In Uncommonlab Weekly Alpha, we compile and share newly emerging crypto alpha on a weekly basis.

• The bill commonly referred to as the Clarity Act, officially named the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, is legislation aimed at defining the market structure of the U.S. crypto industry.

• The bill has several key objectives: clearly delineating jurisdiction over digital assets between the SEC and the CFTC; establishing a regulatory framework for stablecoins under the GENIUS Act; introducing a regulatory framework for DeFi; and enforcing measures such as reserve disclosures and wash trading prevention.

• If passed, the anticipated benefits include greater regulatory clarity, enabling companies to formulate long-term business strategies; increased institutional participation under a clear regulatory regime; improved trust through stablecoin reserve transparency; and stronger safeguards against market manipulation.

• However, some provisions of the bill—particularly the ban on yield-bearing stablecoins—have drawn criticism. Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong has argued that the traditional financial sector is attempting to restrict core crypto functionalities. He contends that in a free market, banks should either offer higher interest rates themselves or directly participate in the stablecoin business, rather than limiting competition through regulation.

• As a result, conflicts of interest between traditional banks and the crypto industry have emerged, leading to delays in review by the Senate Banking Committee.

The Clarity Act could become a major turning point for crypto regulation in the United States. If passed, it would provide clear standards and much-needed regulatory certainty, which is why many market participants are closely watching its progress. At the same time, the bill has been criticized for taking an overly bank-centric approach. Brian Armstrong, in particular, has criticized provisions such as the ban on stablecoin yields and restrictions on DeFi, arguing that they are designed to prevent banks from competing with crypto.

While the likelihood of the Clarity Act passing is considered high, if it passes with the prohibition on yield-generating stablecoins intact, users may see little advantage in crypto exchanges compared to traditional banks. This could reduce capital inflows into the crypto market. Therefore, close attention should be paid to how these provisions are ultimately decided as the bill moves toward passage.

• MicroStrategy has transformed itself into the world’s largest Bitcoin treasury company, raising capital through the issuance of convertible bonds and using the proceeds to purchase Bitcoin.

• However, over the past few months, MSTR’s stock price has fallen by more than 60%. One key reason is that the company’s average Bitcoin purchase price is now approaching the current market price of Bitcoin, reducing the perceived upside buffer for investors.

• Similarly, Bitmine Immersion Technologies, an Ethereum treasury company, raised capital through private funding rounds and equity sales to acquire Ethereum. As Ethereum’s price has fallen significantly below Bitmine’s average acquisition cost, the company is currently sitting on massive unrealized losses of approximately $6.5 billion.

• Both companies are pursuing a buy-and-hold strategy, but if Bitcoin and Ethereum continue to decline over the long term, they may fail to secure additional capital and could be unable to continue executing their Digital Asset Treasury (DAT) strategy. In the event of large realized losses, this could also trigger an exit of institutional investors.

As Bitcoin and Ethereum prices have dropped sharply, concerns are growing around companies such as MSTR and BMNR that hold these assets on their balance sheets. MSTR, which has been steadily accumulating Bitcoin, is in a relatively comfortable position, holding approximately $2.1 billion in cash, enough to sustain operations for more than a year. In contrast, BMNR is already facing losses exceeding 40% relative to its average purchase price, raising doubts about its ability to raise additional capital if prices fall further.

MicroStrategy has a track record of weathering previous bear markets without selling its Bitcoin, which suggests that, with sufficient cash reserves, it is likely to remain resilient under current conditions. Moreover, because its structure does not involve collateralized positions, the worst-case scenario would be the suspension of dividends rather than forced liquidation.

BMNR, on the other hand, accumulated Ethereum with a very large amount of capital over a short period, resulting in substantial losses. As a result, investing directly in Ethereum may be a more efficient strategy than purchasing BMNR shares.

While DAT companies could benefit from the passage of the U.S. CLARITY Act, they inherently carry significant risk due to their leveraged exposure to crypto assets. This risk should not be overlooked. Beyond asset prices themselves, as market conditions turn bearish, investors should also pay close attention to the potential bankruptcy risk of companies that pursued aggressive DAT strategies during the downturn.

• Binance has decided to convert assets held in stablecoins within its SAFU (Secure Asset Fund for Users) into Bitcoin.

• As a first step, the exchange used $100 million to purchase 1,315 BTC, and plans to convert the remaining $900 million into Bitcoin within the next 30 days.

• The Binance SAFU fund will continue to account for Bitcoin price volatility. If the fund’s market value falls below $800 million, Binance plans to replenish it back up to $1 billion.

• The background behind this decision is widely believed to be an effort to counter recent negative sentiment and criticism surrounding Binance and its founder, CZ.

• In particular, Binance appears to have recognized the irony that, despite being the leading exchange in the industry, it did not hold any Bitcoin on its own balance sheet.

Binance has announced that it will convert SAFU assets currently held in stablecoins into Bitcoin. While this move can be seen as a response to recent criticism of Binance and CZ, it also reflects an acknowledgment that a market-leading exchange lacking direct Bitcoin exposure was becoming increasingly noticeable. The total purchase size is $1 billion, and if Bitcoin price declines cause the SAFU fund’s value to drop below $800 million, Binance has stated it will inject additional capital to restore it to $1 billion.

Although this may partly be a reputational move, Binance has never taken this kind of action before, which suggests that internally, the company may view current Bitcoin prices as an attractive entry point. While the scale is still smaller than companies like MicroStrategy that use Bitcoin as a treasury reserve asset, Binance generates substantial cash flow from its exchange business. As a result, Binance could emerge as a new and influential player capable of supporting Bitcoin prices over time.

• Kyle, one of the most prominent figures at Multicoin Capital, announced via his X account that he has decided to leave the firm.

• The official reason given is his desire to explore new technology sectors beyond blockchain. He emphasized that this does not mean a complete departure from crypto: he will continue making personal investments, including in Solana, and will remain active as a board member of ZAMA and Chairman of Forward Industries.

• However, in a post he shared shortly before his resignation—and then quickly deleted—Kyle expressed a far more skeptical view of the crypto industry. In that post, he stated that crypto is no longer as interesting as it once was, that blockchains are ultimately just ledgers, and that aside from onchain confidentiality, most of the fundamental questions in the space have already been answered. This revealed a deep sense of disillusionment with the current state of the market.

One of Multicoin Capital’s key figures has now decided to step away from the firm. While the public explanation centers on exploring new technologies outside of blockchain, the deleted post suggests that Kyle, who once believed strongly in the Web3 vision, no longer holds the same conviction and has developed a broadly skeptical perspective on the blockchain industry. The only area he appears to view positively is onchain privacy, which aligns with his continued involvement as a board member at ZAMA.

Given the current state of the crypto market—where much of the focus has shifted away from technological progress and innovation toward quick token launches and rapid exits—the sentiments expressed in Kyle’s deleted post arguably resonate more strongly than his official statements.

• According to Vitalik Buterin, the creator of Ethereum, the progress of EVM-based L2s toward Stage 2 has been far too slow and difficult.

• As a result, he no longer sees L2s as the core pillar of Ethereum scaling in the way they were originally envisioned.

• In particular, as existing L1s continue to scale and Ethereum’s gas limits are expected to increase significantly, L2s must offer clear differentiation beyond scaling alone. Vitalik argues that future L2s should focus on areas such as privacy, specialized VMs, ultra-low latency, non-financial applications, and use cases like AI and social applications.

• He also noted that through a precompile-based structure for verifying ZK-EVM proofs, L2s can achieve strong and secure interoperability with Ethereum. Beyond that foundation, what each L2 builds is a matter of choice. However, he emphasized that L2s should not stop at simply extending L1, but must add something fundamentally new.

From Vitalik’s perspective, L2s that focus solely on scaling appear to have limited long-term relevance. This is because L1s are scaling faster, gas limits are rising, and transaction fees are expected to decline further. To remain valuable, L2s will need to define their direction around areas where L1s struggle—such as non-EVM or specialized VMs, deeply optimized architectures for specific applications, and ecosystems centered on social and AI use cases.

Looking at widely used L2s like Arbitrum (ARB) and Optimism (OP), whose tokens have declined over time despite high usage, it increasingly seems like a natural outcome that scaling alone is insufficient to sustain long-term value.

• Konnex is a platform building a marketplace for autonomous systems.

• It aims to convert robotic labor into onchain liquidity, with payments settled in USD. The project has raised $15 million from venture capital firms including LD Capital, Cogitent Ventures, M77 Ventures, Leland Ventures, and Covey.

• Ahead of its planned onchain testnet later this year, Konnex has launched Konnex Ingest, an onboarding phase for developers and miners. This stage operates offchain, allowing the team to improve models without economic risk or validator incentive constraints.

• There is still limited public information available, but the presence of Konnex Points earned through Ingest suggests a high likelihood of a future native token launch.

Konnex is building infrastructure that brings robotic labor—currently operating within closed, proprietary systems—onchain, enabling connectivity and payment. As the robotics sector rapidly expands with a growing number of autonomous machines, these systems remain siloed due to dependence on their own operating environments. Konnex can be seen as a project driven by the goal of addressing this fragmentation. With the ongoing Ingest onboarding program and the existence of a native point system, Konnex appears well worth monitoring as a potential future token issuer.

• Aspecta features a system called Buildkey, which allows users to trade pre-TGE project tokens by taking long or short positions.

• Users can purchase Long keys on a bonding curve and either sell them back later or hold them until the TGE to receive the actual tokens. If a user believes the project’s FDV is overvalued, or already expects to receive tokens in the future, they can take a Short position and effectively sell future token exposure.

• In practice, projects such as FightID had their keys traded on Aspecta prior to TGE, and currently Opinion, Polymarket, and Bitway are active on the platform.

• When projects like Superform or Espresso begin onboarding to Aspecta while simultaneously opening airdrop registration through their own websites, it can be a strong signal that their TGE is approaching.

Aspecta enables pre-TGE token trading through Buildkey. While participation requires staking ASP tokens, which makes direct access less straightforward, the platform can still be useful even without active trading. By observing the FDV levels at which Buildkeys trade and tracking which projects are onboarding, users can benchmark token valuations and infer how close a project may be to its TGE.

• The NFT-based project Moonbirds successfully listed its token BIRB on Korea’s major KRW exchanges, Upbit and Bithumb, shortly after its TGE.

• Notably, Bithumb announced the KRW listing before Upbit—an unusual sequence—and the listing once again highlighted how Korean exchanges have consistently shown a strong preference for NFT-based project tokens, given their history of listing many such assets.

• Projects that secure listings on Upbit and Bithumb shortly after TGE tend to share common traits: they actively target Korean users by hosting meetups in Seoul and running aggressive local marketing campaigns.

• Looking at past projects that successfully listed on Upbit, one particularly important factor appears to be whether the token is already listed on Coinbase spot markets. In this regard, BIRB met that criterion.

From a project’s perspective, the Korean market is too important to ignore. Due to its unique structure as a KRW-based market rather than USD-based, and the high difficulty of securing listings, success in Korea can generate liquidity comparable to—or even exceeding—that of Binance. As a result, most projects actively aim for listings on Upbit and Bithumb.

Historically, tokens that conducted strong Korea-focused marketing—such as hosting meetups in Seoul—have had a higher likelihood of being listed on Korean exchanges. Among these, NFT-based tokens have shown particularly high success rates, with BIRB being a recent example.

Recently, both Upbit and Bithumb appear to be delaying KRW trading support until a day or even a week after TGE, likely waiting for prices to stabilize before listing. For traders in Korea, KRW listings represent a significant opportunity. It may be worth thinking strategically about how to leverage these listing dynamics to capture potential returns.

• While the prices of most cryptocurrencies—including Bitcoin—are declining, Hyperliquid’s HYPE token has been moving in the opposite direction, showing notable strength.

• Looking more closely, the contrast is stark: over the past seven days, HYPE has risen by 18%, while BTC is down 18% and ETH has fallen 28%.

• One key driver behind this divergence appears to be Hyperliquid’s HIP-4 upgrade. HIP-4 introduces a new derivatives primitive through Outcome Contracts, enabling support for prediction markets and option-like products.

• In addition, a significant portion of protocol revenue is used for token buybacks, and under the HIP-3 framework, launching a perp product or a DEX requires holding 500,000 HYPE. These structural demand drivers naturally contribute to upward price pressure.

In a market where most tokens are under heavy pressure, HYPE stands out as one of the few assets showing sustained strength. This performance is largely attributed to the HIP-4 upgrade announced on February 2, which expanded Hyperliquid’s scope into prediction markets and fueled strong market expectations.

At its core, Hyperliquid remains one of the most user-friendly platforms in the highly competitive Perp DEX space and has consistently maintained the top market share. Combined with its policy of allocating the majority of protocol revenue toward HYPE buybacks, this design allows the token to perform well even during broader market downturns.

If Hyperliquid continues to operate smoothly without major disruptions, there is a strong case that HYPE’s market capitalization could eventually break into the top 10 among crypto assets.

• This content is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice or a recommendation to buy or sell any specific asset. Cryptocurrency and digital asset investments involve significant risk, and you should conduct your own research and make decisions carefully.

• All research commentary reflects the views of Uncommonlab research interns and should not be considered financial or legal advice, nor does it recommend the purchase or sale of any specific asset.

In Uncommonlab Weekly Alpha, we compile and share newly emerging crypto alpha on a weekly basis.

• The bill commonly referred to as the Clarity Act, officially named the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, is legislation aimed at defining the market structure of the U.S. crypto industry.

• The bill has several key objectives: clearly delineating jurisdiction over digital assets between the SEC and the CFTC; establishing a regulatory framework for stablecoins under the GENIUS Act; introducing a regulatory framework for DeFi; and enforcing measures such as reserve disclosures and wash trading prevention.

• If passed, the anticipated benefits include greater regulatory clarity, enabling companies to formulate long-term business strategies; increased institutional participation under a clear regulatory regime; improved trust through stablecoin reserve transparency; and stronger safeguards against market manipulation.

• However, some provisions of the bill—particularly the ban on yield-bearing stablecoins—have drawn criticism. Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong has argued that the traditional financial sector is attempting to restrict core crypto functionalities. He contends that in a free market, banks should either offer higher interest rates themselves or directly participate in the stablecoin business, rather than limiting competition through regulation.

• As a result, conflicts of interest between traditional banks and the crypto industry have emerged, leading to delays in review by the Senate Banking Committee.

The Clarity Act could become a major turning point for crypto regulation in the United States. If passed, it would provide clear standards and much-needed regulatory certainty, which is why many market participants are closely watching its progress. At the same time, the bill has been criticized for taking an overly bank-centric approach. Brian Armstrong, in particular, has criticized provisions such as the ban on stablecoin yields and restrictions on DeFi, arguing that they are designed to prevent banks from competing with crypto.

While the likelihood of the Clarity Act passing is considered high, if it passes with the prohibition on yield-generating stablecoins intact, users may see little advantage in crypto exchanges compared to traditional banks. This could reduce capital inflows into the crypto market. Therefore, close attention should be paid to how these provisions are ultimately decided as the bill moves toward passage.

• MicroStrategy has transformed itself into the world’s largest Bitcoin treasury company, raising capital through the issuance of convertible bonds and using the proceeds to purchase Bitcoin.

• However, over the past few months, MSTR’s stock price has fallen by more than 60%. One key reason is that the company’s average Bitcoin purchase price is now approaching the current market price of Bitcoin, reducing the perceived upside buffer for investors.

• Similarly, Bitmine Immersion Technologies, an Ethereum treasury company, raised capital through private funding rounds and equity sales to acquire Ethereum. As Ethereum’s price has fallen significantly below Bitmine’s average acquisition cost, the company is currently sitting on massive unrealized losses of approximately $6.5 billion.

• Both companies are pursuing a buy-and-hold strategy, but if Bitcoin and Ethereum continue to decline over the long term, they may fail to secure additional capital and could be unable to continue executing their Digital Asset Treasury (DAT) strategy. In the event of large realized losses, this could also trigger an exit of institutional investors.

As Bitcoin and Ethereum prices have dropped sharply, concerns are growing around companies such as MSTR and BMNR that hold these assets on their balance sheets. MSTR, which has been steadily accumulating Bitcoin, is in a relatively comfortable position, holding approximately $2.1 billion in cash, enough to sustain operations for more than a year. In contrast, BMNR is already facing losses exceeding 40% relative to its average purchase price, raising doubts about its ability to raise additional capital if prices fall further.

MicroStrategy has a track record of weathering previous bear markets without selling its Bitcoin, which suggests that, with sufficient cash reserves, it is likely to remain resilient under current conditions. Moreover, because its structure does not involve collateralized positions, the worst-case scenario would be the suspension of dividends rather than forced liquidation.

BMNR, on the other hand, accumulated Ethereum with a very large amount of capital over a short period, resulting in substantial losses. As a result, investing directly in Ethereum may be a more efficient strategy than purchasing BMNR shares.

While DAT companies could benefit from the passage of the U.S. CLARITY Act, they inherently carry significant risk due to their leveraged exposure to crypto assets. This risk should not be overlooked. Beyond asset prices themselves, as market conditions turn bearish, investors should also pay close attention to the potential bankruptcy risk of companies that pursued aggressive DAT strategies during the downturn.

• Binance has decided to convert assets held in stablecoins within its SAFU (Secure Asset Fund for Users) into Bitcoin.

• As a first step, the exchange used $100 million to purchase 1,315 BTC, and plans to convert the remaining $900 million into Bitcoin within the next 30 days.

• The Binance SAFU fund will continue to account for Bitcoin price volatility. If the fund’s market value falls below $800 million, Binance plans to replenish it back up to $1 billion.

• The background behind this decision is widely believed to be an effort to counter recent negative sentiment and criticism surrounding Binance and its founder, CZ.

• In particular, Binance appears to have recognized the irony that, despite being the leading exchange in the industry, it did not hold any Bitcoin on its own balance sheet.

Binance has announced that it will convert SAFU assets currently held in stablecoins into Bitcoin. While this move can be seen as a response to recent criticism of Binance and CZ, it also reflects an acknowledgment that a market-leading exchange lacking direct Bitcoin exposure was becoming increasingly noticeable. The total purchase size is $1 billion, and if Bitcoin price declines cause the SAFU fund’s value to drop below $800 million, Binance has stated it will inject additional capital to restore it to $1 billion.

Although this may partly be a reputational move, Binance has never taken this kind of action before, which suggests that internally, the company may view current Bitcoin prices as an attractive entry point. While the scale is still smaller than companies like MicroStrategy that use Bitcoin as a treasury reserve asset, Binance generates substantial cash flow from its exchange business. As a result, Binance could emerge as a new and influential player capable of supporting Bitcoin prices over time.

• Kyle, one of the most prominent figures at Multicoin Capital, announced via his X account that he has decided to leave the firm.

• The official reason given is his desire to explore new technology sectors beyond blockchain. He emphasized that this does not mean a complete departure from crypto: he will continue making personal investments, including in Solana, and will remain active as a board member of ZAMA and Chairman of Forward Industries.

• However, in a post he shared shortly before his resignation—and then quickly deleted—Kyle expressed a far more skeptical view of the crypto industry. In that post, he stated that crypto is no longer as interesting as it once was, that blockchains are ultimately just ledgers, and that aside from onchain confidentiality, most of the fundamental questions in the space have already been answered. This revealed a deep sense of disillusionment with the current state of the market.

One of Multicoin Capital’s key figures has now decided to step away from the firm. While the public explanation centers on exploring new technologies outside of blockchain, the deleted post suggests that Kyle, who once believed strongly in the Web3 vision, no longer holds the same conviction and has developed a broadly skeptical perspective on the blockchain industry. The only area he appears to view positively is onchain privacy, which aligns with his continued involvement as a board member at ZAMA.

Given the current state of the crypto market—where much of the focus has shifted away from technological progress and innovation toward quick token launches and rapid exits—the sentiments expressed in Kyle’s deleted post arguably resonate more strongly than his official statements.

• According to Vitalik Buterin, the creator of Ethereum, the progress of EVM-based L2s toward Stage 2 has been far too slow and difficult.

• As a result, he no longer sees L2s as the core pillar of Ethereum scaling in the way they were originally envisioned.

• In particular, as existing L1s continue to scale and Ethereum’s gas limits are expected to increase significantly, L2s must offer clear differentiation beyond scaling alone. Vitalik argues that future L2s should focus on areas such as privacy, specialized VMs, ultra-low latency, non-financial applications, and use cases like AI and social applications.

• He also noted that through a precompile-based structure for verifying ZK-EVM proofs, L2s can achieve strong and secure interoperability with Ethereum. Beyond that foundation, what each L2 builds is a matter of choice. However, he emphasized that L2s should not stop at simply extending L1, but must add something fundamentally new.

From Vitalik’s perspective, L2s that focus solely on scaling appear to have limited long-term relevance. This is because L1s are scaling faster, gas limits are rising, and transaction fees are expected to decline further. To remain valuable, L2s will need to define their direction around areas where L1s struggle—such as non-EVM or specialized VMs, deeply optimized architectures for specific applications, and ecosystems centered on social and AI use cases.

Looking at widely used L2s like Arbitrum (ARB) and Optimism (OP), whose tokens have declined over time despite high usage, it increasingly seems like a natural outcome that scaling alone is insufficient to sustain long-term value.

• Konnex is a platform building a marketplace for autonomous systems.

• It aims to convert robotic labor into onchain liquidity, with payments settled in USD. The project has raised $15 million from venture capital firms including LD Capital, Cogitent Ventures, M77 Ventures, Leland Ventures, and Covey.

• Ahead of its planned onchain testnet later this year, Konnex has launched Konnex Ingest, an onboarding phase for developers and miners. This stage operates offchain, allowing the team to improve models without economic risk or validator incentive constraints.

• There is still limited public information available, but the presence of Konnex Points earned through Ingest suggests a high likelihood of a future native token launch.

Konnex is building infrastructure that brings robotic labor—currently operating within closed, proprietary systems—onchain, enabling connectivity and payment. As the robotics sector rapidly expands with a growing number of autonomous machines, these systems remain siloed due to dependence on their own operating environments. Konnex can be seen as a project driven by the goal of addressing this fragmentation. With the ongoing Ingest onboarding program and the existence of a native point system, Konnex appears well worth monitoring as a potential future token issuer.

• Aspecta features a system called Buildkey, which allows users to trade pre-TGE project tokens by taking long or short positions.

• Users can purchase Long keys on a bonding curve and either sell them back later or hold them until the TGE to receive the actual tokens. If a user believes the project’s FDV is overvalued, or already expects to receive tokens in the future, they can take a Short position and effectively sell future token exposure.

• In practice, projects such as FightID had their keys traded on Aspecta prior to TGE, and currently Opinion, Polymarket, and Bitway are active on the platform.

• When projects like Superform or Espresso begin onboarding to Aspecta while simultaneously opening airdrop registration through their own websites, it can be a strong signal that their TGE is approaching.

Aspecta enables pre-TGE token trading through Buildkey. While participation requires staking ASP tokens, which makes direct access less straightforward, the platform can still be useful even without active trading. By observing the FDV levels at which Buildkeys trade and tracking which projects are onboarding, users can benchmark token valuations and infer how close a project may be to its TGE.

• The NFT-based project Moonbirds successfully listed its token BIRB on Korea’s major KRW exchanges, Upbit and Bithumb, shortly after its TGE.

• Notably, Bithumb announced the KRW listing before Upbit—an unusual sequence—and the listing once again highlighted how Korean exchanges have consistently shown a strong preference for NFT-based project tokens, given their history of listing many such assets.

• Projects that secure listings on Upbit and Bithumb shortly after TGE tend to share common traits: they actively target Korean users by hosting meetups in Seoul and running aggressive local marketing campaigns.

• Looking at past projects that successfully listed on Upbit, one particularly important factor appears to be whether the token is already listed on Coinbase spot markets. In this regard, BIRB met that criterion.

From a project’s perspective, the Korean market is too important to ignore. Due to its unique structure as a KRW-based market rather than USD-based, and the high difficulty of securing listings, success in Korea can generate liquidity comparable to—or even exceeding—that of Binance. As a result, most projects actively aim for listings on Upbit and Bithumb.

Historically, tokens that conducted strong Korea-focused marketing—such as hosting meetups in Seoul—have had a higher likelihood of being listed on Korean exchanges. Among these, NFT-based tokens have shown particularly high success rates, with BIRB being a recent example.

Recently, both Upbit and Bithumb appear to be delaying KRW trading support until a day or even a week after TGE, likely waiting for prices to stabilize before listing. For traders in Korea, KRW listings represent a significant opportunity. It may be worth thinking strategically about how to leverage these listing dynamics to capture potential returns.

• While the prices of most cryptocurrencies—including Bitcoin—are declining, Hyperliquid’s HYPE token has been moving in the opposite direction, showing notable strength.

• Looking more closely, the contrast is stark: over the past seven days, HYPE has risen by 18%, while BTC is down 18% and ETH has fallen 28%.

• One key driver behind this divergence appears to be Hyperliquid’s HIP-4 upgrade. HIP-4 introduces a new derivatives primitive through Outcome Contracts, enabling support for prediction markets and option-like products.

• In addition, a significant portion of protocol revenue is used for token buybacks, and under the HIP-3 framework, launching a perp product or a DEX requires holding 500,000 HYPE. These structural demand drivers naturally contribute to upward price pressure.

In a market where most tokens are under heavy pressure, HYPE stands out as one of the few assets showing sustained strength. This performance is largely attributed to the HIP-4 upgrade announced on February 2, which expanded Hyperliquid’s scope into prediction markets and fueled strong market expectations.

At its core, Hyperliquid remains one of the most user-friendly platforms in the highly competitive Perp DEX space and has consistently maintained the top market share. Combined with its policy of allocating the majority of protocol revenue toward HYPE buybacks, this design allows the token to perform well even during broader market downturns.

If Hyperliquid continues to operate smoothly without major disruptions, there is a strong case that HYPE’s market capitalization could eventually break into the top 10 among crypto assets.

• This content is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice or a recommendation to buy or sell any specific asset. Cryptocurrency and digital asset investments involve significant risk, and you should conduct your own research and make decisions carefully.

• All research commentary reflects the views of Uncommonlab research interns and should not be considered financial or legal advice, nor does it recommend the purchase or sale of any specific asset.