Meebox.hl

Hyperliquid

[DONS @dons_korea]

메모리 슈퍼사이클이 곧 끝난다고 보는 뷰가 늘었다.

논리는 대충 이렇다.

하이퍼스케일러가 비싼 가격에 무한정 사주진 않을 것고, 중국 메모리 공급이 풀리고, 테라팹 같은 수직통합이 들어오면 2028 컨센서스가 무너진다는 것.

그래서 지금이 메모리 주식의 피크아웃이라고 본다.

일부는 맞는 말이고, 메모리가 사이클 산업이라는 본질은 변하지 않는다.

가격이 꺾이면 이익이 사라진다는 것도 변하지 않는다.

다만 베어 관점이 착각하는 한 가지 가정이 있다.

"효율화가 일어나면 수요가 줄어든다."

쉽게 말하면.. 메모리가 비싸지니까 빅테크가 안 살 것이고, 성능이 좋아지면 적게 사도 되니까 결국 수요가 감소한다는 시각.

그런데 역사적으로 보면 정반대였다.

효율화는 수요를 줄인 적이 없다.

항상 파이를 키웠다.

90년대 인터넷이 처음 깔릴 때.. 회선 속도가 빨라지자 무슨 일이 벌어졌나.

사람들이 인터넷을 적게 쓴 게 아니라 영상까지 보기 시작했다.

데이터 사용량이 곱셈으로 늘었다.

2000년대 모바일도 같았다.

통신 단가가 내려가자 사람들이 통화를 줄인 게 아니라 모바일 인터넷, 스트리밍, 영상통화를 같이 쓰기 시작했다.

클라우드도 마찬가지다.

컴퓨팅 단가가 내려가자 기업들이 서버를 안 산 게 아니라, 클라우드 위에 SaaS, 빅데이터, 머신러닝까지 올렸다.

경제학에는 이걸 부르는 이름이 있다.

제번스 역설.

자원의 효율이 좋아지면.. 자원 사용량이 줄어드는 게 아니라 오히려 늘어난다는 법칙이다.

19세기 영국에서 증기기관 효율이 좋아지자 석탄 소비가 줄지 않고 오히려 폭증했다는 데서 나온 개념이다.

이 법칙이 지금 AI에서 그대로 작동한다.

HBM3 - HBM3E - HBM4로 가면 대역폭이 1.5~2배씩 뛴다.

같은 GPU 한 대가 처리할 수 있는 토큰 수가 그만큼 늘어난다.

토큰당 비용이 내려간다는 뜻이다.

그렇다면 베어 시나리오대로 빅테크가 메모리를 덜 살까.

반대다.

토큰당 비용이 내려가면, 지금까지 AI 쓰기 비싸서 망설였던 곳들이 더 많이 들어오기 시작한다.

더 긴 컨텍스트, 더 복잡한 모델, 더 많은 사용자가 가능해지는 것이다.

시장 파이가 통째로 커진다.

추상적으로 들리니까 현장 얘기를 해보면,

처남이 램리서치 7년차다.

얼마 전 전화가 왔는데 사장이 직원들한테 2030년까지 자사주를 팔지 말라고 강조했다고 한다.

램리서치가 어떤 회사냐. 메모리 반도체 장비, 그중에서도 식각 증착 핵심 공급사다.

회사 사장이 직원한테 자사주를 2030년까지 들고 있으라고 따로 강조하는 건 그냥 던지는 말이 아니다.

회사 내부에서 보는 메모리 자본지출 사이클의 끝이 2030년보다 한참 뒤라는 신호다.

베어가 그리는 "2027~2028 피크아웃" 시점이랑 얘기가 다르다.

내 경험도 같다.

음악 관련 AI 플랫폼이랑 MOU 맺고 기업용 버전을 쓰고 있는데, 내년 연 사용료 예산을 또 올려야 한다.

업체가 직접 이유를 말했다.

"서버 운영비, 그러니까 토큰 사용량이 계속 늘어나서 데이터 사용료를 올릴 수밖에 없다"는 것이다.

다른 산업의 AI 플랫폼 쪽 사람들 얘기도 같다.

고객 기업이 새로운 AI 모델을 계속 요구하는데, 결국 가장 큰 문제가 서버 운영비라고.

이게 뭘 뜻하느냐...

AI를 이미 잘 쓰는 집단이 더 깊고 더 넓게 쓰고 있다는 것이다.

도입 단계의 수요 증가가 아니라, 정착 단계에서의 사용량 폭증이다.

한 번 AI를 업무에 쓰기 시작한 회사는 멈추지 않는다.

더 긴 컨텍스트, 더 많은 사용자, 더 복잡한 모델로 계속 확장한다.

제번스 역설이 현장에서 그대로 작동하는 모습이다.

AI 단위 비용이 내려갈수록 사용량은 줄어드는 게 아니라 곱셈으로 늘어난다.

그래서 메모리-GPU-전력 수요가 같이 곱셈으로 늘어난다.

그러니까 베어가 그리는 "비싸지면 빅테크가 안 산다"는 시나리오는 한 가지 핵심을 놓친 그림이다.

빅테크는 비싸도 산다.

안 사는 게 비합리적이라서가 아니라, 사는 게 더 합리적이라서다.

효율화가 토큰당 비용을 낮추고, 토큰당 비용이 낮아지면 AI 활용 범위가 더 커지고, 활용 범위가 커지면 또 더 많은 메모리가 필요해진다.

이것이 끊이지 않는 한 사이클이 끝나기 어렵다.

중국 공급 얘기도 한 단계 들어가야 한다.

CXMT가 DRAM 1위로 올라왔고 YMTC가 NAND 증설 중이라는 건 맞다.

그런데 중국이 들어오는 영역과 빅테크가 사는 영역이 다르다.

CXMT는 DDR4와 일부 DDR5 같은 범용 메모리에서 양산 중이다.

YMTC는 NAND다.

빅테크가 AI에 쓰는 건 HBM, 첨단 DDR5, LPDDR5X다.

이 두 영역 사이에 기술 갭이 상당히 크다.

CXMT가 HBM 양산까지 가려면 EUV 장비 제약, 1c 노드 수율, TSV 패키징... 다 미국 제재 라인 안에 묶여 있다.

최소 2~3년, 아마 5년 이상은 더 걸릴 것이다.

그래서 베어가 그린 "중국 공급 풀어 가격 붕괴" 시나리오는 범용 메모리에선 가능해도, HBM과 첨단 DRAM에선 2028까지 거의 영향 없다고 봐야 한다.

그리고 메모리가 그렇게 쉽게 만들어지는 기술이 아니다.

TSMC가 파운드리 생태계 만드는 데 30년 걸렸다.

SK하이닉스가 HBM에서 지금 자리 잡는 데 10년 넘게 걸렸다.

베어 관점에 묻고 싶은 게 하나 있다.

인터넷이 빨라졌을 때 데이터 사용량이 줄었나?

클라우드가 싸졌을 때 서버 수요가 줄었나?

스마트폰이 보편화됐을 때 통신 인프라 투자가 줄었나?

답은 다 똑같다.

효율화는 한 번도 시장 파이를 줄인 적이 없다.

항상 파이를 키웠다.

AI에서도 같다.

토큰당 비용이 내려갈수록 AI를 쓸 수 있는 산업이 늘고, 한 회사가 쓸 수 있는 범위가 늘고, 결국 더 많은 메모리가 필요해진다.

베어가 그린 "효율화 = 수요 감소" 등식은 역사적으로 한 번도 성립한 적 없다.

이번에도 다르지 않을 것이다.

[Nous Research @NousResearch]

Introducing the Hermes Agent Profile Builder

You can now build a complete profile in the dashboard with full control over identity/name/description, model/provider, built-in + optional skills, skills-hub installs, and MCP servers in one easy flow

[Pumponomics @ThePumponomics]

every morning i wake up and the first thing i do is check crypto prices. before i check on my kids. before i say good morning to my wife. before my feet hit the floor.

is that healthy? probably not. but it's honest.

i've been doing this since 2017. it's muscle memory at this point. phone, tradingview, check the number, okay now i can start my day.

the funny thing is it almost never matters. 99% of mornings nothing significant happened overnight. but that 1% where something moved 15% while i was sleeping…i feel like i need to know immediately. even though i'm a spot holder who isn't going to do anything about it anyway.

i think most of you do this too and just won't admit it.

[Jake Chervinsky @jchervinsky]

Over 60 founders and CEOs including @chameleon_jeff signed a letter today urging the Senate to pass the Clarity Act with strong developer protections.

Most important: the Banking Committee's bipartisan Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act.

There is no clarity without the BRCA.

[Hyperliquid Policy Center @HyperliquidPC]

https://t.co/gZX4O8GZgi

[Hyperliquid Policy Center @HyperliquidPC]

Today we filed a comment with @paradigm on @USTreasury's proposed rule for stablecoin issuers.

U.S.-regulated stablecoins power billions of dollars in daily trading, lending, and settlement.

Our comment offers recommendations to preserve their critical role in onchain markets.

[Meebox.hl @0xMeebox]

@Jackkk Are you really promoting a scammer ?

[Charlie @0xBroze]

Some notes on sunsetting FLX HIP-3:

First, will share that sunsetting HIP-3 changes nothing for Felix borrow/lend or Felix spot equities. Both will continue to see more upgrades in the weeks to come as our team narrows focus

Our team began work on our HIP-3 offering in June of 2025 as the clear use case for Felix borrow/lend was borrow to trade; we viewed adding our own markets as a way to customize more of that user flow and capture more upside. We also saw HIP-3 as a way to launch perps for assets that had never had perp market before and set out for a novel way to do this

Things obviously didn't play out in our favor over the months post-FLX launch, even though we were first to market with a few key markets, namely OIL, GOLD, and SILVER. These markets drove us solid fees during December and January and about 3bn in volume, but were eventually surpassed by TradeXYZ once they launched the same markets denominated in USDC

A few takeaways I've pondered for why things didn't work out in our favor and what could have gone differently--curious to hear if others think otherwise too:

1. TradeXYZ went with USDC over USDH, which seems obvious to be the correct choice in hindsight. When we launched, we did not know growth mode was on the horizon, which made the cost benefits of USDH negligent and left USDH markets as a fragmentation issue as opposed to a new core asset HL users wanted to use as margin. USDH appears to have been a well-played pawn to get Circle/Coinbase to move on driving USDC yield back to HL, but we didn't see the board this way at the time

2. XYZ beat us to market by launching on the day HIP-3 went live and about a month before we went live. This allowed early brand traction to build + time to get ready to launch more markets sequentially

3. XYZ beat us on market listing numbers early-on and built a moat of market listings quickly, while being the sole USDC-based deployer. Probably a bit of a balance sheet advantage here to pay for tickers and get liquidity in those markets; we had to pick markets more carefully due to balance sheet constraints

4. XYZ had an early brand halo around a mystery airdrop, which led to heightened early usage, which helped build initial volume/OI/liquidity, which created a growth flywheel that we were unable to catch. They then leveraged this growth flywheel to keep doubling down with more markets, larger partnerships, etc

5. With the 4 points above, XYZ was able to dominate the HL-native / CT-native trader base on HIP-3. Our options then were 1) launch novel/more esoteric market types that other deployers wouldn't touch or 2) build distribution in a net-new market. 1 is not that interesting to me since, as we saw with SILVER and OIL, as soon as a market gets traction, the top deployer can likely copy it. And 2 is something we haven't accomplished yet; it's an area we are determining how we want to approach as a company. When we accomplish 2, we may return as a deployer, but maintaining the deployment in the meantime is an unnecessary cost and not driving unique value, especially with the USDH sunset

I'm sure there are other factors too that I haven't unpacked yet, but those are the main set I see

Thanks again to all the HL traders who gave feedback over the build out of FLX and post-launch. Hopefully we can continue to serve you with your debt and yield needs via Felix borrow/lend. Feel free to ping me any time with thoughts, questions, or needs

[Coinbase 🛡️ @coinbase]

Coinbase is now the official deployer of @HyperliquidX's USDC treasury wallet.

We will be activating AQAv2 from the two addresses below:

0x4E5319dEb1072B01439EE674db5C321d11fd96F8

0xc20699185c15D0a2fD65779BB5d69f5b0B113c00

[Meebox.hl @0xMeebox]

@0xRedGojo Indeed 63.5, 64 is a cluster we need to watch

[Ansem @blknoiz06]

buying spot hype*

[Meebox.hl @0xMeebox]

@TylerDurden March 2020

[Meebox.hl @0xMeebox]

@ryandcrypto Crazy 1.5$ fee on a 20$ position haha

[Meebox.hl @0xMeebox]

@adidogCEO Higher.

[Meebox.hl @0xMeebox]

@derekedws Thank for the repost @blknoiz06
Hyperliquid.

[Derek Edws @derekedws]

hyperliquid is a killer product

meanwhile, there are pressures that may constrain the project’s viability within US borders

including:

- hyperliquid’s product layer (via CFTC’s kalshi approval, coinbase/deribit no action, and policy statement)
- hyperliquid’s network and token layer (via clarity act)
- hyperliquid’s collateral layer (via USDC, managed by circle/coinbase, two US regulated entities)

haven’t seen a thorough discussion on these impacts, so below is a brief summary of the current paths forward, and the rationale behind each:

(1) hyperliquid can ignore US market, go offshore only
(2) hyperliquid can build a US regulated wrapper
(3) hyperliquid can decentralize under ‘clarity act’
(4) hyperliquid can centralize the project, turn $HYPE into a security
(5) hyperliquid can lobby for a change

these are the five, i'll start with the first

(1) hyperliquid can ignore US market, go offshore only

last week the CFTC approved kalshi’s BTCPERP as a futures contract on a DCM

the CFTC separately confirmed certain deribit perps may be treated as foreign futures through the coinbase FCM path

the implication is that regulated distributors for perps in the US may need a fully regulated venue, compliant customer funds path, approved product scope, surveillance, disclosures, and accountable corporate counterparties

without these in place

distributing hyperliquid liquidity, or offering hyperliquid perps, could look like routing US customers into an unapproved offshore venue

so the first option for hyperliquid is that they ignore the US market entirely

this approach would be similar to binance main exchange, which was ultimately forced to more aggressively block american customers after years of light effort

like binance, doing so would preserve hyperliquid’s product offshore, but cede US institutional access for the time being

(2) hyperliquid can build a US regulated wrapper

the second path is to find a way to build or partner with a US regulated wrapper to offer perps

under this path, offshore hyperliquid would remain a global crypto native venue, while a separate US affiliate or partner offers regulated perps through an FCM/DCM/DCO/FBOT style wrapper

you can think about this separate venue like Hyperliquid US™

in a perfect world, this is the ideal outcome for hyperliquid to target US users

however, this approach would likely require hyperliquid to ring fence (1) customer funds, (2) products, and (3) $HYPE value capture separate from the main network

the ongoing separation of Binance US™ from Binance’s main exchange is instructive here as a case study

- customer funds may be ring fenced because US regulated futures infrastructure cannot commingle US customer collateral with offshore protocol margin

- products may be ring fenced because the US venue will likely require approved, deep, liquid digital commodity perps, not the entire hyperliquid long tail universe of assets

- revenue and $HYPE value capture may be ring fenced because profits from a regulated corporate venue flowing into buybacks, burns, or assistance fund mechanics starts looking like token holders are economically participating in the profits of a corporate operating business, which could implicate US securities laws

net net, this model would likely require a significant rewrite of how the hyperliquid network works for US participation

(3) hyperliquid can decentralize under ‘clarity act’

the clarity act drafts offer a groundbreaking path for a lot of protocols to ‘progressively decentralize’ a network

i'll be writing more on this down the road

but for now

under clarity, progressive decentralization means reducing the role of the originator / related parties until the network and token are no longer under ‘coordinated control’

in exchange, a token may exist to capture *automatic* revenue flows originating out of the decentralized network, as long as the token value is primarily driven by the distributed ledger system rather than entrepreneurial or managerial efforts by a control group

in a vacuum, a token powering a decentralized network may support shifting the token’s classification from “security” to “commodity”

which is a big deal for many protocols and networks in the US

however, there are tradeoffs for projects optimizing for the ‘decentralization’ route

for hyperliquid, decentralization under clarity would likely mean the project would need to aggressively broaden validators, decentralize the listing process, decentralize oracle/risk controls, reduce controlled ownership, reduce emergency discretion decisions, make upgrades slower and more governance driven, among offloading other day to day product decisions

this would be a meaningful change, as a large part of the hyperliquid thesis has been underwriting the core team’s ability to make fast product decisions, in a manner they see best

ceding managerial control over the protocol to satisfy decentralization changes the trajectory of the project, and shouldn’t be taken lightly

this also coincides with a separate issue

the clarity act’s decentralization framework is not a DCM/DCO workaround. even if the hyperliquid network could eventually satisfy clarity’s decentralized governance framework, this would still not automatically permit hyperliquid to offer perps directly to US users

notably, both clarity and the ag committee text for clarity preserve the existing commodity exchange act (CEA) regime for futures, swaps, options, and leverage transactions

this is important for understanding clarity's intent, as the ag committee writes the CFTC/CEA side of market-structure legislation and this text signals that clarity act legislation is not a workaround for the existing CEA derivatives regime

simply put

this likely means any decentralization for hyperliquid will *not* erase the need to follow regulated derivatives market infrastructure without a regulated wrapper, which would require a significant rewrite of how hyperliquid works for US participation

(4) hyperliquid can centralize the company, turn $HYPE into a security

this is probably the weakest option game theoretically, but worth mentioning

hyperliquid could become a corporate exchange, register or restructure $HYPE into a security, build a regulated wrapper, and shift value capture away from token buybacks/burns and toward equity, licensing, or regulated-entity revenue

this is the cleanest for compliance because the entity, venue, governance, customer funds, disclosures, and revenue flows become legible to US regulators *today*

but it is the most damaging to the network value prop, which relies on the idea that protocol activity, incentives, and economics are all aligned around $HYPE as a digital commodity, not a tokenized security

(5) hyperliquid can lobby for a change

there is a fifth option, which is to lobby for a change

here, related organizations could work hard to lobby the agencies to eventually create a bespoke framework for crypto-native perp venues like hyperliquid to directly target US audiences and capital

the work being done here by @HyperliquidPC is instructive

there is some evidence this approach could work in part

the CFTC is clearly moving in a more innovative direction, and the kalshi / coinbase-deribit path may be the first conservative step before more liberal steps to include more unique design architectures

important to consider, however

even if the CFTC further opens up on perps to tailor approvals for decentralized networks

this wouldn’t solve a $HYPE securities classification under the clarity act, which is a separate issue that may require network changes before US participation

without these changes

and under a current reading of clarity

i do find it impractical to think there will be a special token exemption for one project, while other projects are required to satisfy clarity act’s decentralization / network token framework

ok

in closing

these are the five US options as i currently see it, i'd be curious if folks in the legal / policy community are seeing others

there is also one final wrinkle, which is USDC now serving as hyperliquid’s ‘aligned quote asset’, with coinbase/circle tied into the broader treasury and routing strategy

a final point on this

if hyperliquid’s core settlement asset is USDC, then the system unquestionably inherits some degree of US regulatory control at the asset layer

but it also opens up a unique opportunity for significant policy shifts to support extending USD dominance, as flagged by @blknoiz06

its an interesting dynamic worth keeping an eye on for policy reasons

i hope some of this discussion is useful for further dialog

as of today

whether you are bullish or bearish on hyperliquid’s US efforts from here probably depends on two things:

(1) what probability you assign to each of these paths; and

(2) hyperliquid’s ability to compete once they end up on one of these paths

disclosure: my fund @collab_currency currently has exposure to $HYPE and projects building in the hyperliquid ecosystem

[Meebox.hl @0xMeebox]

@ryandcrypto Hyperliquid.

[banditxbt @banditxbt]

Gainzy thinks next cycle ISN'T going to be easy

"It's not gonna be an easy cycle yet again, don't listen to anybody telling you it's gonna be an easy cycle"

"We're getting rotations into every market other than crypto - and then we're getting within crypto market rotations... so they'll buy privacy meta one week, and then they'll shift into the DEX meta, into Oracle meta etcetera etcetera"

"It's not easy mode, nobody is coming in to save you - it's hard mode... it blows. There's no end in sight"