I came across this image today, and I compared Hyperliquid's 30-day data with the previous case study of $SIGN . I was actually quite moved. Hyperliquid relies on perp to generate this level of income, relying on traders to pay transaction fees in real money every day;
SIGN, if it can establish a foothold in sovereign digitalization projects in the Middle East or emerging markets, relies on burning a bit of fuel every time a certificate is verified or an asset is distributed.
The market is still fluctuating, but when I adjusted some idle positions, I became more convinced of the long-term positive outlook on underlying infrastructure. Hyperliquid has proven that DeFi can get a piece of the “grown-ups table” cake, while sovereign-level protocols like Sign may be quietly preparing their share.
The core takeaway from this list is: real income > narrative. Whether in the perp track or the identity infrastructure track, only by turning usage scenarios into ongoing gas consumption or fee capture does a project truly gain confidence.
Hyperliquid follows a high-frequency trading fee capture path, with income being direct, visible, and highly dependent on market volatility (trading volume surges in bull markets, while it may shrink in bear markets).
@SignOfficial follows an infrastructure-based fee capture path, with income relying more on long-term adoption (government CBDC pilots, corporate compliance distribution, cross-chain identity verification). Once sovereign-level orders are scaled, its fuel consumption may be more stable and resilient to cycles, because digital sovereignty and compliance needs often become stronger necessities during periods of geopolitical uncertainty.