Over the past few years, crypto has been “a place where dreams turn into money.” The crypto market has grown on countless narratives and expectations. There was a time when capital flowed in based solely on the expectation of new chains and new tokens.
But recently, the market structure has clearly been changing. The market no longer gives a premium based only on “possibility” or “expectation.” Capital is now moving toward protocols that generate “real cash flow,” not “possibility.”
There is a trend commonly observed in the market recently. The point is that only protocols that actually generate revenue are surviving.
Projects that have been most strongly re-rated recently commonly have a clear profit structure. Volume is generated, fees are generated, revenue accumulates into the treasury, and that cash flow aligns with the token. Notably, Hyperliquid and Pumpfun are cited as cases that have generated revenue the fastest on-chain.
In fact, excluding Tether and Circle, Hyperliquid and Pumpfun currently rank #1 and #2 in revenue side by side. In contrast, projects that rely only on points, airdrops, and token expectations are gradually being pushed out of the market.
This trend means that it is no longer simply “narratives,” but rather that protocols with working business models are beginning to receive a premium in the market.
Who consistently makes money
Even in traditional finance markets, the most stable sector in a bear market has always been “exchanges.”
Across countless bull and bear markets, many projects are created and new metas come and go. Most protocols only see users flow in during bull markets. On the other hand, exchanges see trades occur regardless of market direction, so their revenue structure is maintained even in bear markets. Because of that, exchange projects can keep making money even in bear markets and generate stable, consisten
So then, what sector implements this model most directly on-chain? It is Perp DEX.
The sector that clearly makes money on-chain = Perp Dex
Perp DEX has the most intuitive revenue structure on-chain.
It is a structure where fees generated through trading connect directly to revenue.
Up until now, centralized exchanges (CEXs) have monopolized these benefits, but after Hyperliquid, many PerpDex have been launched, and PerpDex market share and attention have been rising.
Perp DEXs have grown while existing outside regulation, but whether they can be brought into the regulatory system is emerging as the most important long-term variable. Hyperliquid’s submission of a CFTC comment letter can be seen as a signal that this sector is trying to move into the next stage.
Starting from this, the token of the top PerpDex, Hyperliquid’s $HYPE, has continued to show strong upside, raising expectations for PerpDex even more.
Perp DEX Revenue & Fee & Volume comparison
To check which Perp Dex actually generates meaningful revenue, we compared real revenue data based on DefiLlama as of February 3, 2026. Looking at this, the gap within the sector appears to be very large.
Aster, Variational, and GRVT were excluded because revenue is not clearly specified.
Hyperliquid
Volume: $3.779T
Fees: $1.052B (0.028% of Volume)
Revenue: $955.9M (90.9% of Fees)
→ The trade → fee → revenue conversion structure is nearly 1:1
edgeX
Volume: $724B
Fees: $254.2M (0.035% of Volume)
Revenue: $195.3M (76.8% of Fees)
→ The fee rate per trade is the highest, and the actual revenue conversion rate is also at the top level
Lighter
Volume: $1.437T
Fees: $46.5M (0.003% of Volume)
Revenue: $46.5M (100%)
→ Trading volume is large, but the fee rate is very low, so it is negligible in building a revenue structure
Nado
Volume: $30.3B
Fees: $7.2M (0.024%)
Revenue: $5.45M (75.5%)
→ It is the same as the standard Perp Dex revenue structure, but both scale and revenue conversion are still at an early stage
Among the comparison group, PerpDex accounts for a fee-to-revenue ratio ranging from 75% up to 100%.
By the raw metrics above, Hyperliquid is clearly the overwhelming #1, but the competitiveness of a Perp DEX does not depend on trading volume alone — it depends on how effectively trading volume converts into real treasury cash flow. From this perspective, edgeX is the protocol that shows the highest monetization efficiency per unit of trading.
If revenue is high, will the token necessarily rise as well?
Even if revenue is high, you cannot conclude that the token price will necessarily rise, but it is an important factor that is directly and indirectly connected to token price appreciation, such as serving as a foundation that supports the token’s downside. Token prices are influenced by various factors such as overall market conditions, regulation/licensing, liquidity flows, token unlocks, and how the treasury is used. However, Hyperliquid showed consistent revenue and a buyback structure regardless of market conditions, gave market participants confidence, and today is showing a stable upward trend.
Conclusion: Then how do we identify the “second Hyperliquid”?
After Hyperliquid’s success, many perp-dex have been pouring out, dreaming of becoming the second Hyperliquid.
Hyperliquid’s success was in its solid revenue structure. So we can try to identify the second Hyperliquid based on this revenue, but we cannot conclude the second Hyperliquid based on simple revenue rankings alone. Therefore, in order to identify the “second Hyperliquid,” the following three conditions must be met, rather than looking only at simple volume or short-term revenue rankings.
Revenue sustainability
Does recurring revenue occur based on real trading-based revenue rather than incentives?
Token value connection structure
Does revenue directly accrue to the Treasury/token value
Monetization efficiency (Monetization Efficiency)
How much cash remains per unit of trading
The market is once again moving in a clear direction. It is a reorganization from narrative- and expectation-driven tokens to a structure centered on protocols that generate real cash flow.
If you want to ride this market trend going forward, please follow