According to Woofun AI, JPMorgan Chase (JPM.US) analyst Nikolaos Panigirtzoglou (Nikolaos Panigirtzoglou) clearly warned that Hyperliquid is facing increasing structural pressure. The core cause is the significant deterioration in HYPE ETF capital inflows, as well as the penetration of regulated exchanges into the perpetual contract business and the heated forecasting market competition.
The sharp reversal in funding forms the cornerstone of this judgment. In a seven-week cycle from May 15 to June 26, HYPE ETF attracted a whopping $293.93 million in capital inflows, of which a net inflow of $113.6 million was recorded in the week of June 26 alone.
However, momentum quickly dried up, and subsequent weekly inflows plummeted to $4.32 million and $10.36 million, and immediately turned into a net outflow. Over the next three weeks, the cumulative outflow of funds reached US$30.62 million, and the scale of redemptions increased week by week.
Despite a brief correction in the direction of capital flows in July, the net revenue of these funds remained at around US$278 million throughout the observation period. This data shows that investors did not sell off shares purchased at the beginning of the listing on a large scale, and that demand for new capital was no longer as strong as in May and June. The official specifications of the Bitwise Hyperliquid ETF (BHYP.US) and 21Shares Hyperliquid ETF (THYP.US) make it clear that such products generate revenue by holding HYPE tokens. The establishment of the new fund should have increased demand for this token, but continued redemption pressure may force managers to reduce their holdings.
Notably, ETF funding flows are not an accurate predictor of short-term prices; it is more a reflection of whether regulated investment products are further increasing or decreasing demand for this asset outside of Hyperliquid's existing on-chain user base.
According to data compiled by Woofun AI, the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) approved the listing of Bitcoin perpetual contracts on regulated US exchanges in May, established a more complete review framework, and classified HYPE futures and futures similar to perpetual contracts as COIN categories.
Although this regulatory action does not directly prove that the relevant products already have high liquidity or considerable trading volume, it is a clear sign that US regulators are preparing to enter into cryptocurrency derivatives competition. For institutional investors that rely on compliance processes, customer identity verification, and legal guarantees, this perpetual contract investment opportunity, which can be obtained without going through a decentralized exchange, is extremely attractive, posing a direct diversion threat to Hyperliquid.
At the level of fundamentals and competitive landscape, Hyperliquid's core strengths stem from its continuous perpetual contract trading services, self-hosting capabilities, and diverse options for on-chain exchanges. However, as regulated platforms in the US enter this space, institutional clients may gradually switch to traditional channels. If Hyperliquid wants to remain competitive, it must continuously optimize liquidity, pricing capabilities, and transaction execution efficiency, rather than simply rely on product features that cannot be provided by regulatory platforms. Its token economy model is closely linked to the operation of the platform: according to the official fee description, the transaction fee is not monopolized by the operator, but is used to support the community development mechanism, and part of the revenue is also used to repurchase and destroy HYPE.
This means that as long as trading volume is strong and fee revenue is stable, the negative impact of the slowdown in ETF capital flows is relatively manageable; however, if redemptions continue and competitors seize the business, the risk will rise significantly. Furthermore, Hyperliquid's entry into the forecasting market was aimed at reducing reliance on perpetual contracts, but it meant entering a highly competitive field with established brands and sufficient liquidity. Results-based contracts allow users to trade events such as elections and economic data, and can be matched with spot or derivatives positions.
Although the technical architecture incorporates such assets, the relevant developer interface functionality is currently limited to testnet use. Only when such contracts can attract non-native Hyperliquid users and capital can they truly increase the platform's liquidity and handling fee revenue. Otherwise, they only increase the variety of products without real capital injection, and the value support for HYPE is limited.
At the same time, Hyperliquid's influence in the stablecoin market cannot be ignored. Its development may put pressure on the operation of USDC, depending on whether the platform can retain users, asset balances, and trading activity that give it value.
Looking ahead, ETF data for the week of August 7 will be the next key reference indicator. However, even if short-term capital inflows pick up, it will be difficult to completely reverse the overall trend from May to June. To make a more accurate judgment, evidence from multiple aspects of the ecosystem is needed: if ETF capital flows stabilize and Hyperliquid can maintain the trading volume of the perpetual contract business, then July's performance may only be a normal adjustment phase after the product is launched. Conversely, if redemptions continue and the platform's trading activity declines, it will exacerbate the concerns of JPMorgan Chase (JPM.US), as this will not only weaken the external market's demand for HYPE, but also directly impact the fee mechanism associated with the use of the platform, which in turn affects the token's ability to capture long-term value.