Stop with the mid curve diversification of your perp DEX bags.

I’ve been actively clicking buttons on both platforms and hold both $HYPE and $LIT as the ultimate two-sided bet on the on-chain perps meta.
HL is printing real fees at scale, and the tokenomics are brutally simple.
~99% of trading fees get routed into the Assistance Fund that programmatically buys back $HYPE.
So protocol revenue and holder revenue are basically the same thing.
The FDV is still heavy with only ~34% circulating and scheduled unlocks ahead. But the cap table is relatively clean.
Now contrast that with $LIT.
Lighter pushed ~$200B in 30-day volume during its peak launch window, briefly overtaking Hyperliquid.
Its fee take is materially lower. Only ~$1.7M in fees over a similar period where Hyperliquid pulled ~$14M.
They ran a zero-fee strategy to bootstrap volume. So $LIT is more of an infra + monetization optionality bet.
Still, $LIT carries real insider overhang risk since the tokenomics allocate 50% to team + VCs.
That’s also why it trades at a discount to $HYPE on revenue multiples.
Honestly, I’m holding both for actual reasons:
→ The top dog flips month-to-month based on fee wars and incentives, so I’m not forcing myself to pick just one horse. I’m long the thesis that on-chain perps are a multi-billion dollar structural category actively eating CeFi.
→ I'm pairing the premium category winner with the cheap multiple catch-up play. If the challenger wins share without killing the king, I capture that upside.
→ I'm spreading bets across tech stacks and cap tables.
Make no mistake, the risk is still highly correlated. If macro rugs or on-chain leverage appetite dies, both bags are going to goblin town.
But if the on-chain perps thesis holds, this combo captures the rotation, the multiple expansion, and the architectural divergence all at once.
Lighterliquid.