Pump.fun Surpasses Hyperliquid in Daily Crypto Revenue: Evaluating the Sustainability of New Revenue Models in Decentralized Trading Platforms

In early September 2025, Pump.fun, the Solana-based memecoin launchpad, achieved a milestone that few in the decentralized finance (DeFi) space anticipated: it surpassed Hyperliquid, a leading perpetual trading platform, in daily protocol revenue. According to DeFiLlama data, Pump.fun generated $3.38 million in daily revenue on September 16, 2025, outpacing Hyperliquid's $3.06 million during the same period Pump.fun daily revenue tops Hyperliquid as memecoin …^[1]. This shift marks a pivotal moment in the evolution of decentralized trading platforms, raising critical questions about the sustainability of revenue models built on speculative demand versus those rooted in traditional derivatives trading.

The Revenue Surge: Buybacks and Dynamic Fees

Pump.fun's ascent is driven by a combination of aggressive token buybacks and a dynamic fee model. Since July 2025, the platform has allocated nearly $97 million in revenue to repurchasing its native PUMP token, reducing its circulating supply by 6.7% Pump.fun daily revenue tops Hyperliquid as memecoin …^[1]. This strategy has created a flywheel effect: as buybacks reduce supply, the token's price appreciates, incentivizing further participation in the platform's ecosystem. According to a report by TheBlock, Pump.fun's daily revenue now comes primarily from fees on memecoin creation, liquidity provision, and trading volume, with all proceeds funneled into buybacks Pump.fun Overtakes Hyperliquid in Daily Revenue^[2].

Hyperliquid, by contrast, generates revenue through perpetual futures trading and has maintained a more stable, albeit lower, daily revenue stream. While its 7-day and 30-day revenue metrics remain robust, its 24-hour figures lag behind Pump.fun's Pump.fun daily revenue tops Hyperliquid as memecoin …^[1]. This divergence highlights a key difference in risk profiles: Pump.fun's model thrives on short-term volatility and speculative demand, whereas Hyperliquid's perpetuals model relies on sustained trading activity and market depth.

Strategic Implications: Creator-Driven Incentives vs. Institutional Trust

Pump.fun's success underscores the growing influence of creator-driven incentives in DeFi. By aligning token holders with platform growth through buybacks, Pump.fun has created a self-reinforcing cycle that mirrors the dynamics of traditional stock buybacks but with amplified velocity. As noted by CoinSpeaker, this approach has driven a 70% weekly price surge for PUMP, pushing its value to $0.0081 Pump.fun Tops Hyperliquid Revenue with Aggressive Buybacks^[4]. However, this model's reliance on speculative fervor raises concerns about long-term sustainability.

Hyperliquid, meanwhile, has positioned itself as a more institutional-grade platform. Its valuation—approximately seven times the fully diluted valuation (FDV) of Pump.fun despite similar run-rate revenues—reflects market confidence in its perpetual trading infrastructure Pump.fun Tops Hyperliquid Revenue with Aggressive Buybacks^[4]. This premium suggests that investors perceive Hyperliquid's model as more durable, even if its daily revenue figures occasionally trail Pump.fun's.

Sustainability Challenges: Volatility and Market Cycles

The sustainability of Pump.fun's revenue model hinges on its ability to maintain user engagement during market downturns. Unlike Hyperliquid, which benefits from consistent derivatives trading activity, Pump.fun's revenue is tied to the creation and trading of memecoins—a sector prone to rapid shifts in sentiment. As CryptoDataSpace observes, while Pump.fun now ranks third on DeFiLlama's daily revenue leaderboard (behind Tether and Circle), its position is precarious PUMP vs HYPE: PumpFun Daily Revenue Surges Past Hyperliquid^[3]. A single market correction could erode the platform's liquidity and buyback momentum.

Moreover, Pump.fun's dynamic fee model, introduced with Project Ascend, introduces complexity. While it aims to optimize revenue during high-volume periods, it also risks alienating users during low-liquidity phases. Analysts caution that without a diversified revenue stream, the platform may struggle to adapt to broader market cycles Hyperliquid vs Pump.fun: 7x FDV Gap Despite Similar Run-Rate Revenue^[5].

Conclusion: A New Paradigm or a Flash in the Pan?

Pump.fun's surpassing of Hyperliquid in daily revenue is a testament to the disruptive potential of creator-driven DeFi models. However, the long-term viability of such strategies remains untested. For investors, the key question is whether Pump.fun can evolve beyond its current reliance on speculative demand and establish a more diversified revenue base. Meanwhile, Hyperliquid's steady performance reinforces the enduring appeal of perpetuals trading, even in a rapidly changing market.

As the crypto landscape continues to evolve, the competition between these two platforms will serve as a case study in the trade-offs between innovation and stability. For now, Pump.fun's aggressive buybacks and dynamic fees have proven effective—but whether they can sustain their momentum remains to be seen.