Hyperliquid generated about $352 million in protocol revenue from January through July, the largest total among the crypto-native protocols in the supplied dataset, while its fee model continues to direct roughly 99% of protocol fees toward HYPE buybacks and token destruction. The latest 30-day figure in the dataset is $29.02 million, following a June peak of $60 million and a July decline to $38.4 million.
The figures place Hyperliquid ahead of Pump.fun’s roughly $256 million in revenue over the first seven months of the year, even though Pump.fun produced a larger $41.53 million over the latest 30-day period. Uniswap and Chainlink reported smaller but comparatively steady protocol revenue, at $5.60 million and $4.57 million respectively over 30 days.
These totals measure revenue retained by protocols rather than all fees paid by users. They exclude payments distributed to supply-side participants such as liquidity providers, a distinction that matters for decentralized exchanges where much of the gross trading fee is passed through to LPs.
Hyperliquid’s fee engine feeds HYPE purchases
Hyperliquid’s January-to-July revenue ranged from $38.4 million to $60 million per month. It began the year with $59.8 million in January, followed by $54 million in February, $51.5 million in March, $42.4 million in April, $46.3 million in May, $60 million in June and $38.4 million in July.
The protocol earns most of its revenue from trading fees on perpetual futures and spot markets. Standard rates for perpetual contracts are 0.045% for takers and 0.015% for makers, while spot trading carries base rates of 0.07% for takers and 0.04% for makers. Funding payments, which transfer value between long and short perpetual traders, do not go to the protocol.
Hyperliquid’s Assistance Fund receives about 99% of protocol fees and uses the funds to purchase HYPE in the secondary market before permanently removing those tokens from circulation. A regulatory filing cited in the supplied material states that the allocation to the fund increased from 97% to 99% in August 2025.
That structure gives the protocol’s revenue a direct connection to its token supply. Higher trading activity produces more fee revenue, which increases the capital available for HYPE purchases, although the eventual market effect also depends on token liquidity, trading conditions and the size of those purchases relative to circulating supply.
Pump.fun remains a major source of Solana fee revenue
Pump.fun recorded monthly protocol revenue of $51 million in January, $40 million in February, $38.1 million in March, $32.4 million in April, $34.4 million in May, $26.6 million in June and $33.7 million in July. The seven-month total comes to approximately $256 million.
Its $41.53 million in the most recent 30-day window makes Pump.fun one of the highest-earning crypto-native applications in the data outside major stablecoin issuers. The platform’s revenue depends on continued trading in newly launched tokens, rather than charging users to create them.
Token creation on Pump.fun is free. Trades made through its bonding curve carry a 1.25% total fee: 0.95% goes to the protocol and 0.30% goes to the token creator. A token that completes the migration process to PumpSwap also triggers a 0.015 SOL graduation fee.
The model has allowed Pump.fun to capture revenue from speculative token trading without relying on a conventional listing-fee business. Its monthly figures nevertheless show how closely revenue can track interest in new token issuance and trading turnover. Revenue fell from $51 million in January to $26.6 million in June before recovering to $33.7 million in July.
Uniswap’s protocol fees remain modest beside trading volume
Uniswap generated around $28.4 million in protocol revenue over the first seven months of the year, including $2.8 million in January, $3.2 million in February, $4.6 million in March, $4.5 million in April, $3.8 million in May, $5.1 million in June and $4.4 million in July.
Its latest 30-day revenue of $5.60 million places it ahead of other decentralized exchanges in the supplied comparison. The figure reflects protocol fees retained from selected pools and differs from the larger pool of swap fees earned by liquidity providers.
Uniswap’s fee switch is active across all v2 pools and selected v3 pools, and it has expanded beyond Ethereum to Arbitrum, Base, OP Mainnet, BNB Chain and Polygon. On v2, the standard 0.30% swap fee is divided between 0.25% for liquidity providers and 0.05% for the protocol. V3 fee arrangements vary by pool and fee tier.
This creates a more measured revenue profile than platforms built around perpetual futures or token-launch trading. Uniswap’s earnings depend on both swap volume and which pools have protocol fees enabled, while liquidity providers continue to receive the larger share of fees in v2 pools.
Chainlink’s service fees provide a steadier pattern
Chainlink posted about $35.4 million in protocol revenue from January through July. Monthly revenue stayed within a relatively narrow range: $5.7 million in January, $4.5 million in February, $4.4 million in March, $5.8 million in April, $4.6 million in May, $4.6 million in June and $5.8 million in July.
The network earns fees for services including Data Feeds, Cross-Chain Interoperability Protocol, or CCIP, Automation and Verifiable Random Function, or VRF. Those products support functions such as on-chain price data, cross-chain messages, automated smart-contract execution and verifiable randomness.
Chainlink reported cumulative Transaction Value Enabled of $32.18 trillion as of July 2026. It has also introduced Payment Abstraction and a Chainlink Reserve structure designed to convert certain service revenue into LINK for ongoing accumulation.
Across the four protocols, the revenue data shows distinct business models producing fees from derivatives trading, token launches, decentralized swaps and infrastructure services. Hyperliquid’s buyback-and-burn mechanism stands apart because it routes nearly all retained fee revenue into automatic HYPE purchases, while Pump.fun, Uniswap and Chainlink capture value through operational fees without the same stated allocation model.
Explore how centralized and decentralized fees compare in our deep-dive on CEX vs DEX trading dynamics.
Disclaimer: The content on this page is provided for general informational purposes only and does not represent the views or financial advice of Toobit. We make no guarantees regarding the accuracy or completeness of this information and shall not be held liable for any errors, omissions, or outcomes resulting from its use. Investing in digital assets involves risk; users should independently evaluate their financial situation and the risks involved. For further details, please consult our Terms of Service and Risk Disclosure.
