Hyperliquid co-founder Jeff Yan argued at Korea Blockchain Week 2026 that round-the-clock access is no longer the defining advantage of onchain trading venues. Traditional exchanges are already experimenting with longer sessions, he said, while self-custody and transparent market infrastructure offer a more durable distinction for blockchain-based finance.
Speaking during a fireside chat in Seoul, Yan said cryptocurrency markets have operated continuously for years because they serve a global user base without a single local trading day. The ability to trade at any hour remains useful, especially for assets whose main reference markets are closed, but it does not by itself separate decentralized venues from established financial institutions.
“Traditional finance is rapidly moving toward 24/7 trading,” Yan said, according to remarks from the session. The competitive question, he suggested, is whether market participants can retain direct control of assets and observe how a trading system operates rather than relying entirely on a broker, custodian, or exchange operator.
Self-custody as the structural difference
Yan placed self-custody at the center of Hyperliquid’s view of onchain finance. Under that model, users hold the cryptographic credentials that control their assets rather than depositing funds with an intermediary that manages accounts and withdrawals on their behalf.
That structure can reduce exposure to a single custodian or operator during periods of stress, Yan said. A centralized platform can become a bottleneck if it experiences technical failures, freezes withdrawals, faces liquidity pressure, or becomes subject to disputes involving the entity holding customer funds. Onchain systems are designed to shift more control toward the user, though that also requires users to protect their own keys and understand the risks of interacting with smart contracts.
The distinction carries practical consequences beyond ideology. In conventional markets, traders often access products through chains of brokers, clearing firms, banks, custodians, and market-data providers. Each layer can provide useful services, but it also creates dependencies. Onchain trading aims to execute parts of that chain through publicly verifiable software and wallets controlled by participants.
Yan’s argument frames self-custody less as a feature aimed only at crypto-native users and more as a market-structure choice. It changes who controls assets during volatile conditions and who must be trusted to process transfers, settle trades, and maintain account access.
Transparency extends beyond public prices
Yan also cited onchain transparency as a core characteristic of blockchain-based trading. He described it in operational terms: users can observe activity in the system rather than depending solely on internal processes run by a private organization.
Public blockchains can make transactions, collateral movements, and other protocol activity visible to anyone able to inspect the network. The level of transparency varies by platform and product design, and public data does not automatically make markets easier to interpret. Yet the model gives users a way to independently examine certain activity that would usually sit inside a company’s private databases.
That visibility can be particularly relevant in markets where confidence depends on collateral and settlement. Users of a traditional exchange generally receive statements and data feeds from the venue or its intermediaries. An onchain system can allow market participants, analysts, and developers to inspect records directly, although they may still need technical tools to interpret wallet activity and transaction flows.
The approach also places pressure on trading platforms to balance transparency with market quality. Fully visible order flow can expose strategies or create new forms of information advantage, while insufficient disclosure can weaken the claimed benefits of open infrastructure. Yan’s comments focused on the principle that users should be able to see more of the system governing their trades.
Continuous trading has a role in off-hours markets
Yan did not dismiss 24-hour trading. He said continuous markets matter when an asset does not have a public price reference available outside traditional exchange hours.
He cited commodities, equities, and pre-IPO names that have traded on Hyperliquid while their reference markets were shut. In those cases, an onchain venue can provide a price that reflects current demand even when the underlying market is closed.
The trade-off is that off-hours prices can be harder to assess. With fewer participants and no live underlying reference market, liquidity may be thinner and price moves may be more abrupt. A continuously traded instrument can therefore offer access and early price discovery without necessarily providing the same depth found during the main session of a large established market.
For traders, the appeal lies in the ability to react to events as they happen rather than waiting for an exchange to reopen. For issuers and market operators, the challenge is ensuring that pricing, risk controls, and settlement arrangements remain reliable when conventional market infrastructure is inactive.
Private markets are the next test
When asked which asset classes could move toward continuous trading despite lacking constant pricing today, Yan pointed to private markets. Hyperliquid already has some exposure to the segment, he said, while acknowledging that access to private-market assets remains restricted.
Private-company shares and related instruments have traditionally been available to a narrower pool of participants through negotiated transactions, specialist funds, or private secondary venues. Yan said he does not view those limitations as the product of ill intent. Instead, he described an opening for broader price discovery across jurisdictions.
A more global market could establish prices earlier for companies that may later become major parts of the economy, he said. That prospect raises difficult questions around eligibility, disclosures, transfer restrictions, valuation, and whether a token or derivative accurately tracks the economic rights associated with a private asset.
Those constraints mean that 24-hour trading alone would not turn private markets into public ones. The harder work involves creating products that give participants meaningful exposure while addressing the legal and structural limits surrounding privately held companies.
Yan’s remarks place Hyperliquid’s strategy within a more demanding contest than simply keeping markets open overnight. As established venues extend their own trading hours, onchain platforms will need to show that self-custody, public verification, and global access can support liquid markets without sacrificing the safeguards users expect when trading increasingly complex assets.
Explore how tokenized markets reshape 24/7 price discovery in tokenized equities and how they work today.
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.
