid is no longer just a crypto derivatives DEX.
Traditional asset trading volume now accounts for 35%, with the S&P 500, crude oil, silver, and Nasdaq 100 making up half of the top ten trading assets. During the Iran airstrike in February, CME was closed, and Hyperliquid's WTI crude oil contracts were priced nearly 48 hours in advance.
Beyond revenue, there is ongoing token buyback: Assistance Fund directs 97%-99% of platform fees into automatic repurchases, with total buybacks exceeding $1.5 billion, implying an annualized buyback yield of about 13%, compared to CME's roughly 1%. The protocol is currently in a net deflationary state, with monthly buybacks exceeding unlocks and releases.
21Shares presents three valuation scenarios:
🔴 Bull Market: $62-70 (market cap $15-17 billion)
🟢 Base Case: ~$75 (market cap $17-18 billion)
🟠 Bear Market: $15-19 (down 51%-62%)
Risks are also clearly outlined. The JELLYJELLY incident exposed the potential for centralized intervention, geographic restrictions for U.S. users, regulatory gray areas, geopolitical volatility cooling non-crypto trading volume, and token unlock pressures relying on trading volume to stay high.
Crude oil trading on the blockchain is not driven by decentralization ideals, but because all other markets are closed.
Practicality, not ideology.