Advertise
- Zafar Naik
Zafar Naik
- Reviewed by:
Qadir AKQadir Ak is the founder of Coinpedia. He has over a decade of experience writing about technology and has been covering the blockchain and cryptocurrency space since 2010. He has also interviewed a few prominent experts within the cryptocurrency space.
- Dec 17, 2025 11:34 UTC
-
Hyperliquid Puts $1B HYPE Tokens Up for Burn Vote
Hyperliquid has launched a validator vote to decide whether nearly $1B worth of HYPE tokens should be formally treated as burned.
The vote aims to clarify how HYPE’s supply is counted going forward.
The move comes as Hyperliquid’s fee-driven model and governance structure draw growing institutional attention.
Hyperliquid is putting nearly $1 billion worth of HYPE tokens under the spotlight.
The Hyper Foundation has proposed a validator vote to formally recognize HYPE tokens held in the protocol’s Assistance Fund as burned. If approved, the tokens would be excluded from HYPE’s circulating and total supply, even though they are already inaccessible at the protocol level.
A Burn Without a Transaction
This is not a traditional token burn.
The Assistance Fund is a built-in mechanism within Hyperliquid’s layer-1 execution that automatically converts trading fees into HYPE and sends them to a system address. That address was created without a private key, meaning the tokens cannot be accessed or spent unless a hard fork is introduced.
“The Hyper Foundation is proposing a validator vote to formally recognize the Assistance Fund HYPE as burned, removing the tokens permanently from the circulating and total supply,” the foundation said.
A “Yes” vote would bind validators to never approve any upgrade that could unlock the funds.
Why Hyperliquid Is Clarifying Supply Now
Hyperliquid’s fee-driven model has been drawing institutional attention, particularly as large treasuries begin to track HYPE more closely.
According to Cantor Fitzgerald, the protocol has generated around $874 million in fees year-to-date, with 99% of those fees routed through the Assistance Fund to repurchase HYPE.
Cantor described this structure as one that returns nearly all protocol revenue to tokenholders. The new proposal makes it clear that these repurchased tokens were never meant to re-enter circulation, reducing confusion around HYPE’s effective supply.
The foundation said the vote is meant to align supply reporting with how the protocol actually works, rather than create artificial scarcity.
How the Vote Works
Validators must signal their position in the governance forum by December 21, while users can stake with validators that match their view until December 24. The final result will be decided through stake-weighted consensus.
Native Markets, issuer of the USDH stablecoin, noted that 50% of USDH reserve yield is routed into the Assistance Fund.
“Should this validator vote pass, these contributions will then be formally recognized as burned,” the company said.
As Hyperliquid continues to post strong numbers, the vote highlights a shift toward cleaner accounting and long-term protocol clarity. Always a good sign!.
Never Miss a Beat in the Crypto World!
Stay ahead with breaking news, expert analysis, and real-time updates on the latest trends in Bitcoin, altcoins, DeFi, NFTs, and more.
FAQs
No. The proposal only affects how certain tokens are counted in supply metrics, not how HYPE is used for trading, staking, or governance. Token utility and on-chain behavior remain unchanged.
Only under highly unlikely circumstances. A “Yes” vote would create a binding commitment among validators to reject any future upgrades that attempt to unlock or reuse those tokens, making reversal politically and economically difficult.
It improves transparency around supply data, which is critical for valuation models and risk assessment. Clearer accounting reduces ambiguity for funds that must disclose circulating supply assumptions to regulators or investors.
Trust with CoinPedia:
CoinPedia has been delivering accurate and timely cryptocurrency and blockchain updates since 2017. All content is created by our expert panel of analysts and journalists, following strict Editorial Guidelines based on E-E-A-T (Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness). Every article is fact-checked against reputable sources to ensure accuracy, transparency, and reliability. Our review policy guarantees unbiased evaluations when recommending exchanges, platforms, or tools. We strive to provide timely updates about everything crypto & blockchain, right from startups to industry majors.
Investment Disclaimer:
All opinions and insights shared represent the author's own views on current market conditions. Please do your own research before making investment decisions. Neither the writer nor the publication assumes responsibility for your financial choices.
Sponsored and Advertisements:
Sponsored content and affiliate links may appear on our site. Advertisements are marked clearly, and our editorial content remains entirely independent from our ad partners.
Yes 
No 
