整理 & 编译：深潮TechFlow

Guest: Mike Dudas, Managing Partner of 6MV

Host: Laura Shin

Podcast Source: Unchained

Original Title: Hyperliquid Is About to Face More Competition. Here's Why Mike Dudas Isn't Worried

Broadcast Date: June 5, 2026

Key Takeaways

In this episode, Mike Dudas, Managing Partner at 6MV, discussed the recent drastic fluctuations in the crypto market and the narrative divergence surrounding core assets such as Strategy, Ethereum, Solana, and Hyperliquid. He believes that Strategy's sale of Bitcoin undermined the "never sell" belief premium that Michael Saylor has long fostered; Ethereum's main issue is its inability to form a unified, market-priced asset narrative, which is why he and 6MV have zero allocation to ETH. In contrast, Mike is more optimistic about protocols with clear value capture mechanisms, programmatic buybacks, and ongoing revenue, particularly comparing Hyperliquid to Tether in the DeFi world: it does not rely on the U.S. market and can grow into a significant network amid non-KYC, international trading demands.

Insightful Points Summary

The Breakdown of Strategy and the Bitcoin Faith Premium

• "Strategy wants to do two things at once: on one hand, financialize Bitcoin exposure, and on the other, shape it into a religious-like Meme asset. The problem is that these two are not entirely compatible."
• "Saylor's long-standing commitment to the market is: I will never sell this asset. I just believe in it. So whether it's hundreds of Bitcoin or tens of thousands sold, once he starts selling, a leg of the Strategy story is removed."
• "You need the market to fully believe he will buy this asset forever. So when prices drop, they must find a way to continue buying Bitcoin."

The Chaotic ETH Narrative and Zero Allocation

• "ETH has ultimately become what many want it to be, but the problem is that the Foundation and many core writers are not willing to truly embrace ETH as a currency asset narrative."
• "Look at the 100 large stakeholders in the Ethereum ecosystem, each telling a different story: what this asset is, what the long-term mission of the network is, the market certainly doesn’t know how to price it."
• "As a fund, we do not hold ETH; I personally do not hold ETH. Because I cannot articulate what its story is today, nor what it will become in three years."

Opportunities and Shortcomings of Solana

• "Solana's problem is clearer: it is not a chaotic narrative, but a performance issue. On-chain activity and fees peaked in early 2025 and have continued to decline, with prices following suit."
• "Previous activity in Solana mainly came from Meme coins and highly speculative on-chain trading, but there isn't enough sustainable economic activity yet to fill that decline."
• "If Solana can genuinely excel in new directions like perpetual contracts and prove its L1 performance is close to that of centralized exchanges, it may eventually become an undervalued asset."

Hyperliquid and the Non-KYC Market

• "My basic analogy for Hyperliquid is Tether to Circle. The non-KYC or international market is very large in crypto and can fully support a massive network."
• "The key question for Hyperliquid is not whether it can enter the U.S., but whether it can consistently list higher-quality assets and maintain sufficiently good liquidity."
• "Its real growth comes from asset quality and liquidity: crude oil, computing power markets, Pre-IPO stocks, prediction markets can all become new asset classes for on-chain trading."

Token Value Capture

• "In the crypto world, the best value capture mechanisms are programmatic. Because this industry default does not trust project teams, any mechanism relying on discretion will be discounted by the market."
• "Leadership must consistently, professionally, and stably articulate a clear product roadmap, telling investors, stakers, and ecosystem developers: this is not just for the team, but a larger mission we are all building together."
• "100% buybacks are not always optimal. Protocols need to make the market believe they are both rewarding token holders and continuing to invest in future growth."

AI Agents, Trading, and Payments

• "If these agents' transaction volumes, transaction frequencies, and strategy counts exceed those of humans, it would certainly be good for fees. I believe these L1s will primarily be valued in this manner in the future."
• "Where true value capture opportunities exist may not be in mere trading execution venues but in being able to reach end-users, providing research, strategy, liquidity optimization, and better trading experiences."
• "Agent payments may not be a huge opportunity for newcomers, given that giants like Visa, Mastercard, and Stripe are rapidly acting in this space with their customer bases, trust, risk control, and compliance capabilities."

Strategy Breaks the 'Never Sell' Commitment, Why Market Premium Disappears

Host Laura Shin: Mike, welcome to Unchained. This week, the crypto market has definitely been a bit harsh, with Bitcoin dropping about 12% over the past week, 22% over the past month, and 27% year-to-date. ETH's numbers are worse, declining 11% in a week, nearly 26% in a month, and 40% for the year.

The news that seems to have truly impacted prices this week is that MSTR sold 32 Bitcoins, amounting to only about $2.5 million, but the market seems to have lost some confidence as a result. We not only saw Bitcoin's price drop almost $10,000 in a few days, but the market also began to continually discuss various instruments within MSTR's capital structure. What do you think of everything that is happening now?

Mike Dudas:

Saylor and Strategy are actually doing two things at once. The first, which you just mentioned and Jeff talked about too, is financializing Bitcoin exposure. This is also the part analysts most frequently discuss, whether looking at what has happened with Strategy this week or over the year.

But the other thing, which is not quite the same as Bitcoin financialization, is turning it into a Meme asset. Saylor often posts various Memes and conveys to the market in a nearly religious manner: believe me, this is a savior-like asset, a chosen asset.

The problem is that these two things are not entirely compatible. Holding both sets of logic in your mind simultaneously creates a clear dissonance. That almost faith-like commitment has always been: I will never sell this asset; I just believe in it. So whether it's selling hundreds of Bitcoins or tens of thousands, as soon as he starts selling, a pillar of the Strategy story is removed. The market reacts very negatively to the breakdown of the 'never sell' commitment.

What happens next will be crucial. Will they continue to sell? If they do, it can alleviate some market concerns about Strategy and STRC in the future, but it would also be a negative signal. Are they already doing this? The market might be uncertain.

I feel that the sense of religious passion and faith in Strategy's story has been punctured, and I don’t know how to put this back in the bottle. Clearly, the market doesn’t like it.

Host Laura Shin: If Bitcoin prices continue to consolidate or even decline further, what do you think MSTR should do to continue paying dividends on its preferred stock? Do you have any ideas?

Mike Dudas:

This is not a simple question. Many will disagree with my opinion because they hold different assets issued by MicroStrategy, and their reasoning is different from mine. But to me, this is very clear: you need the market to fully believe he will forever buy this asset. So when prices drop, they must find a way to continue buying Bitcoin.

I think many observers have anticipated that this day would eventually come. It just came sooner than everyone thought because they began to leverage and now have to pay out so much cash flow, and now it is time to repay.

Why the ETH Narrative Can Never Be Unified, and Why Dudas Has Zero Allocation

Host Laura Shin: Let's talk about Ethereum. It seems to be at a moment of reevaluation lately. The latest spark for discussion was the departure of some senior members from the Ethereum Foundation. Afterward, Vitalik tried to respond to the criticism, suggesting that the Foundation would scale down, and he believes it will become one of many nodes.

We also see some long-time believers, like David Hoffman from Bankless, have lost confidence in ETH as an asset. Do you currently have a bullish or bearish outlook on ETH or Ethereum? How do you view the happenings in the ecosystem?

Mike Dudas:

David from Bankless has written a very good article discussing ETH as an asset. ETH has ultimately become what many hope it to be; it indeed has some currency properties. But for some reason, the Foundation and much of the writing around Ethereum are not truly willing to own this narrative.

They are speaking more about a "trustworthy neutral layer" narrative, saying it has decades of time scale to build towards. But you look at 100 large stakeholders in the Ethereum ecosystem, each telling a different story: what exactly is this asset? What is the long-term mission of this network?

So the answer is obvious. Over the past five years, the market has had no idea how to price for ETH’s future. Therefore, ETH is not an asset we hold in our fund; I personally do not hold it either. We are at zero allocation because I cannot tell you what its story is today or what it will be in three years.

I also don’t know who will win this tug-of-war between those who want ETH to be a currency asset, embrace institutions, and protect trillions of dollars in value, and those who wish to make Ethereum some sort of utopian world computer.

Host Laura Shin: If Ethereum wants you at 6MV to feel it should hold ETH, what changes does it need to make in its tokenomics or certain aspects of its entire architecture?

Mike Dudas:

We are now seeing financialized assets like HYPE that the market seems to understand more easily. It has a very clear, singular story, and the market knows what it is buying.

If an asset wants to gain enough stakeholders, sustained cash flow, and sufficient holding confidence in the long term, it must have a clean, single narrative. Ethereum hasn't achieved that in recent years, and frankly, most other general-purpose smart contract L1s haven't done it either.

Host Laura Shin: Solana is often compared to Ethereum. It has been a tough year for Solana. I know you are relatively more optimistic about Solana. Now Solana is also discussing changing its tokenomics. How do you view why it has fallen and where it may go in the future?

Mike Dudas:

The reasons for Solana's poor performance are clearer. The Solana Foundation and key stakeholders are doing a better job than the Ethereum ecosystem in finding their North Star. They are more clearly focused on REV, meaning real economic value—the fees accumulated for holders and stakers. Solana's main problem is a performance issue. On-chain activity and fees likely peaked in early 2025, and since then, have been on a downward trend, with Solana's price falling accordingly.

Previous activity was primarily driven by Meme coins and other highly speculative on-chain activities. Those activities had many different trends, with significant flows of price-insensitive funds, as well as many retail investors willing to pay high fees. But now, there isn't yet enough enduring economic activity to replace the gap left by the decline in Meme coin trading.

I believe there will still be great opportunities to see new activities emerge. Solana is embracing many different narratives, and its opportunities may be greater than those of other ecosystems, also making up for areas where it previously lagged. Perpetual contracts are a prime example; the Foundation and other key participants are discussing them.

But today, the market hasn’t seen enough evidence to prove that the teams on Solana can really execute on these directions, nor has it proven that Solana’s L1 performance is sufficient to support them reaching levels close to centralized exchanges. If these can happen, then at some point it may become an undervalued asset. But right now, you need to first see those promised activities starting to appear and truly take shape.

Why Hyperliquid Is More Like Tether in DeFi, Not Another L1

Host Laura Shin: Next, let's talk about another L1 that has captured almost all attention this year, which is HYPE. It is one of the few crypto assets that have appreciated this year. However, in the past week, we've seen some news indicating it will face intense competition. Perpetual contracts are entering the U.S. compliant market, with related news from Kalshi and Coinbase.

How do you think Hyperliquid should respond to this moment? It has to face new competition while maintaining its non-KYC model; do you think it can continue to maintain its dominance?

Mike Dudas:

The non-KYC market is very large. So if you ask whether it can continue to grow, the answer seems evidently yes to me. As for the term "dominance," I am not certain.

Look at Binance. It has been the world's largest exchange so far but has never established a truly scaled business in the U.S., a platform can operate very, very large even outside the U.S.

If Hyperliquid can enter the U.S. in some KYC manner in the future, that may be potential upside space that hasn't been priced in. But today, those driving funds towards HYPE are not counting on U.S. users trading 50x leveraged perpetual contracts on Hyperliquid next year.

Host Laura Shin: Do you think it can cope with competition? Or do you believe they are fundamentally different markets?

Mike Dudas:

My basic analogy is Tether to Circle; the Tether analogy can be very, very large. Tron, this L1, is also very valuable, even more valuable than many more vocal L1s.

In the crypto space, the non-KYC or international market is generally very large. So to me, the bigger question is: Can Hyperliquid continuously add higher-quality assets to its platform? Most of its growth in the past six to nine months has come from this.

Can it launch the next oil market? Can it become the main venue for the largest computing power market? Can it add more Pre-IPO stocks? These assets have begun to take off recently.

So to me, the core issue for HYPE is asset quality and liquidity. They have consistently outperformed in this area so far. Now they are also joining the results market, entering fields similar to prediction markets. So they are expanding the market. The next step is to see if they can attract more people to build on the basis of it, develop market-facing interfaces, and ensure that the costs of attracting more liquidity and users do not rise exponentially.

How ETH, SOL, and HYPE Compete with Each Other

Host Laura Shin: We've separately discussed ETH, SOL, and HYPE. I would like to hear your thoughts on whether they actually compete with each other, and if so, how do you think that competition will unfold?

Mike Dudas:

They do compete with each other. They compete for liquidity, asset issuance, and trading volume. There is no doubt about that.

However, Solana and Ethereum are more similar to each other, while Ethereum, Hyperliquid, and Solana's relationship with Hyperliquid is less analogous. It's a very strange competition. Both Solana and Ethereum want to be general-purpose blockchains, and their use cases far exceed those of Hyperliquid. Hyperliquid is more focused on becoming the main venue for all financial activities.

There are stable coin issuances, payments, and all sorts of so-called Web3 types of activities on Solana and Ethereum. Thus, their valuations are largely driven by the activities of the applications built on them. Hyperliquid, on the other hand, is different; it operates more like a full-stack protocol, and most of the trading volume passes through its front end, capturing more value within the protocol itself.

So this matter is complex. I think Solana and Ethereum would benefit more if they talked less about competition with Hyperliquid and emphasized their excellent features and why developers should build on their L1s, as they need to rely on developer activity in the end.

Frankly, they aren't just competing at the developer level. Marginally, both Solana and Ethereum need the next great application to be birthed on themselves. And I believe the range of possible applications is much wider than that of Hyperliquid.

Hyperliquid is certainly also competing with them, but it is not competition in the traditional business strategy sense. It seems more like a very small, highly focused team, reportedly with fewer than 20 people. They have their own roadmap and don’t reveal too much in advance, then execute continuously like a company.

So it's hard to draw simple conclusions. They are primarily competing for liquidity, mindshare, where developers will build, and market attention. The competition between Solana and Ethereum is more direct. Yet you will also increasingly find that this competition is not entirely positive. For instance, BlackRock may simultaneously issue new tokenized funds on both Solana and Ethereum. In the end, they may start to become alternatives to each other on which end-users, consumers, and who can bring liquidity, these questions begin to matter. That's what everyone is really fighting over.

Host Laura Shin: Ethereum is somewhat like IBM; choosing to deploy a project on Ethereum almost never raises concerns about accountability. Yet, it also faces many technical difficulties, such as fundamental issues like block time and the development status of the entire L2 solution. All this begs the question: what direction does Ethereum's future really head toward?

Solana may have some technical advantages, but it doesn’t have the lengthy history that Ethereum possesses. Ethereum's 100% uptime metric is almost unbeatable. Who ultimately wins this race is hard to determine now.

Mike Dudas:

Let me add one last point about Ethereum. Many of the things highlighted as advantages of Ethereum, like TVL, are largely legacy advantages. That is capital left over from those who made money on Ethereum in its early days.

Of course, many individuals on Hyperliquid today have also made money through airdrops, increasing positions, and providing liquidity. But if you look at the net new change rates over the past three to four years, Solana has undoubtedly outpaced Ethereum.

Why Programmatic Buybacks Are Better Than Discretionary Buybacks

Host Laura Shin: We are now in a phase where the practical applications of blockchain technology are becoming more widespread, and many tokens in the market are being weeded out. I know you generally favor tokens with value capture mechanisms. Among these tokens, there are different value capture models. Which mechanisms do you prefer? Or what tokens do you think have successfully built and operated such value capture structures?

Mike Dudas:

I think there are two key points.

First, crypto assets are generally regarded as protocols, so it is crucial that value capture mechanisms are programmatic. For example, Hyperliquid's value capture mechanism is that 97% of fees will be used for token buybacks, theoretically also leading to long-term token burns. Programmatic is important.

Second, communication must be consistent. This involves not just the token mechanisms but also how you tell your story to the public. You must continuously and professionally clarify the product roadmap, informing investors, stakers, and those building around you: you value them; this matter is not solely for the team, but has a mission larger than the team, we are doing this together.

So I favor those tokens whose leadership can tell a consistent story. These are the two points I value most.

Many will disagree with me; they might say that token buybacks should be discretionary by the project team. But this creates confusion in the market. We have seen some projects adopt discretionary buybacks, then stop or change their plans. I don’t want to call out specific projects.

This is an industry that defaults to not trusting builders. Historically, the rate of fraud, abuse, arbitrage, and opacity in the crypto industry is higher than in traditional business markets. Therefore, as long as there’s discretion in mechanisms, the market will give it a lower valuation; mechanisms without discretion will achieve a higher valuation.

Regarding value capture, I would like to add one last point: there must be balance. If you do 100% buybacks, you also need to convince everyone that you are indeed investing in the business's future growth.

So they later modified their buyback mechanism from discretionary to programmatic buybacks within the next year and set the buyback ratio to half of protocol revenue. This sends a credible signal: they are both buying back and will continue to invest in the protocol and in new products introduced today like Pump Go.

You want to see that protocols will continue to reinvest in the future. Because if they only rely on discretion to sell tokens from the protocol and foundation, things can become chaotic. We've also seen similar situations on Ethereum: to finance operations, the foundation continuously sold tokens at a discount in the secondary market. You start to ask, where does the funding come from?

I think Cardano also has similar issues. Charles is very wealthy, and many have built wealth in this ecosystem, but today it seems underfunded. So for those whose only source of funding is pre-mined and allocated tokens for protocol operation, I find it hard to accept. Because this leads to strange incentive problems and funding shortages.

Host Laura Shin: Let's talk again about the reality of perpetual contracts. This year has been quite interesting. It started with crude oil perpetual contracts on Hyperliquid trading based on events related to the Iran war over the weekend. Recently, we have seen Pre-IPO stocks undergoing price discovery on Hyperliquid.

In my view, these are glimpses of a larger trend. Where do you think this is heading?

Mike Dudas:

One of the major things we clearly need to do is bring interesting assets into the crypto market. By putting these assets on-chain, we can enable 24/7 trading while significantly reducing transaction costs. Of course, supporting non-KYC (no identity verification) is also an important aspect. People can trade in a decentralized manner without relying on centralized counterparties, which is crucial, no matter the reasons they choose to do so.

Ultimately, the more high-quality assets we bring on-chain, the better the entire industry will benefit. We already have enough evidence showing that people are willing to trade these assets around the clock and are willing to do so via self-custodial wallets.

Every ecosystem is focused on this. I know Solana Foundation is very concerned, Hyperliquid is also looking into it, and teams like TradeXYZ are pushing for the issuance of new assets, supported by more robust oracles and pricing mechanisms, enabling more people to trust these markets.

Even though we’ve already seen trading volumes and turnover in these markets today, they have yet to become mainstream institutional trading platforms. If one day, these markets truly become a primary choice for institutional investors, the scale and impact of the entire industry will become tremendous.

AI Agent Trading Has a Future, But Agent Payments Face Visa and Mastercard

Host Laura Shin: We can also see that crypto and AI will become a huge theme. In my view, agents will eventually conduct more transactions than humans. But where do you think the value from these activities will accumulate? Is it at the protocol layer, platform layer, or elsewhere?

Mike Dudas:

That's a good question. In terms of trends, exchanges will benefit. If an L1 like Solana can bring more activity, where users are less sensitive to price and willing to pay fees, then L1 will benefit. The more trading volume you manage to attract, the more fees you’ll generate. Hyperliquid's value capture model is very straightforward; Solana will also benefit through fees.

If the trading volume, frequency, and number of strategies from these agents exceed those of humans, that would certainly be beneficial for fees. I believe these L1s will be valued primarily in this manner in the future.

At a higher level, it's unclear whether exchanges can form differentiated value capture. Previous DEXs and similar products may not have been able to capture a large proportion of value, so we’re still observing whether significant value can arise from there.

However, it is already quite clear that frontend can capture value. If you present data well, during the Meme coin era, frontend sometimes charged fees as high as 1% or even more per transaction, this is a direction worth exploring.

The form of frontend will also change in the future. In the trading field, I envision the emergence of products similar to AI research labs, specifically serving financial markets, helping individuals and institutions construct very complex, performance-based trading. They could help humans execute strategies today that only top algorithmic traders can manage. If you can do that, it becomes an interface layer built on models, charging me due to beating the market.

So we will focus on who really reaches end-users, institutions, or consumers and whether they provide value beyond just being a trading execution venue. Can they help me generate ideas? Can they help me gain better liquidity or tighter spreads? That's the key.

I pay more attention to agents and trading because I'm not sure if agent payments will be a particularly good business. We often hear about agent finance, especially agent payments, but existing giants like Visa, Mastercard, and Stripe are rapidly and aggressively entering this field. New entrants find it hard to overcome their established customer bases, trust, anti-fraud capabilities, compliance abilities, and risk control algorithms. So challenges will be significant on payments and the non-trading, non-speculative side.

Host Laura Shin: At this moment when crypto begins to become real and starts to be adopted by ordinary people, how has it changed the crypto VC landscape? And how has it changed your own investment thinking?

Mike Dudas:

Recently, several changes have occurred in crypto VC; in fact, the entire VC industry is undergoing similar changes.

First, the cost to launch a project has decreased. You can now create MVPs with fewer people, as you can leverage the capabilities of developers worldwide through tools like Claude, Codex, or others. Even some who aren’t very technical can quickly bring their ideas to life.

This will lead to two possibilities: either the Pre-seed stage will narrow, or the number of Pre-seed projects will dramatically increase. In other words, there will be more early-stage projects, but VCs will find it harder to filter signals from noise.

So as an early investor, you will now look for traction earlier, seeking proof: Can this person produce something with users? Is there any natural economic activity appearing on the surface?

Meanwhile, the ability to expand to massive scales has also improved. Crypto has always had this large power law characteristic. Pump.fun grew very quickly, and the last cycle saw OpenSea grow exceptionally fast. The most significant issue for crypto has been whether these things can be sustained in the long term.

The application layer has gone through multiple cycles, and I believe we are now on about the third application layer cycle. But very few companies have genuinely crossed multiple cycles and established themselves long-term; most of them are in DeFi, specifically those DeFi leaders.

So for crypto VCs, you are essentially looking for sustainable behavior, and you will find that these behaviors look very much like things that already exist in the real world, just made better due to the blockchain rails. For example, around-the-clock trading, cheaper liquidity formation, and funding participation from anywhere. Of course, non-KYC and accessibility for all are also essential attributes of many projects.

We are now in a period of significant change. The majority of global venture capital and private equity funding is flowing into AI-native companies. Not just crypto, but any field not purely AI lacks capital and talent to some degree.

You will see many of the smartest people gravitate toward AI. Interestingly, many of the most intelligent crypto practitioners are also starting to engage in fields outside of crypto and doing very well. They entered crypto early, succeeded greatly, have strong foresight, accumulated wealth, and are now moving into adjacent industries.

VCs are doing the same. Many of the transactions publicly announced by Paradigm recently appear to be in fields adjacent to crypto, but outside of it as well. Many VCs are moving into areas like electricity, energy, computing power, etc.

You will witness many people expanding their vision while retaining their crypto roots and advantages. This trend will continue, as the opportunities are immense. Crypto VCs and builders have been at the forefront for the past 15 years, watching new market structures emerge and helping to create one of the fastest-growing new asset classes. These individuals are innovators, and now they are extending that capability into broader fields.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。