According to Hypeflows data, based on the size of open contracts, Hyperliquid currently accounts for 10.2% of the global perpetual contract market (including all centralized trading platforms such as Binance, Bybit, OKX, etc.), which is slightly lower than the 10.4% share record set at the end of July. According to HTX market data, HYPE now reported $77.79, a 24-hour increase of 2.25%.
Comparative news, according to Coinglass data, as Bitcoin continues to be strong after rising sharply this week, current mainstream CEX and DEX funding rates show that the market has fully returned to neutrality. The specific funding rates are shown in the attached chart. Note: The funding rate is a rate set by a cryptocurrency trading platform to maintain a balance between the contract price and the price of the underlying asset. It is usually applied to perpetual contracts. It is a fund exchange mechanism between long and short traders. The trading platform does not charge this fee. It is used to adjust the cost or benefit of the trader holding the contract to keep the contract price close to the price of the underlying asset. When the funding rate is 0.01%, it indicates the base rate. When the funding rate is greater than 0.01%, it means that the market is generally bullish. When the funding rate is less than 0.005%, it means the market is generally bearish. This article is sponsored by GENG, Build Your Fortune on GENG (https://geng.one)
Comparing news, Pantera Capital published an article stating that Bitcoin has been in a narrow fluctuation range for the past six months, and the market is often intense and large after consolidation is over. Currently, market positions are being reversed, and investors are shifting from wait-and-see or even net shorts to a growing desire to go long. Bitcoin broke through the 200-day EMA at $69,000 and has attracted momentum and trend tracking funds to enter the market. From a long-term perspective, digital asset prices are still about 50% higher than before, but fundamentals continue to strengthen, including stablecoin adoption, predictive markets, perpetual contracts, and agency commerce. When fundamentals improve and prices are still discounted, the logic for continuing to maintain constructive positions is more clear.
Comparative news, according to Arkham's monitoring, trader Machi Big Brother recently capitalized about 100,000 US dollars to about 9.5 million US dollars on the Hyperliquid perpetual contract account. The entire account increased nearly 100 times, making a profit of about 9 million US dollars in just two days. Last week, Machi Big Brother was still selling its last Bored Ape NFT to go long for ETH on Hyperliquid. Relevant data showed a rapid recovery in its trading performance.
Comparatively, according to a recent research report by the Hyperliquid Policy Center (HPC), perpetual contracts expanded hedging options and improved prices, and found no evidence of statistically significant damage to the benchmark futures market. According to the report, perpetual contracts and traditional futures with an expiration date complement each other, not a zero-sum alternative. The study compared 205 Bitcoin trading weekends and 19 on-chain crude oil perpetual (xyz:CL) sample weekends using the natural experiment of traditional market weekend closure and continuous perpetual market trading in the perpetual market. According to the report, due futures are forced to move positions according to the calendar. The rolling exposure cost of 10 million US dollars on Monday April 2026 is about 950,000 US dollars, and on Friday it is about 110,000 US dollars. There is no mandatory cost for perpetual positions; the median on-chain crude oil transaction during the non-trading period is about 1,300 US dollars, which is about 1% of the median benchmark WTI transaction. HPC also gave an example. For the week of March 6, 2026, crude oil was repriced 15.8% over the weekend, and the benchmark market was completely closed; if on-chain crude oil was permanently hedged, the $10 million position loss could be reduced from about $1.58 million to about $62,000 (after full cost).
Comparing news, the Hyperliquid Policy Center released the latest research report stating that perpetual contracts are an effective complement to traditional delivery futures. By analyzing weekend trading data for 205 bitcoins and 19 on-chain crude oil contracts, the report found that perpetual contracts eliminated mandatory rollover costs, lowered the crude oil transaction threshold to 1/100 of traditional WTI, and provided an accurate price discovery function during traditional market closures. The policy center also cites data to prove that the growth of the perpetual market has not caused significant statistical damage to the existing benchmark market.
Comparative news, according to The Block, analysts at Bernstein believe that Bitcoin's rebound over the past two days may mark a shift in market momentum, behind which is an improvement in the liquidity environment, a recovery in ETF demand, and friendly regulation. Bitcoin hit $79,500 on Friday and then fell back to about $78,000. Analysts linked this round of rebound to the US Treasury's announcement to increase repurchases of long-term treasury bonds, believing that liquidity expansion has always been beneficial to Bitcoin. Furthermore, Ethereum outperformed Bitcoin in this round of rebound, which analysts attributed to ETH's higher exposure to stablecoins, tokenization, and real assets. Spot Bitcoin ETF capital flows have changed from net outflows in May and June to net inflows of $1.6 billion this week, and the management scale has risen to over $85 billion; Strategy holdings have changed to surplus of over $2 billion, and cash reserves can cover 2.8-year dividend expenses. Bernstein also mentioned that regardless of whether the much-publicized “CLARITY Act” (which will be subject to a procedural vote on September 15) is passed, the SEC and CFTC are expected to speed up the legislative process in areas such as native token issuance, equity tokenization, perpetual contracts, computing power derivatives, and predictive markets. This article is sponsored by GENG, Build Your Fortune on GENG (https://geng.one)
Author: Jesus Rodriguez, co-founder of Sentora Compiled by: Luffy, Foresight News Original title: Does RWA still make sense without DeFi? Discussions in the RWA industry often begin with a simple vision: take a treasury bill, fund share, stock, invoice, megawatt hour, or GPU for one hour, then mint a token representing it. Is it useful? It's really useful. But can it be called transformative? It's far from there. This is like putting a bar code on a container and claiming that a global trade problem has been solved. Barcodes make containers recognizable and machine-readable, but they don't create ports, cranes, customs, insurance, financing, shipping routes out of thin air, or bring in buyers from afar. A token is simply an addressable token of interest, and DeFi is a marketplace operating system. The question really worth discussing is not how many types of assets can go on the chain, but how many assets can complete valuation, financing, hedging, transaction monetization, and loss disposal in a stressful environment, and there is no need for offline meetings and coordination every time a transaction occurs. Tokenization completes the representation of equity; what DeFi brings is actual utility. Tokenization is just a bar code, and a similar scene has happened in the history of the supply chain finance market. The reason why mortgages can be scaled up is not as simple as turning a paper document into an electronic record. To actually achieve large-scale expansion, a complete set of operating mechanisms was created around this type of asset: credit review, post-loan services, securitization, credit rating, warehousing and financing, repurchases, hedging, clearing and settlement, and loss allocation rules. RWA also needed to go through the exact same evolutionary process. An asset that can be adapted to DeFi requires six levels: legally enforceable rights, reliable data sources, clear transfer and redemption rules, enforceable secondary market liquidity, collateral parameters that match actual behavior, and a credible settlement and loss disposal path. Most tokenization projects, on the other hand, tend to stop at the top five levels. There is a simple test that can be used to test the maturity of an asset. It only requires answering three questions: How much is this asset currently worth? Can the agreement complete withdrawal and monetization at this point? If the first two judgments are all wrong, who bears the loss? When smart contracts can definitively answer the above three questions, RWA can truly become a basic component of finance. Before that, it was mostly just a digital packaging shell. The deepest technical contradiction of RWA's quadruple time clock is that RWA runs under multiple sets of different time clocks at the same time. The blockchain can complete settlement in seconds and operate uninterrupted for 7 x 24 hours; oracles may update prices every hour or every day; underlying traditional exchanges are closed at night and on weekends; custodians follow bank working days; and the asset redemption process may take 1 day, 5 days, or even 30 days. If you use such a slow-paced RWA asset to support fast-maturing DeFi liabilities, such as stablecoin loans. This is the term shift, and it is also the core model that banks have relied on for hundreds of years: using short-term debt to fund long-term slow assets. This model has practical value, but the risk must be reasonably priced. Imagine a scenario: At 2 a.m. on Sunday, assets hit the liquidation threshold. Smart contracts can seize tokens immediately, but the underlying real-world market won't open until Monday, and the issuer's redemption business will not be processed until Tuesday. On-chain liquidation has been completed, and real-world asset disposal has only just begun. This creates a clearing gap. DeFi requires immediate withdrawal for monetization, but the real world does not allow it. The time difference between the two. This gap has counterintuitive consequences. Even treasury bonds with very low volatility are riskier than native crypto assets that are more volatile when used as collateral. The price of ETH fluctuates drastically, but it can be traded around the clock; the price of RWA assets appears to be stable, and it may only be up to a dozen hours without a new price tag. A flat price sometimes represents safety, and sometimes it's just a disguise of stale data. Liquidity is an exit channel, not TVL. The digital public also has common misunderstandings about liquidity. Liquidity is not equal to TVL, does not equal the existence of a trading pair, nor does it mean that the issuer promises to eventually redeem it according to net worth. Liquidity refers to the ability to convert a position into the settlement asset you need at an acceptable discount within the time window allowed by your debt. Take a crowded theater for example: the size of the hall cannot determine whether it is safe in the event of a fire; what really matters is the width of the exit channel. One copy of RWA to...
Comparing news, crypto investment agency Starkiller recently posted that BTC has risen strongly in the past two days. Combined with market performance over the past month, the agency is highly confident that the digital asset cycle has bottomed out, and revealed that it has closed all short positions last month. Starkiller said that BTC and ETH previously experienced peak retracement of 54% and 70% respectively, and are now back on the 200-day EMA. This is the first time since the end of the previous cycle; their quantitative model also shows that after stabilizing near the 50-day EMA, BTC and ETH broke through volume and are back on VWAP since the beginning of the year. Furthermore, the current bear market cycle has continued for about 315 days, which is close to the historical average. Starkiller believes that the recent active promotion of digital asset market rules by US regulators and the expansion of long-term US bond repurchases by the US Treasury are important catalysts for the reversal of the market cycle. Although this is not quantitative easing, the Treasury's focus on long-term yields may improve the liquidity environment, and BTC is still highly dependent on liquidity. Regarding the new cycle, Starkiller believes that most traditional cryptographic native assets may not replicate previous bull market performance, and investors will pay more attention to real income and agreements that can return value to token holders after experiencing this round of market elimination. It is expected that assets with actual revenue or value capture mechanisms such as HYPE, LIT, PUMP, VVV, and DRV may receive more attention, while a large number of tokens lacking fundamental support may become shorting opportunities in the new upward cycle. Starkiller also said that BTC may experience a phased adjustment near $80,000 in the short term, a position close to the all-time high of VWAP. Despite this, the agency remains highly optimistic about stablecoins, asset tokenization, prediction markets, and on-chain perpetual contracts, and says it is already more optimistic about its long and short liquidity token strategy and DeFi market-neutral return strategy.
Source: Shenchao TechFlow Original title: (Opinion: Value investing in US stocks is not equal to fundamental investment) When “fundamentals are dead” becomes a consensus, investors who blindly organize giants will eventually experience astonishing capital destruction. Guide: When the market shouted “fundamentals are dead” and the capital frenzy formed a group of tech giants, the author used an astronomy discovery to unravel the logical loopholes behind this narrative. Starting from the composition of valuation multiples, this article reminds investors to distinguish between the true quality of an enterprise and the premium that the market is willing to pay. It is particularly cautionary about long-term allocation in the crypto and technology sector. I promise this introduction won't be as long as the last one on the weather. But please give me 90 seconds. More than 100 years ago, a woman named Henrietta Levitt was doing the tedious job of measuring the brightness of thousands of stars on photographic negatives (the way they were imaged before film appeared). She noticed one characteristic of a class of pulsating stars: the slower they pulsate, the brighter they themselves are. ¹ This might just seem a little interesting today, like “OK, that's pretty cool.” But at the time, astronomers couldn't tell the difference between a dark star very close to Earth and a very bright star far away. For them, the two left the same stain on the photographic film. Visual brightness is a messy mix of these two variables: how bright the thing itself is, and how far away it is from us. Henrietta's work decouples these two things: if you can observe the rate of pulsation, you can know its true luminosity; if you know its true luminosity, you can reverse the distance based on how dark it looks. Astronomers call it “standard candlelight.” A few years later, a man named Edwin Hubble discovered one of these pulsating stars, applied Levitt's math, and discovered what he had always thought was a cloud of gas within our galaxy; in fact, it was an entire independent galaxy, one million light years away. So in simple terms, the observable universe has grown about a trillion times larger, just because one person has figured out how to tell the difference between what things look like and what they actually look like. That in itself is obviously pretty cool. But another interesting thing is that around the same time period, two other astronomers each independently drew a scatterplot. One axis was actual luminosity, and the other axis was temperature. They discovered that stars are not randomly distributed in this space, but rather clustered into different families. The meaning behind this is: stars with the exact same visual brightness may and do belong to a completely different family, have a completely different past, and most importantly, have a completely different future... So what is written in the star? Over the past few years, there has been much discussion about markets, narratives, capital, company building, and financial nihilism. This feeling seems to have reached a feverish climax as the tech and financial world begins to face a very different future than a few decades ago. What is particularly clear is that separating progress from asset prices has become more noisy and in many ways more repulsive. But as an investor who makes a living by buying assets that (hopefully) outperform, a simple framework is: forward returns are roughly equal to growth in fundamentals multiplied by changes in valuation multiples (and multiplied by the dividends you've collected along the way). In this case, the valuation multiplier can very cleanly correspond to the smudges on the photographic film. It's an observable data point, but it entangles two things that the market can't directly see: how good the company actually is, and how far (or how long) its future cash flow is now. I think most of the money that can be made comes from investors who are most capable of unraveling these two variables earlier than others (or “perception of differences”), and we will continue to see astonishing capital ruin for investors who treat their stains as stars. Value investing is not equal to fundamental investing. I think there is a misunderstood view: fundamental investing has historically dominated the creation of excess returns. Most of these legends come from the Graham, Buffett, and Tiger Foundation lineage, as well as numerous narratives built around this group of people. It is believed that by some point in the 2000s, this approach was no longer effective, and anyone who invested in this way was overwhelmed by momentum, trends, and “direct buying tech giants.” The conclusion was (and still is?) It's “fundamentals are dead.” ² The modern version of “fundamentals don't matter” itself isn't stupid. It's rooted in a lot of ideas that many of us on the Compound team have written before. The biggest companies get the most mechanical purchases, and the software industry has a winner-take-all economic law. AI means that giants can transform scale into moats faster than challengers, and there are also reasons why the market's microstructure embeds momentum more deeply into our market infrastructure. These are all real...