# Hyperliquid liquidation — X 热门讨论 (2026-09-30 08:46 UTC)
## @Elikrypt (ΞLIKRYPTO) · 09-30 07:43 · ♥38 ↻0 💬3 MIDWEEK ALPHA v.05: REVENUE IS NOT THE SAME AS DEMAND
A protocol printing fees does not automatically mean it has strong organic demand.
Fees can come from real usage, incentives, liquidations, leverage or speculation.
The framework I use before a protocol earns serious conviction:
Fees → Revenue → Incentives → Earnings → Token Capture
The goal is simply to trace where the money comes from, what the protocol keeps, what gets spent to create that activity, and what ultimately reaches the token.
These are some protocols on my radar:
Hyperliquid — @HyperliquidX Perps and spot generate trading fees, with protocol economics tied to HYPE buybacks. I’m comparing fees against volume and OI across active and quiet markets.
https://t.co/Drvd2WelNC — @pumpdotfun Launches and trading generate fees, but activity can expand rapidly during meme speculation. I’m comparing fees, launches and volume to see how much demand remains when speculation cools.
Sky — @SkyEcosystem Borrowers generate stability fees while the system earns from its broader balance sheet. I’m separating protocol surplus from actual $SKY value capture.
Aave — @aave Borrowing generates recurring interest while liquidations create a separate fee stream. I’m separating lending revenue from liquidation-driven revenue.
Uniswap — @Uniswap Swaps generate fees, but the important number is how much of that fee base reaches the protocol and $UNI. I’m tracking volume → fees → protocol capture → token capture.
Polymarket — @Polymarket Trading activity can surge around major events, while fee structures vary by market. I’m comparing event-driven volume with the underlying fee-generating activity.
Aerodrome — @AerodromeFi Trading generates fees while emissions and incentives attract liquidity. I’m comparing fees → incentives → earnings to measure how much activity survives without subsidies.
Jupiter — @JupiterExchange Aggregator swaps and perps have different economics. I’m separating both revenue streams, then comparing them with JUP buybacks and token unlocks.
Ethena — @ethena USDe economics depend on the underlying strategy, with sUSDe capturing a large portion of the yield. I’m tracking supply → strategy yield → protocol revenue → distributions as incentives change.
Lighter — @Lighter_xyz Perp trading and liquidations create different fee streams, while incentives and unlocks affect token economics. I’m separating trading revenue from liquidation revenue before comparing LIT with other perp venues.
Don’t just buy the revenue number. Trace it.
Find who paid, what they paid for, how much the protocol kept, how much was subsidized, what remained after incentives, and what actually reaches the token.
Skip this process and you can mistake incentive-driven activity for real demand
Even liquidation fees for normal revenue and protocol growth for value that never reaches the token.
Revenue is the print. The source of that revenue is the alpha.
If you found this useful, leave a like and share your thoughts below. See you on the next one. https://x.com/Elikrypt/status/2105201964338250165