To Top

Hyperliquid’s HIP-4 Prediction Market Trails Far Behind Kalshi and Polymarket, Report Says

A new analysis says Hyperliquid’s HIP-4 prediction market has solid product design but limited traction, with volumes and fees still far below Kalshi and Polymarket.
Joe Boozell Avatar
3 mins read
Share Share
Copy link Share on X Share on Facebook Share on Reddit Share via Email

Bonus TL;DR

  • Hyperliquid’s crypto-native prediction market product, HIP-4, has processed $317 million in transaction volume since launching in May, but a new analysis reveals the platform’s market share remains a fraction of the size of industry giants Kalshi and Polymarket.
  • Despite integrating smoothly into Hyperliquid’s broader trading infrastructure, HIP-4’s daily trading volume hovered around just $1.25 million in early October—generating roughly 70 cents for every $1,000 traded on its massive competitors—with most of its limited activity concentrated within a heavily subsidized reward program rather than organic, standalone market creation.

Hyperliquid’s prediction market product HIP-4 has generated $317 million in transaction volume since its May 2, 2026 launch, but a new analysis says the platform remains far behind Kalshi and Polymarket in scale.

The report, written by Mario Chow and published by ChainCatcher, argues that HIP-4 is well integrated into Hyperliquid’s trading stack but has not translated that design into meaningful market share. For prediction market watchers, the comparison matters because HIP-4 is one of the more prominent crypto-native attempts to challenge established event trading platforms.

Volume and fees remain small relative to rivals

According to the report, HIP-4 traded about $51 million in September and started October at roughly $1.25 million per day. Chow wrote that in September, HIP-4 handled about 70 cents for every $1,000 traded on Kalshi and Polymarket.

That gap is significant. The article cites $59.3 billion in September transaction volume for Kalshi and $13 billion for Polymarket, including U.S. operations. HIP-4’s estimated daily transaction fees were about $1,300, and the report put annual trader fees at roughly $480,000 based on the prior 30 days’ pace.

Chow also noted that more than a quarter of HIP-4’s historical transactions came from the concluded FIFA World Cup, while the daily Bitcoin market that supported the platform’s first four months had fallen 93% from its May peak.

HIP-4’s design differs from traditional prediction platforms

The report says HIP-4 shares margin, matching engine, and account structure with Hyperliquid perpetuals and spot markets. Chow described the product as closer to “an options order hanging next to your perpetual position” than to Polymarket.

Anyone can open a market by staking 500,000 HYPE, and settlement conditions are written into a template before the first trade, according to the article. HIP-4 launched with 691 protocol-operated markets, while external venues were opened on Aug. 29, 2026.

By the time of the report, only three venues had staked on HIP-4. Among 228 open markets, 223 were markets settled by the creator’s signature. The article also said there were 28 approved templates, up from 18 in mid-September.

Growth has been concentrated in a subsidized venue

The analysis says most outside activity has been concentrated in Outcome, which accounted for about 70% of transactions from wallets registered on outcome.xyz. As of Oct. 5, 2026, Outcome’s reward program had distributed $273,409 to 2,487 wallets.

The next network upgrade is expected to raise each venue’s limit to 200 simultaneous markets and allow 1,000 new openings per day. The report also said 95 deployers had registered on the test network, though mainnet still had only three.

Chow’s conclusion was that HIP-4 is likely to remain a small feature inside Hyperliquid rather than a standalone prediction market business. As he put it, “The building blocks are well assembled, but the market has not yet come.”

Source: As reported by Mario Chow.

About the Author
VIEW ALL POSTS

Joe Boozell is a Content Editor at Bonus.com. He specializes in online casino and sportsbook bonus strategy, sweepstakes casinos, and U.S. gambling legislation, with a focus on evaluating real player value. Over the past decade, he has managed and produced iGaming content across national and state-level brands, including PlayUSA and several regional Play markets. He also spent five years as a Lead Writer for NCAA.com covering college basketball. Find more of Joe’s work at Bonus.com and across the Play network of gambling sites.

VIEW ALL POSTS