Hyperliquid is no longer just a perpetual venue. Manual lending is live. Users can post HYPE or BTC as collateral and borrow USDC or USDT. Reported day-one borrows were about $269M. That is a different product than another HIP-3 market. ➢ Why this matters more than the ATH headline HYPE printing a new high above $90 is the easy story. The more useful story is what the venue is becoming: 1. A place to transfer risk (perps, including RWA underlyings) 2. A place to borrow against the assets already sitting there 3. A place competing with tokenized-spot rails that the SEC just opened on a temporary exemption Those three layers used to live on different platforms. They are starting to sit on the same stack. ➢ The mechanism, not the price Reported parameters: - HYPE collateral: 65% LTV, liquidation around 82.5% - BTC collateral: 50% LTV, liquidation around 75% That design is conservative on purpose. A perp venue adding borrow against its own token and against BTC is taking on liquidation risk in a second market. If the engine is clean, idle collateral becomes working capital. If the engine is messy, a HYPE drawdown and a perp cascade can hit at the same time. ➢ The bigger map this week The SEC’s innovation exemption is a path for tokenized NMS stocks on permissioned AMMs. That is closer to owning the claim. Coinbase Derivatives and Kalshi are filing to list single-stock perpetual futures in a regulated wrapper. That is closer to what Hyperliquid already runs, just packaged for the U.S. book. So the race is not “who lists Nvidia first.” It is who becomes the default place to: - express the view - hold the claim - borrow against it without splitting capital across three systems. ➢ What to watch from here - Does borrow demand stay after the launch spike? - Do liquidations on the lending side stay isolated from the perp book? - Does US access via Bitnomial change who is allowed to use which layer? A venue that only prints volume is a trading app. A venue that can support trading, collateral, and borrow starts looking like market infrastructure. Which of those three layers do you think institutions will actually use first?

The Binance listing was the headline this week. The more useful number is Hyperliquid’s share of global perpetual open interest. Recent prints put that share around 11.3% to 11.4%, with Binance, Bybit, and OKX still in the denominator. Venue open interest has also printed a new high near $18B. That is no longer an “on-chain perp DEX versus other DEXes” story. ➢ What the listing actually changes A Binance spot listing improves access and price discovery for the token. It does not automatically improve the quality of the book. Those are two different products: - the token as a listed asset - the venue as a place where risk sits overnight Retail often treats the first as proof of the second. Serious capital does not. ➢ Why OI share is the cleaner signal Volume can jump on listing day and fade. Open interest share against the global book is harder to fake for long. If a venue keeps taking share while CEX books remain the majority, two things are happening at once: 1. Some flow is leaving centralized venues for on-chain matching. 2. New flow is being created on assets CEXes do not list the same way, including RWA and pre-IPO perps. Both can be true. Only the mix tells you whether the share is sticky. ➢ The risk that comes with the print Higher OI is ammunition. An $18B book with more retail access after a major CEX listing can produce cleaner hedging, or faster cascades, depending on liquidation quality and how correlated the new flow is. The question after a listing is not “did price hold $90.” It is whether the next volatility spike still looks like a venue that can transfer risk at size. ➢ Practical filter Watch three things over the next two weeks, not the listing candle: - Does global OI share hold after the listing spike? - Does funding stay orderly when weekend volume thins? - Do liquidations stay two-sided, or does one side get run? A listing is distribution. OI share is whether the venue is becoming part of the global market structure. Which of those two do you think matters more from here?