Hyperliquid recorded approximately $2.6 trillion in notional trading volume for 2025, surpassing Coinbase’s roughly $1.4 trillion and marking a notable reshuffle in exchange activity. The shift matters because it highlights a migration of high-frequency and derivatives activity toward on‑chain perpetual platforms.
Early February 2026 data highlighted a clear divergence between Hyperliquid and Coinbase. Hyperliquid’s native HYPE token had significantly outperformed year to date, while Coinbase’s stock lagged, reinforcing the contrast between on-chain derivatives momentum and centralized exchange headwinds. At the same time, on-chain indicators pointed to sustained daily trading activity and elevated open interest, signaling persistent engagement from derivatives traders.
Trading metrics reinforced this gap. In 2025, Hyperliquid recorded approximately $2.6 trillion in notional trading volume, compared with about $1.4 trillion for Coinbase. By early February 2026, year-to-date performance showed HYPE up 31.7% versus a 27.0% decline in COIN shares, creating a performance spread of nearly 58 percentage points that drew attention across the market.
Short-term derivatives data further underscored Hyperliquid’s activity levels. As of February 9, 24-hour trading volume fluctuated between roughly $3.76 billion and $3.9 billion, while open interest hovered around $4.05 billion to $4.1 billion.
Fee generation also stood out, with estimates placing Hyperliquid’s 2025 fees near $844 million and recent daily snapshots around $1.1 million, alongside reports of $5.5 million in fees generated within a single 24-hour period in early February.
Drivers and market implications
Hyperliquid’s rise closely mirrored the broader expansion of on-chain derivatives markets. Liquidity depth, execution quality and fee efficiency were consistently cited as the main drivers behind adoption. Its lean operating structure allowed the platform to convert high trading volumes into meaningful fee revenue with relatively limited overhead, challenging traditional assumptions about exchange economics.
By contrast, Coinbase faced structural pressures during the same period. Rising compliance costs, ongoing regulatory scrutiny and margin compression contributed to a more cautious growth outlook.
At the same time, some industry participants raised concerns around Hyperliquid’s governance and open-source framework, suggesting that rapid scale did not eliminate debate over long-term resilience and oversight.
For traders, market makers and treasury managers, the takeaway was increasingly clear: liquidity and risk were concentrating in on-chain perpetual venues, where leverage can magnify both opportunity and downside. If these trends persist, centralized exchanges may be forced to reassess product strategies and cost structures, while institutions adapt their custody, compliance and risk models to follow shifting fee pools and open interest.
