Hyperliquid Reports $713M Revenue as HIP-3 Draws Wall Street Interest

Hyperliquid generated approximately $713 million in revenue over the past 12 months, as its trading infrastructure attracts more attention from traditional financial companies. But its latest quarterly growth shows a more measured picture, even as its markets expand beyond crypto.

The platform is now being used to support perpetual futures linked to stocks, commodities, and other traditional assets. Its HIP-3 framework has helped third-party operators build these markets on Hyperliquid’s infrastructure, with Trade[XYZ] alone reporting more than $500 billion in cumulative trading volume.

That growth is bringing major financial firms closer to the ecosystem. Intercontinental Exchange (ICE), the parent company of the New York Stock Exchange, has agreed to work with Trade[XYZ] on a regulated U.S. market built on Hyperliquid technology. The plan still requires regulatory approvals.

Hyperliquid’s revenue growth remains measured

The reported $713 million in revenue over the past year highlights the scale of Hyperliquid’s trading business. However, the latest quarterly figures show that growth has not been accelerating at the same pace as its expansion into new markets.

DeFiLlama data puts Hyperliquid’s Q3 2026 gross protocol revenue at approximately $224 million, up from around $202 million in Q2. That represents growth of roughly 11% quarter over quarter.

The increase ended three consecutive quarters of declining gross protocol revenue. However, Q3 revenue was still about 37% below the $357 million recorded in Q3 2025.

The figures also need to be read in context. The $713 million trailing-year estimate and DeFiLlama’s quarterly gross protocol revenue are not necessarily identical accounting measures. Revenue figures can differ depending on whether third-party fee shares and other ecosystem payments are included.

Hyperliquid’s revenue model is also changing. Its business is no longer driven only by perpetual futures markets listed by the core platform. Third-party deployers, trading interfaces, spot markets, and stablecoin-related income now contribute to the wider ecosystem.

HIP-3 takes Hyperliquid beyond crypto

HIP-3 allows independent builders to launch their own perpetual futures markets using Hyperliquid’s order books and trading infrastructure. These markets can track assets such as equities, commodities, indices, and currencies.

Trade[XYZ] has become one of the most prominent operators using the framework. Its markets have recorded more than $500 billion in cumulative trading volume, showing demand for around-the-clock access to traditional asset exposure.

The model separates infrastructure from the businesses operating individual markets. Hyperliquid provides the underlying technology and execution layer, while deployers decide which markets to offer and how to operate them.

This approach gives Hyperliquid a way to expand into new asset categories without having to build and manage every market itself. It also means that a portion of trading fees can flow to the third-party builders rather than remaining with the protocol.

That distinction matters when assessing the platform’s revenue. More trading activity across HIP-3 markets does not automatically mean that all the resulting fees accrue to Hyperliquid.

ICE and Kraken explore regulated access

The growing HIP-3 ecosystem has attracted interest from established financial companies.

On October 29, ICE announced an agreement with Trade[XYZ] to bring Hyperliquid-based perpetual markets into the United States. Under the proposed arrangement, ICE would operate the regulated markets and clearing structure, while Trade[XYZ] would design and implement the products. Hyperliquid would provide the underlying infrastructure.

Related: NYSE Owner ICE Partners With Trade[XYZ] to Bring Hyperliquid Perpetuals to US, $HYPE Surge 8.9%

The planned markets could cover cryptocurrencies, equities, indices, commodities, and foreign exchange. ICE also confirmed a strategic investment in Trade[XYZ].

The agreement remains subject to regulatory approvals. It does not mean that U.S. customers can already access these markets.

Kraken parent Payward is pursuing a separate route. It has outlined plans to use a permissioned version of HIP-3 through its regulated U.S. businesses, including Bitnomial. The proposal would allow approved users to access selected markets under a regulated structure.

These developments point to a possible division of responsibilities: Hyperliquid supplies the trading technology, while regulated operators handle market access, customer checks, and other compliance requirements.

Jeff Yan’s infrastructure approach

Hyperliquid co-founder Jeff Yan has described the platform as infrastructure that other businesses can build on, rather than a company that must directly operate every financial product.

The idea is similar to the internet: the underlying network provides the technical foundation, while separate businesses build services and manage their own obligations. In this model, Hyperliquid focuses on execution and market infrastructure, while deployers take responsibility for the products they offer and the rules that apply to them.

The approach could make it easier to bring more traditional assets onchain. But the distinction between infrastructure and market operators does not remove regulatory requirements. The businesses offering products to customers still need to meet the rules of the jurisdictions in which they operate.

The U.S. remains a major test. Hyperliquid’s standard interface currently restricts U.S. users, while the proposed ICE and Payward arrangements are intended to create compliant access through separate regulated entities.

President Donald Trump said in August that CFTC Chair Michael Selig was working to bring Hyperliquid into the United States legally. That public comment drew attention to the project, but any launch still depends on regulatory decisions and the structure of the proposed markets.

What comes next for Hyperliquid?

Hyperliquid is building a position that extends beyond a crypto derivatives exchange. Its reported revenue, expanding third-party markets, and partnerships with established financial companies show that its infrastructure is attracting interest from a wider group of market participants.

Still, the numbers leave two questions open. First, can Hyperliquid sustain revenue growth after several quarters of decline? Second, how much of the activity generated by third-party markets will ultimately flow back to the protocol?

The ICE and Payward initiatives could create new opportunities if they receive approval and attract customers. But announcements and cumulative trading volume do not guarantee future revenue.

For now, Hyperliquid’s challenge is to turn its growing role as financial infrastructure into durable revenue, while navigating the regulatory requirements that come with serving traditional markets.