The decentralised exchange Hyperliquid has emerged as one of the strongest performers in 2025, yet its success is now clouded by criticism.
Allegations of whale-driven manipulation have placed the project under scrutiny just as its native HYPE token recorded a new all-time high. While the platform continues to post impressive trading volumes and revenue figures, concerns about fairness and sustainability are growing.
This article explores the claims of manipulation that surround Hyperliquid alongside the question of whether HYPE can maintain its gains or whether the market will correct under mounting pressure.
Critics around Hyperliquid
Hyperliquid has been one of the most dynamic names in decentralised finance this year. Its perpetuals exchange has consistently outperformed many competitors, and its ecosystem token HYPE has become a major talking point. However, not all the attention has been positive.
The exchange is now facing accusations of manipulation sparked by unusual trading activity and the involvement of a handful of influential traders.
On 27 August, analytics firms such as SpotOnChain and Lookonchain highlighted abnormal patterns in Hyperliquid markets.
A coordinated series of wallet movements allegedly pushed the price of one trading pair, XPL, to $1.80, which represented an increase of around 200% before it sharply corrected.
Reports suggest one trader profited over $15 million from the move while others gained between $9 million and $13 million.
In contrast, traders on the losing end were estimated to have lost more than $6.5 million. Such stark imbalances have raised concerns about whether Hyperliquid’s market structure is resilient enough to protect ordinary participants from the strategies of larger whales.
Further evidence of whale activity emerged as positions faced pressure. To avoid liquidation, some traders injected vast amounts of capital into the exchange, including one who reportedly deposited $44 million in USDC and another who moved $29 million in USDC.
These figures suggest that certain individuals can move markets significantly, not just through trading activity but also through emergency liquidity injections.
For critics, this demonstrates that decentralisation does not necessarily guarantee fairness, especially when concentrated wealth can dominate order books.
Despite these concerns, Hyperliquid continues to present impressive operational data. In July alone, the platform processed $330.8 billion in combined spot and perpetual trades, surpassing Robinhood’s $237.8 billion across all asset classes.
This marked the third consecutive month Hyperliquid has outpaced a well-established trading app in terms of raw volume. The performance indicates a rapidly growing user base and suggests that liquidity, even if heavily influenced by whales, is flowing through the system at scale.
Revenue figures reinforce this picture. Research shows that Hyperliquid generated nearly $100 million in revenue in just 30 days, placing it ahead of several Layer 1 networks.
At the same time, the exchange commanded 35% of all blockchain revenue in July, which demonstrates its dominance within decentralised finance.
Yet the very speed of this growth has also become a source of scepticism. Some analysts argue that such high expansion might be fuelled by short-term speculation rather than organic adoption, making it vulnerable if market confidence shifts.
Hyperliquid’s blockchain layer, HyperEVM, has grown in parallel. With total value locked reaching $2.65 billion, it is now the eighth-largest chain in decentralised finance.
This expansion highlights the ecosystem’s breadth, extending beyond trading activity into staking liquidity pools and validator growth. Galaxy Digital recently became a validator on the network, adding institutional weight to its credibility. Yet the dual narrative persists.
While its metrics are undeniably strong, the backdrop of alleged manipulation threatens to overshadow these achievements.
Will the ATH Hold?
The most immediate question for traders and observers is whether HYPE’s recent all-time high will hold under the weight of controversy.
On 27 August, HYPE reached $51.05, beating its previous July peak of $48.55. While the price soon eased to around $48.8, the token still maintained daily gains of 7.5%.
Supporters argue this resilience reflects the underlying strength of the ecosystem, while sceptics suggest it may be the result of unsustainable speculative flows.
To understand whether HYPE can sustain its value, it is necessary to look beyond price charts. Hyperliquid’s volumes and revenues are not isolated data points but part of a larger trend.
Its derivatives activity now makes up nearly 14% of Binance’s futures market, a sharp rise from just 2% a year ago.
Meanwhile, spot volumes for assets like Bitcoin, Ethereum and Solana have rivalled those of centralised exchanges such as Bitstamp and Kraken. This expansion into markets previously dominated by centralised players shows genuine competitive strength rather than speculative hype.
Revenue remains another critical factor. Hyperliquid earned $97 million in August after generating $86.5 million in July, which demonstrates consistent performance rather than a single-month spike.
Such income streams strengthen the case that the platform is building a sustainable business model as opposed to one reliant solely on the price appreciation of its token.
Moreover, accounting for more than a third of all blockchain revenue in July underscores its ability to capture market share on a structural level.
At the same time, risks cannot be ignored. The criticism of manipulation highlights potential weaknesses in governance and market design. If large traders can repeatedly engineer price swings that transfer wealth disproportionately, retail users may lose confidence in the platform.
Decentralisation is often presented as a safeguard against such behaviour, yet Hyperliquid’s experience shows that decentralised infrastructure can still be dominated by scale and capital concentration. A loss of trust could ultimately erode both trading activity and HYPE’s market value.
Another factor lies in institutional involvement. With groups such as Galaxy Digital validating Hyperliquid’s chain, the project has secured visible endorsements from established financial players.
This can bolster long-term confidence, particularly among larger investors seeking reassurance. However, institutional backing alone does not guarantee stability if market structures remain prone to manipulation. Investors may tolerate volatility but not sustained concerns over integrity.
The wider context of decentralised finance also matters. Hyperliquid’s rise comes during a period of strong growth across the sector, with decentralised exchanges gaining traction against centralised counterparts. If this broader movement continues, Hyperliquid may be well-positioned to ride the wave.
But if regulatory attention sharpens particularly around allegations of manipulation, there could be consequences that ripple across its ecosystem. For now, the token’s price suggests confidence remains, but its durability will depend on whether trust can outlast criticism.
Conclusion
Hyperliquid finds itself at a crossroads. Its record-breaking performance in volumes, revenues, and ecosystem growth suggests a platform with real competitive weight.
At the same time, the allegations of manipulation raise uncomfortable questions about fairness, transparency, and long-term sustainability.
Whether HYPE’s all-time high can endure depends not only on trading activity but also on the platform’s ability to address these concerns.
For traders, the lesson is clear. Impressive growth does not eliminate risk, and careful risk management is vital when engaging with even the most successful decentralised projects.