Phantom’s new integration with Hyperliquid enables native perps trading and could drive millions in new revenue. GLC explores the impact on Hyperliquid, $HYPE, and the broader Solana Perps market.
Phantom x Hyperliquid: A Strategic Integration
Phantom recently announced the integration of perpetuals trading into its platform by leveraging Hyperliquid’s infrastructure, a seamless blend of user-friendly design and deep liquidity, made possible by Hyperliquid’s builder codes. In practice, Phantom users can now trade perps directly from the mobile app interface, while all backend execution is powered by Hyperliquid and Hyperunit.
This collaboration is a clear win-win. Phantom enhances its product offering and user experience without building its own trading infrastructure, while Hyperliquid gains exposure to the Solana user base, many of whom may not even realize they’re interacting with Hyperliquid under the hood.
What’s most compelling is the broader implication: this sets a precedent for other apps, tier 2–3 CEXs, DEXs, and wallet platforms. Rather than investing millions into building and bootstrapping liquidity, these players can simply integrate with Hyperliquid and instantly tap into its deep markets. Liquidity is the moat, and Hyperliquid holds that moat, now offering access in an incredibly compelling and scalable way.
GLC has been closely tracking Hyperliquid for months, and this integration reflects a long-term vision we’ve observed from the beginning. Seeing it actively take shape in real time is exciting to watch.
Now, the key question becomes: What impact would this have on Hyperliquid’s revenue?
Let’s break it down.
Estimating Revenue Impact: Starting from Phantom’s Core Metrics
To evaluate the potential impact of Phantom’s integration on Hyperliquid’s revenue, we need to first understand Phantom’s current scale.
As of January 2025, Phantom reported:
- 15 million monthly active wallets
- 850 million transactions in 2024
- $20 billion in swap volume over the year
However, for a more accurate picture, especially post-integration, we focus on YTD performance. While direct swap volume figures can be hard to obtain, we can reverse-engineer them using revenue data from DeFiLlama. Phantom charges a flat 85 bps fee on swaps, which allows us to estimate trading volume by dividing weekly revenue by the fee rate.
Based on this method, Phantom has averaged approximately $975 million in weekly swap volume YTD. However, to adjust for inflated activity during the January memecoin mania, we use the weekly median volume, which sits at $489 million. On an annualized basis, that equates to roughly $23 billion in trading volume.
To estimate the potential impact of the Phantom integration on Hyperliquid’s revenue, we can use a benchmark derived from centralized exchanges, where the spot-to-perpetuals trading ratio typically ranges from 15% to 30%. Applying this framework allows us to project Phantom’s potential perpetuals trading volume relative to its current spot activity.
While precise forecasts are difficult without post-integration data, we consider a 50% spot-to-perps ratio a conservative estimate, especially given Phantom’s strong user base. Compared to existing options like Jupiter Perps, Phantom now has a clear advantage by offering a seamless mobile-first experience with Hyperliquid’s infrastructure on the backend. This point will be explored in more detail later.
Assuming Phantom maintains its current $489 million median weekly spot volume (or approximately $23 billion annualized), a 50% perps ratio would imply approximately $46 billion in annualized perps volume processed through Hyperliquid.
Applying Hyperliquid’s 0.045% fee on this flow, and excluding volumes from Sol and USDC spot swaps, this integration could translate into an additional $21 million in revenue for Hyperliquid.
To refine this projection, we conducted a sensitivity analysis based on two key variables:
- Spot-to-perps ratio ranging from 40% to 60%
- Annualized Phantom spot volume ranging from $20 billion to $27 billion
Under these scenarios, Hyperliquid’s additional revenue potential spans from $15 million to $30 million annually.
This might sound insignificant for Hyperliquid at first glance, considering its estimated $800 million in annualized revenue. However, from our perspective, this is very promising. Just one integration already implies a potential annualized growth rate of 2% to 4%.
Now imagine if dozens of other protocols or wallets start integrating with Hyperliquid because the incentives align. From a game theory standpoint, it makes perfect sense.
Hyperliquid handles the backend and the liquidity. You don’t need to build infrastructure. Just find a market, attract users, and both sides benefit.
If this integration proves successful and Phantom starts gaining market share from Jupiter, it is very likely that others will follow. In that case, annualized growth driven by builder code could easily reach 10% to 20%.
Is This Projection Realistic Within Solana’s Perps Market Structure?
A key question to consider is whether these projections are realistic in the context of the current structure of the perpetuals market on Solana.
At the moment, Jupiter dominates this space, with a median of $4.8 billion in weekly perps volume since January, equivalent to approximately $230 billion annualized. This is a massive figure and sets a high benchmark for any new entrant.
However, we believe Phantom now holds a significant competitive advantage over Jupiter for two key reasons:
- Fee Structure
Phantom users will be charged 9.5 bps in total for opening and closing a position. At first glance, this may seem higher than Jupiter’s advertised 6 bps flat fee. But when we look at the actual data, a different picture emerges.
We have access to both Jupiter’s weekly perps volume and the fees it generates. By dividing total fees by trading volume, we can reverse-engineer the actual monetization rate. This shows that Jupiter’s effective median fee is closer to 30 bps, over 3 times Phantom’s rate and it’s all because of borrowing costs.
This fee advantage could play a major role in attracting capital and traders to Phantom’s new perps offering powered by Hyperliquid and Hyperunit.
- Superior Liquidity and Execution Quality
Hyperliquid’s liquidity is deeper compared to what’s currently available on Solana-native perps platforms. Based on feedback from active traders, the existing perps experience on Solana is often lacking in terms of execution quality and slippage. If Phantom can offer access to Hyperliquid’s depth while delivering a better fee structure, it is likely to appeal to a meaningful portion of traders currently using Jupiter.
How Conservative these Projections ?
Our base case assumes $50 billion in annualized perps volume processed through Phantom using Hyperliquid. This would represent only 25% of Jupiter’s current market share.
Given the clear competitive advantages in both fees and liquidity, and the mobile-native user experience Phantom provides, we believe this projection is not reasonable but also appears conservative.
Time will ultimately reveal how much market share shifts, but the structural tailwinds clearly seem to be in Phantom and Hyperliquid’s favor.
Final Thoughts
Right now, Hyperliquid is steadily growing, with consistent revenue figures since January. This growth is driven by several key competitive advantages over both CEXs and DEXs:
- Lower fees than CEXs and DEXs
- CEX-level liquidity
- Better UX than DEXs
- Faster listing engine
- Composability
One standout advantage is its listing speed, which acts as a powerful user acquisition tool. As a recent example, Hyperliquid was the first exchange to list $PUMP perps, even before the token officially launched. That means one of the most anticipated launches of the year debuted on Hyperliquid first, this is the best marketing you can get.
Hyperliquid is actively eating into CEX market share, and it shows.
The integration with Phantom, choosing to work with Hyperliquid over Jupiter or Drift, speaks volumes about Hyperliquid’s moat. With so many growth catalysts aligned, we believe the current valuation still underrates its future potential. Just one integration can bring 2–4% revenue growth, and the pipeline for similar deals looks strong. From our perspective, it still feels cheap.
Until proven otherwise, $HYPE remains the best R/R play in the space.
Hyperliquid, Hyperunit.
Disclaimer
Disclosure: Analyst behind this research holds $HYPE.
Disclaimer This research note has been prepared based on GLC’s current market outlook and convictions regarding the cryptocurrency market. It is critical to emphasize that investing in cryptocurrencies and digital assets involves significant risk due to their inherent volatility and unpredictability.
The information provided here is for educational and informational purposes only and should not be interpreted as financial or investment advice. Market trends and projections are subject to change due to unforeseen events, and volatility may lead to substantial price fluctuations.
We strongly encourage you to perform your own due diligence and research before making any investment decisions. Nothing in this document should be considered an endorsement to buy or sell any particular asset.
Never invest more than you are willing to lose, and ensure that you fully understand the risks associated with this market.
GLC assumes no responsibility for any losses incurred as a result of using this information.
As always, DYOR.
