•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
If you can handle large swings in price and downside risk without losing sleep, you may be suited to crypto investing. But both XRP (XRP) and Hyperliquid (HYPE) carry significant risk, and neither is positioned for capital preservation. For investors willing to take on volatility, the two assets differ materially in how (or whether) holders benefit from network activity.
Hyperliquid is a relatively new blockchain built for trading crypto derivatives. Its native token, HYPE, is required for exposure to the platform. Hyperliquid operates as a decentralized exchange (DEX) focused on perpetual futures—contracts that let traders speculate on asset prices without the expiration constraints of options.
Hyperliquid’s platform has grown to account for about 70% of the decentralized perpetuals market. In 2025, it collected approximately $844 million in trading fees from activity on its network. About 97% of those fees flow into an automated system that buys HYPE on the open market and permanently destroys the purchased tokens.
That mechanism is designed to create a feedback loop: more trading generates more fees, which leads to more HYPE being removed from circulation. Over time, the resulting scarcity can support price performance. The article also notes that the amount of HYPE removed tends to be several orders of magnitude greater than token burn effects seen on other chains, making the scarcity impact more observable for holders.
By contrast, XRP is structured around a different use case and user base. The XRP Ledger (XRPL) charges roughly $0.0002 per transaction and burns those fees rather than distributing them to token holders. This approach is described as favorable for network users—particularly financial institutions that use XRPL to manage assets or move tokenized value—while providing limited direct value transfer to XRP holders.
In the first quarter of 2026, the XRPL burned about 12.4 million XRP, equivalent to roughly 0.02% of the circulating supply. Even with a surge in on-chain activity, XRP’s price is down 62% from its 2025 all-time high, reflecting what the article characterizes as a weak relationship between activity and returns.
The article argues that Hyperliquid is better positioned for investors because holders can receive a more direct share of platform activity through the fee-to-burn structure. However, it also highlights material risks for HYPE.
Only about 25% of Hyperliquid’s token supply is circulating. In addition, approximately 9.9 million new HYPE coins held by insiders unlock each month through 2027. The article states that if trading activity remains at current levels—citing $183.4 billion in perpetual futures trading volume during the 30-day period ended May 6—Hyperliquid should be able to burn HYPE faster than new supply is unlocked. If activity declines, holders could face dilution.
For now, the article says there is no indication that activity is dropping, and Hyperliquid appears to be gaining traction in its niche. It also notes that it will likely take years for Hyperliquid to reach the maturity of XRP. Unlike XRP, Hyperliquid is not backed by a widely known fintech such as Ripple.
Hyperliquid is presented as the better cryptocurrency to buy at the moment because its strategy of onboarding new traders has produced measurable results for holders via the fee-and-burn system. While the project is described as riskier in terms of maturity, the article concludes that the balance of risks and rewards is more favorable for HYPE than for XRP, largely because Hyperliquid’s holders receive a larger, more direct economic benefit from network usage.
Premium gym chains are entering a “golden era” that is ending or already in decline, as rising operating costs collide with shifting consumer preferences toward more flexible, community-based ways to exercise. Long-term memberships are shrinking, margins are pressured by higher rents and facility expenses, and competition from smaller, more personalized…
