As is almost always the case with big unlocks, if the intent was to exit, they've sold this exposure long before the actual unlock itself. Study PA around previous big $HYPE unlocks. Events like these do generally set up great options trades though. Really liking adding some ATH break (~$75) $HYPE calls for September and December expiries on @DeriveXYZ here too.

I'm very long $LIT and all, but these comparisons against @HyperliquidX fees are always very cherry picked imo They're completely ignoring staking tier discounts, maker discounts, volume discounts. Even just 100-1000 staked $HYPE, >$10m monthly volume, and executing ~50/50 maker/taker quickly gets you down to less than half of the displayed 4.5bp fees. For reference, my lifetime fees paid (very little HIP3 RWA volume) is just under 1bp. $BTC is always used as an example because of how bad slippage would exceed the fee discount on most altcoins. Funnily enough, if you change it to $LIT itself, @Hyperliquid becomes much cheaper than @Lighter_xyz to trade with slippage accounted for. If you literally only swing trade $BTC every single day, Lighter is probably cheaper, and potentially by a decent chunk if you only slam takers and stake no $HYPE (though I'd say both of those are a bit of a skill issue). If you trade a broader universe of alts, taker in/maker out, stake any $HYPE etc, it's way more favorable for Hyperliquid. Even if Hyperliquid was 1-2bps more expensive on majors, how much are you saving in capital efficiency by not needing to have collateral anywhere else for the pairs that are less liquid on Lighter? How much do you value access to much deeper liquidity on RWAs? How much do you value better uptime/reliability? Lighter has become way better over time but I've lost more money on Lighter to downtime (around 10/10 for example) and cancelled TWAPs than I've paid in lifetime fees on Hyperliquid. TLDR: Lighter is cheaper for a certain style and size of trader, Hyperliquid is cheaper for others. Real world use is way closer than these calculators portray. I use, own, and like both.

Interesting thought experiment, if @chameleon_jeff tweeted that $HYPE buybacks were being changed from 99% to 95%, and that 4% of revenue was going to TikTok ads and marketing campaigns (once legal in the US) to onboard more users, would you perceive that as bullish or bearish for $HYPE price? This is actually something I've changed my opinion on over time. I used to think higher % buybacks were strictly better or more "aligned", but it's more nuanced. 99%+ token buybacks probably just isn't realistic for most projects, nor is it ideal. $HYPE permanently raised the bar for what good tokenomics look like, but I don't think teams/tokens should be demonized for not living up to that pretty unattainable standard (and one that even @HyperliquidX may eventually constructively revisit). "Value accrual" back to token should be seen more holistically than just buybacks/burns. Hiring top tier talent is value accrual. Top tier talents needs to eat and get paid at least in some real dollars. OpEx and better infra is value accrual. Can't pay AWS bills in tokens (yet 👀) In $DRV's case, onboarding better market makers for better liquidity, and hopefully more trading volume, and more fees is value accrual. I think $DRV absolutely made the right decision to increase token buybacks from 25% to 35% as they grew, and it communicates to the market the continued intent to do so, but it wouldn't necessarily be bullish $DRV for them to go higher for now if that money is better put towards growth. Huge believer that balance sheets and accounting should be made visible and verifiable on chain so that tokenholders can see how revenue is being spent and to make sure it's being accretive to tokenholders. Token buyback %'s shouldn't be judged on total top line revenue, but post OpEx. There's a very fine balancing act between prioritizing future growth and current token price, as well as communicating to the market how value accrues to the token. At the end of the day we can all want totally programmatic 99%+ token buybacks, and it's been hugely successful for $HYPE and $LIT, but you're still trusting founders to maximize future token value with current revenue at the margins. Sometimes investing in future growth is better than buying back your token, and vice versa.