RWA Brought 170,000 Wallets to Hyperliquid. Why Did They Generate Just 8% of Measured Fees?

[Market Insight] RWA Brought 170,000 Wallets to Hyperliquid. Why Did They Generate Just 8% of Measured Fees?

169K New RWA Wallets, Only 8% of Measured Fees: Did Hyperliquid Capture the Value?

👉 Read the English version here: x.com20813819031780…

Hyperliquid began as an onchain derivatives exchange for trading the prices of Bitcoin and altcoins.

More recently, HIP-3 has made it possible to trade the prices of real-world assets such as US stocks, indices, gold, silver and crude oil around the clock.

Traders are not buying actual stocks or gold, however.

These are perpetual futures markets where traders bet on whether prices will rise or fall, without receiving dividends or ownership rights.

The appeal is straightforward.

Users can trade when traditional markets are closed and gain exposure to assets that may be difficult to access through a standard brokerage account.

HIP-3 has indeed attracted many new wallets.

But a striking gap has emerged between trading volume and fees.

━━━━━━━━━━━━

1️⃣ RWA accounted for 31% of new-wallet trading volume

Approximately 530,000 new wallets traded on Hyperliquid for the first time in the first half of 2026.

Of those, roughly 170,000 began in HIP-3’s stock, index and commodities markets.

That represented 31.7% of all new wallets.

They generated approximately $111.6 billion in trading volume, or 31.5% of the total generated by new wallets.

The figures break down as follows:

• Share of new wallets: 31.7%
• Share of new-wallet trading volume: 31.5%
• Share of measured fees: 8.3%

These wallets accounted for roughly a third of new users and trading volume, but less than 10% of measured fees.

RWA succeeded in attracting people, but had not yet brought in customers generating high revenue.

━━━━━━━━━━━━

2️⃣ Users who started with RWA mostly stayed there

Of the trading volume generated by wallets that started in RWA, 83.6% remained in stock, index, gold and crude oil markets.

Only about 16% moved into BTC, ETH and altcoin markets.

Users who started in crypto behaved differently.

They traded Bitcoin and altcoins, then moved into HIP-3 when opportunities appeared in gold or stocks.

In other words:

• RWA users traded primarily in RWA.
• Crypto users moved between markets.

For an exchange, the more valuable customer is not someone who trades only one product.

Users who move into Bitcoin when it moves, gold when it moves and altcoins when they move generate more fees.

HIP-3 created a new entry point.

But it has not yet succeeded in connecting users who enter through that door to Hyperliquid’s broader markets.

━━━━━━━━━━━━

3️⃣ Why were fees low despite high trading volume?

Fees do not necessarily rise in proportion to trading volume.

Frequent use of limit orders, volume discounts and HYPE staking discounts can all reduce fees on the same amount of trading.

The data showed that wallets entering through RWA paid a lower average fee rate than those entering through crypto.

The 8.3% figure, however, should not be interpreted as HIP-3’s total revenue.

The operators that create HIP-3 markets, known as builders, can receive separate fees.

That builder revenue may not be fully included in the figures.

The precise interpretation is therefore this:

The fees confirmed as paid by RWA users to the core Hyperliquid protocol were low relative to their trading volume.

That does not mean HIP-3 markets as a whole generated only 8.3% of revenue.

━━━━━━━━━━━━

4️⃣ What ultimately matters is how much value flows to HYPE

Revenue from RWA trading is distributed among several participants:

• The Hyperliquid protocol
• Builders that create HIP-3 markets
• Oracles that provide price information
• Market makers that supply liquidity
• Stablecoins used as collateral
• The assistance fund that buys HYPE with fees

An increase in HIP-3 trading volume therefore does not necessarily mean HYPE benefits by the same proportion.

Three things to watch are:

① Do wallets that entered through RWA remain after 30 and 90 days?

② Do they move beyond RWA into BTC, ETH and altcoin markets?

③ How much of the fees generated ultimately flows to HYPE?

There is one other caveat.

The 170,000 figure refers to wallets, not people.

One person can use multiple wallets, and the figure may include automated programs or market-making wallets.

━━━━━━━━━━━━

Conclusion

RWA has succeeded in bringing new wallets and trading volume to Hyperliquid.

But these four outcomes are distinct:

More users.
More trading volume.
More protocol revenue.
Higher value for HYPE.

HIP-3’s ultimate success will not be decided by how many more assets it lists.

What matters more is how long it can retain users, how many markets it can bring them into and how effectively it can translate their trading into value for HYPE.

RWA has become a new entry point to Hyperliquid.

One question remains:

Can the users who enter through it become long-term customers?

Sources
DefiLlama Research
Hyperliquid Documentation

[#Hyperliquid](?q=%23Hyperliquid) [#HYPE](?q=%23HYPE) [#HIP3](?q=%23HIP3) [#RWA](?q=%23RWA) [#DeFi](?q=%23DeFi) [#Onchain](?q=%23Onchain)

This material is for informational purposes only and is not investment advice.
Caution: It may contain incorrect information.
All investment decisions are your own responsibility.