Skip to content
Crypto Almanac Daily
H
Perp Dex

Hyperliquid HLP

Best for documented on-chain trading

Total value locked:$214m at this checkChains:1Audits recorded:0Audit report linked:Not foundRubric:v2.0 · verified 9 Aug 2026
Kayla PetersonKayla PetersonDeFi Research Analyst· Last verified August 9, 2026
Confidence ARubric v2.0Verified August 9, 2026
7.1
out of 10
Open account
Scorecard

How it rates

Counterparty & contract risk · 30%6.0
Cost transparency · 20%9.0
Market quality · 25%6.0
Transparency & track record · 15%8.0
Public documentation surface · 10%8.0
Pros
  • Documentation published at a public address
Cons
  • No audit report linked in the public dataset at this check
  • Single-chain deployment
How this score was built

Each indicator scores 2, 1 or 0. A pillar is the points earned over the points available; the overall score is the weighted sum. Every source below is public — check any of them yourself.

Counterparty & contract risk · 30% weight6/10 points · 6.0/10
Cost transparency · 20% weight9/10 points · 9.0/10
Market quality · 25% weight6/10 points · 6.0/10
Transparency & track record · 15% weight8/10 points · 8.0/10
Public documentation surface · 10% weight8/10 points · 8.0/10

The liquidity vault backing Hyperliquid's perpetual markets, holding $214m and taking the other side of trader flow as market maker and liquidator.

Our assessment

HLP is the vault that makes Hyperliquid's perpetual markets work. Depositors' capital acts as market maker and liquidator, taking the other side of trader flow. It holds $214m at this check, and understanding what that position actually is matters more than the yield figure attached to it.

Depositing means becoming the house

HLP profits when traders lose and loses when traders win. Over time the house edge, funding and liquidation fees have generally favoured the vault — that is the business model of every market maker. It is not a yield product, it is an undiversified short-volatility position in one venue's order flow, and it can lose substantially in a single event.

The March 2025 episode

A trader engineered a position in an illiquid market specifically to force losses onto HLP. The platform's response was to delist the market and settle it at a chosen price, protecting the vault. Depositors were shielded; the episode also demonstrated that outcomes on this venue can be decided by intervention rather than by the rules as written.

Concentration is the structural fact

The chain, the matching engine, the vault and the intervention authority sit within one ecosystem. That produces excellent performance and a governance surface far narrower than a permissionless protocol's. No audit report was retrievable at a public address at this check.

Who it suits

HLP fits depositors who understand they are underwriting one venue's trader flow and accept discretionary intervention as part of the deal. Anyone treating it as a savings product has misread the instrument.

Alternatives

How rivals compare

ServiceScoreBest for
GMX V2 Perps9.3audited, multi-chain deploymentRead →
Reference

Frequently asked

Does this score mean Hyperliquid HLP is safe to use?

No. It measures what an outsider can verify: linked audits, published documentation and independently recorded market data. Contract behaviour is not tested by us.

Where does the TVL figure come from?

An independent public analytics platform, queried at the verification date. Anyone can re-run the same query.

Why do some protocols score zero on audits?

Because no audit report is linked in the public dataset. It records what a user can reach, not a claim that no audit was ever performed.