Why Hyperliquid Earns Less Than Coinbase

Over the past year, Hyperliquid’s on‑chain order‑book exchange has posted CEX‑scale activity on some days. Yet when you follow the money, protocol revenue still trails what a centralized incumbent like Coinbase can generate from a similar or even smaller notional of trading activity. This piece unpacks the “Robinhood vs. Nasdaq economics” framing and explains where the value accrues in each model—and what that means for builders, traders, and self‑custody.

The numbers at a glance

• Hyperliquid’s 30‑day perp volume has fluctuated in the low‑hundreds of billions, with recent snapshots around the $200–300B range; fee and “holders’ revenue” data are transparent on‑chain via DeFiLlama. See the live dashboard for current 24h/7d/30d fees and volumes. DeFiLlama: Hyperliquid Perps.
• Hyperliquid’s base trading fees are low by design (maker ~0.01%, taker ~0.035% for many users) and can be discounted further via VIP tiers; the project has also introduced HIP‑3 “growth mode” that slashes fees by ~90% for new markets. Hyperliquid docs: Fees and CoinDesk coverage of HIP‑3.
• Coinbase reported $6.6B in total revenue for 2024, with $4.0B from transactions and $2.3B from subscriptions and services; in 2025, quarterly filings show subscription revenue (stablecoin interest, staking, custody, etc.) remaining a major driver. Coinbase 2024 Shareholder Letter and Coinbase Q3 2025 10‑Q.
• Coinbase’s published fee schedules for retail and advanced tiers show materially higher maker/taker rates than most DeFi perps venues, especially at low volumes. Coinbase fee schedule.

The headline: Hyperliquid pushes huge on‑chain volume but captures little per dollar traded; Coinbase captures more per dollar and also monetizes activities beyond trading.

Robinhood vs. Nasdaq economics—translated to crypto

• Broker economics (think Robinhood): monetize order flow and balances. In TradFi, brokers collect payment for order flow (PFOF) and earn net interest on customer cash. The U.S. debate around PFOF is well‑documented by policymakers. See the Congressional Research Service brief on PFOF and the SEC’s rulemaking petition archive.
• Exchange economics (think Nasdaq/Cboe): monetize access. Venues charge transaction fees but also sell connectivity, market data, co‑location, and listings. Fee schedules and data‑product menus are public—take a look at Nasdaq’s connectivity/data fees and NYSE/Cboe fee schedules. Nasdaq General 8 fee/market‑data connectivity, Nasdaq data solutions, and Cboe fee schedules.

In crypto:

• Coinbase blends “broker” and “exchange” economics and adds “bank‑like” yield via stablecoins and staking.
• Hyperliquid is closer to “pure exchange infrastructure,” with all trades and data on‑chain—great for users, but harder to monetize like a Web2 data vendor.

Five structural reasons Hyperliquid earns less per dollar traded

1. Price and fee compression by design
   DeFi venues compete on low, transparent fees. Hyperliquid’s default taker fees are a fraction of centralized retail tiers, and HIP‑3 “growth mode” can cut them another ~90% to seed liquidity in new markets. Low bps times massive notional still yields less than high bps times smaller notional. Hyperliquid fees and HIP‑3 coverage.
   By contrast, Coinbase can charge materially higher retail rates and selectively discount for VIPs. Coinbase fee schedule.

2. No custody float equals no interest income
   Hyperliquid is non‑custodial; it doesn’t hold customer USD balances that can earn interest. Coinbase, meanwhile, earns meaningfully from USDC economics under its Circle agreement—both for USDC held on‑platform and a revenue share on off‑platform reserves—making “subscription and services” a durable profit engine. See Coinbase’s and Circle’s disclosures on the partnership. Coinbase Q3 2025 10‑Q and Circle investor update on the new Coinbase‑Circle arrangement.

3. On‑chain transparency limits “data and access” rent
   Traditional exchanges charge for proprietary feeds, connectivity, and co‑location. In DeFi, the order book and trade history are public goods—anyone can mirror and redistribute them. That’s great for composability but leaves little room to sell market data or co‑lo. For a sense of how much TradFi charges for “access,” scan these official fee pages. Nasdaq General 8, NYSE connectivity notices via SEC, and Cboe connectivity fees.

4. Limited cross‑sell into staking, custody, and subscriptions
   Coinbase’s “subscriptions & services” include staking commissions, custodial fees (notably for ETFs and institutions), and membership products. That basket contributed $2.3B in 2024 and remained strong in 2025 filings, cushioning fee cycles. Hyperliquid, as a protocol, does not (and likely should not) run a centralized custody or membership business. Coinbase 2024 results (shareholder letter) and Q1/Q3 2025 10‑Qs.

5. Regulation pushes economics toward compliant intermediaries
   In the U.S., on‑chain derivatives remain in a gray area. The CFTC’s bZeroX/Ooki DAO actions show that DAO‑run leveraged trading can trigger exchange/FCM obligations—and penalties—if accessible to U.S. retail. That regulatory overhang discourages aggressive monetization by protocols and tilts business to registered entities that can legally intermediate yield, custody, and derivatives. CFTC press release on bZeroX/Ooki and the CFTC’s 2023 statement on the Ooki DAO judgment.

But Hyperliquid is choosing a different layer—and that’s the point

Hyperliquid is building “exchange‑as‑infrastructure,” not “broker‑as‑an‑app”:

• Fully on‑chain, price‑time‑priority order books with margin checks at match time, designed for low‑latency fairness. Order book and matching in HyperCore.
• Protocol‑level ordering rules and semantics around cancels/placements reduce the classic mempool games commonly associated with MEV, aligning incentives for market makers without selling privileged access. HyperCore order‑flow semantics.

That choice sacrifices some revenue lines (no PFOF, no sellable proprietary data, no custody interest) but compounds defensibility: transparent rails, permissionless listings via HIP‑3, and a credible path for builders to plug into a neutral, high‑performance venue.

What could lift protocol‑level earnings without breaking the model?

• Dynamic fee bands that expand during peak volatility and revert in calm periods, with on‑chain governance over parameters.
• Premium infra endpoints and analytics sold off‑chain by ecosystem partners, while the core ledger stays open—akin to “enterprise support” rather than paywalled data.
• Institutional gateways run by compliant third parties (KYC’d access, reporting, risk controls) that pay protocol fees while meeting client obligations—so value accrues on‑chain, compliance off‑chain.
• Careful expansion of collateral and settlement assets that deepen balance‑sheet usage (e.g., aligned stables), without assuming custody or breaching neutrality.

Each path preserves the core: public state, fair matching, and builder‑friendly market creation.

Takeaways for traders and teams

• If you want raw performance and open access with low, transparent fees, Hyperliquid’s model is compelling. Expect fee compression to persist—especially under HIP‑3 growth mode. HIP‑3 fee reductions.
• If you want a single account that bundles trading, staking, fiat ramps, custody, and yield on balances, a regulated venue like Coinbase will likely continue to monetize more per user, thanks to subscriptions and services. Coinbase 10‑Q discussion of stablecoin revenue.
• For builders, the choice is strategic: operate at the “broker interface” (where UX and distribution monetize) or at the “exchange rail” (where neutrality and scale monetize). Both can win—but they earn differently.

A note on self‑custody and security

Whether you trade on Hyperliquid directly or connect through aggregators, your keys are your risk surface. A hardware wallet helps keep signing isolated from your browsing environment and mitigates phishing or approval‑grinding attacks. OneKey focuses on fast, consistent signing UX for high‑frequency DeFi users, open‑source firmware, and broad compatibility with on‑chain perps front‑ends—so you can pursue on‑chain strategies without sacrificing operational security. If you’re pushing size or automating strategies, treat key management as part of your PnL.

---

Hyperliquid’s choice to be market infrastructure explains why it earns less per dollar than Coinbase today—and why that may be a feature, not a bug. In the long run, the most valuable on‑chain venues may look less like brokers and more like public utilities that compound liquidity, fairness, and composability