Pair-first comparison

Compare recipient structures, not just totals.

Select two protocols for a decision view. Equivalent rows stay aligned; material methodology differences and missing costs remain explicit.

Selected pair

Choose two economic models

Trailing 30 days ending 15 Jul 2026 (UTC).
USD · reviewed 16 Jul 2026

First protocol Second protocol

The selected pair is stored in the URL and survives refresh.

Raydium

RAY · Solana

RAY has an auditable usage-linked buyback route, but bought tokens are held by the protocol rather than assumed burned. Roughly 1.9M RAY/year of mining-reserve emissions must be assessed separately from fee-funded demand.

Open Raydium evidence →

Hyperliquid

HYPE · Hyperliquid L1

HYPE has direct fee-funded burn and staking utility, but staking rewards come from future emissions rather than trading profit. Roughly 9% of the normalized 30-day fee total remains unclassified and is shown explicitly.

Open Hyperliquid evidence →

Material differences

Fee scaleHyperliquid records 14.3× the 30-day user-fee base.
Scale is context, not a profitability score.
Holder routeRaydium 12.1% · Hyperliquid 71.3%
Share of user fees linked to a buyback, burn, or distribution mechanism.
UnclassifiedRaydium 0% · Hyperliquid 9%
Residuals stay visible instead of being assigned to a preferred recipient.
Net revenueNot stated for either model.
Period-matched operating and subsidy costs remain the comparison gate.

Normalized selected-pair comparison for Raydium and Hyperliquid; Trailing 30 days ending 15 Jul 2026 (UTC)
Metric	Raydium	Hyperliquid
User-paid fees	$4.2Mobserved Normalized swap/protocol fee coverage; official API volume is shown separately as traction.	$59.6Mobserved Perp/spot fees within adapter coverage; fee tiers, rebates, and HIP-3 growth mode vary.
Protocol-directed flow	$644.8Kobserved Buyback plus treasury-directed flow before costs.	$42.5Mobserved Assistance-Fund/holder-linked flow before considering token emissions.
Net protocol revenue	Not availableunavailable Operating expenses and full treasury outflows are not period-matched.	Not availablesource conflict Future-emissions-funded validator/staker rewards and complete operating costs are not period-matched.
Holder-linked value	$504.3Kobserved RAY bought and held by the protocol; not labeled as burn or cash distribution.	$42.5Mobserved Fee-funded permanent supply reduction; not a cash distribution.
LP / supply-side income	$3.5Mobserved LP fee income across covered pool programs.	$11.8Mobserved Community/HLP/deployer-side flow; not a pure passive LP return.
Validator / node income	Not availableunavailable Solana validator fees are network costs and are not Raydium revenue.	Not availablesource conflict Validators earn commission and stakers receive future-emissions rewards, but no complete period-matched USD income series is used.
Token incentives	Not availablesource conflict Official docs report approximately 1.9M RAY/year current emissions, but a reliable period-matched USD program cost is not available.	Not availablesource conflict Staking rewards are explicitly future-emissions funded; the 30-day USD subsidy is unavailable.
Treasury income	$140.5Kderived Normalized residual attributed to treasury/protocol; pool-program mix makes it lower than a universal 4% assumption.	Not availableunavailable Official docs describe community destinations rather than a comparable retained protocol treasury series.
Unclassified residual	$0derived Two-dollar adapter/rounding difference.	$5.3Mderived May include rebates, referrals, deployer/product routing, and adapter coverage differences; not forced into another recipient.
Economic profit	Not availableunavailable Incentive and operating costs are incomplete.	Not availableunavailable Emission, validator, and operating costs are incomplete.

Five-model referenceOpen the complete normalized statement

Same rows. Honest gaps.

Use this matrix for full-set reference, not as a substitute for the selected-pair decision view.

Components can differ by displayed rounding. Protocol pages carry exact formulas and source scope.

On narrow screens, swipe the reference table. Metric names remain pinned.

Metric

THORChainRUNE / TCY

ChainflipFLIP

UniswapUNI

RaydiumRAY

HyperliquidHYPE

User-paid fees

$596.9KobservedUser-paid DEX fees; excludes token issuance.[1]

$855.1KobservedLP fees plus network fee captured by the adapter.[1]

$65.2MobservedUser-paid swap fees across covered deployments.[1]

$4.2MobservedNormalized swap/protocol fee coverage; official API volume is shown separately as traction.[1]

$59.6MobservedPerp/spot fees within adapter coverage; fee tiers, rebates, and HIP-3 growth mode vary.[1]

Protocol-directed flow

$86.5KobservedProtocol-directed before direct operating/security costs.[1]

$171.7KobservedUsage-linked flow assigned to FLIP buy/burn.[1][2]

$4MobservedAssigned to protocol fee/burn mechanism; not retained operating income.[1][3]

$644.8KobservedBuyback plus treasury-directed flow before costs.[1][3]

$42.5MobservedAssistance-Fund/holder-linked flow before considering token emissions.[1][4]

Net protocol revenue

Not availablesource conflictPeriod-matched reserve emissions and direct costs are not fully available.[1][2][3]

Not availablesource conflictValidator emissions are documented in FLIP but no complete period-matched USD cost is applied.[1][3]

Not availableunavailableOperating costs and release/burn execution timing are not period-matched.[1][3]

Not availableunavailableOperating expenses and full treasury outflows are not period-matched.[1][5]

Not availablesource conflictFuture-emissions-funded validator/staker rewards and complete operating costs are not period-matched.[1][5]

Holder-linked value

$28.5KobservedSupply reduction, not a cash distribution.[1][3]

$171.7KobservedBuy-and-burn value, not a cash distribution.[1][2]

$4MobservedAccrued/assigned to the burn mechanism. Executed UNI burn is not separately measured here.[1][3]

$504.3KobservedRAY bought and held by the protocol; not labeled as burn or cash distribution.[1][4]

$42.5MobservedFee-funded permanent supply reduction; not a cash distribution.[1][4]

LP / supply-side income

$510.4KobservedCombined nodes and LPs; not a pure LP figure.[1][2]

$683.3KobservedTrading-fee income attributed to LPs.[1][4][5]

$61.3MderivedA reconciliation residual. DefiLlama's separately queried supply-side series was $62.09M and did not reconcile, so it is not substituted silently.[1][2]

$3.5MobservedLP fee income across covered pool programs.[1][3]

$11.8MobservedCommunity/HLP/deployer-side flow; not a pure passive LP return.[1][4][6]

Validator / node income

Not availablesource conflictThe normalized source does not isolate nodes from LPs for the period.[1][2]

Not availablesource conflictOfficial docs describe current monthly FLIP emissions, but a period-matched USD validator-income series is unavailable.[3]

Not availableunavailableNetwork validator/sequencer fees are separate chain costs, not Uniswap protocol income.[2]

Not availableunavailableSolana validator fees are network costs and are not Raydium revenue.[3]

Not availablesource conflictValidators earn commission and stakers receive future-emissions rewards, but no complete period-matched USD income series is used.[5]

Token incentives

Not availablesource conflictOfficial material describes reserve/security mechanics, but no complete period-matched USD subsidy cost reconciles with the adapter.[1][2][3]

Not availablesource conflictIssuance exists and is economically material; a defensible trailing-30-day USD cost is not shown as zero.[1][3]

Not availablesource conflictIncentive adapters and governance programs do not provide one complete comparable 30-day subsidy cost.[1][4]

Not availablesource conflictOfficial docs report approximately 1.9M RAY/year current emissions, but a reliable period-matched USD program cost is not available.[6][1]

Not availablesource conflictStaking rewards are explicitly future-emissions funded; the 30-day USD subsidy is unavailable.[5]

Treasury income

Not availableunavailableNo equivalent retained treasury-income series was available.[2][3]

Not availableunavailableNo equivalent retained treasury-income series was identified.[2]

Not availableunavailableThe activated protocol-fee flow is modeled as burn-directed, not retained treasury income.[3]

$140.5KderivedNormalized residual attributed to treasury/protocol; pool-program mix makes it lower than a universal 4% assumption.[1][3][5]

Not availableunavailableOfficial docs describe community destinations rather than a comparable retained protocol treasury series.[4]

Unclassified residual

$4derivedRounding residual; economically immaterial.[1]

$0derivedReconciles at displayed precision.[1]

$0derivedReconciles by construction; source-side discrepancy is disclosed in the LP note.[1]

$0derivedTwo-dollar adapter/rounding difference.[1]

$5.3MderivedMay include rebates, referrals, deployer/product routing, and adapter coverage differences; not forced into another recipient.[1][4]

Economic profit

Not availableunavailableDirect costs and issuance are incomplete, so accounting profit is not stated.[1][2]

Not availableunavailableEmission and operating costs are incomplete.[1][3]

Not availableunavailableDirect costs, incentives, and execution timing are incomplete.[1][3]

Not availableunavailableIncentive and operating costs are incomplete.[1][6][5]

Not availableunavailableEmission, validator, and operating costs are incomplete.[1][5]

Scenario lab

Move one fee share.
See the counterparty.

Static allocation scenarios only. Each model states whether the control resembles a real governance lever or an analytical classification.