HYPE is the clearest example. Hyperliquid couples a heavily used on-chain perpetuals venue with a stated mechanism directing about 99% of eligible protocol revenue to open-market HYPE purchases. Bitwise cited more than $1 billion of lifetime revenue by June and an approximately $800 million annualized 2026 pace; the investment case is therefore framed as trading demand → protocol fees → token buy pressure, rather than HYPE’s position on a market-cap table. Those are company/industry estimates, not audited earnings or a guarantee of future buybacks.
But perps still control the near term. Perpetual futures offer highly leveraged, continuous positioning; funding rates reveal whether longs or shorts are paying to maintain that positioning. When price moves against a crowded side, margin liquidations force trades, which can accelerate a rally or selloff regardless of revenue or user metrics. Thus fundamentals can anchor a medium-term valuation thesis while funding, open interest, liquidity, and liquidation cascades dominate day-to-day returns.
Institutional attention is clustering in sectors with measurable cash flows or regulated-market fit. The evidence points to stablecoins and their reserve/fee economics, tokenized real-world assets, on-chain derivatives, and infrastructure/protocols with identifiable usage; Bitwise also reported continuing highs for tokenized RWAs and prediction markets during the downturn.
Institutions are expressing exposure differently from the retail-era spot trade. Wintermute sees more options and CFDs, alongside concentrated OTC activity; public-market vehicles provide another route. The contrast is visible in H1: Bitwise reported crypto-related equities up 23% while crypto assets fell 36%, suggesting investors placed greater value on companies with recognized revenues, reserve income, or operating leverage than on broad token beta. It does not prove a permanent transfer of value from tokens to equities.
Arbitrum illustrates both the promise and the limitation of “usage” metrics. The network has surpassed 2.1 billion lifetime transactions, while reports point to substantial stablecoin balances and rising tokenized-asset activity. That demonstrates real settlement and application use; however, transaction count is not revenue, and revenue is not token-holder return. ARB’s governance-centered design makes the last link—value capture—especially important to analyze rather than assume.
Stablecoins matter as both demand and market plumbing. Rising stablecoin balances can signal available on-chain purchasing power and lower-friction settlement; institutional interest is particularly natural where stablecoins are paired with tokenized cash-like or real-world assets. But balances can also be idle collateral, so they are a liquidity indicator—not automatically evidence of durable risk-asset demand.
Regulation and macro remain binding constraints. Better-defined regulatory routes can make ETFs and institutional products more feasible, yet demand remains selective: Grayscale recently withdrew proposed ETFs linked to ADA, DOT, and HBAR amid the prolonged market decline. Meanwhile, the market suffered a third consecutive down quarter in Q2, with total crypto market capitalization down 12.6% to $2.1 trillion; risk appetite, rates, liquidity, and broader macro stress can overwhelm protocol fundamentals in the short run.
The remaining risks are material. Revenue may be cyclical or subsidized; users can migrate; governance tokens may not capture fees; buyback/burn policies can change; on-chain metrics can be inflated; derivative leverage can produce violent dislocations; and regulation, custody, smart-contract, and stablecoin-reserve risks remain. The evidence supports a more discriminating framework, not the conclusion that crypto has become a conventional equity market.