Author: kaledora Compiler: Shenchao TechFlow

Multiple opinions can be established at the same time:

Hyperliquid The airdrop marks a turning point, embodying the market’s outright rejection of the trend dominated by insider-backed infrastructure “airware” projects that often allocate only minuscule shares to the community.

Raise huge amounts of money at ridiculous valuations, then launch at ridiculous fully diluted valuations (FDV), ultimately causing the stock price to continue to fall and sell off to retail investors , is a bad behavior.

For most projects, unless the founder has previously made tens of millions of dollars, it is difficult to do without raising funds and without "insiders" ”, even as a team member.

Here are some thoughts on how to make sense of these seemingly contradictory ideas.

Hyperliquid’s airdrop is an important event in this cycle. I particularly appreciate the following four points:

It resets expectations about how, when, and to what extent token ownership is distributed.

It re-establishes the importance of DeFi and user-centric applications in the industry.

It proves that selling pressure should be resolved quickly rather than delayed.

Cultural aesthetics of the community

The smart thing about Hyperliquid is that it combines venture capital-backed projects with The Token schedule is integrated with the ICO’s distribution mechanism. Build the product first, launch without a token, iterate with users over multiple seasons, gradually adapt to enhance the behaviors most valuable to the protocol through multiple seasons of points, and then release the token more than a year later (instead of after the product launch before raising funds). But like community-funded projects, dividing Tokenssent to users.

Ironically, in a space where many founders are keen to reduce selling pressure by limiting allocations and liquidity at the time of the initial offering (TGE), Hyperliquid has succeeded Land likely had the strongest buying pressure post-launch and saw the widest allocation among major protocols in years.

About selling pressure: The more protocols try to artificially spread the pain of selling by short-term speculators, the more the selling pressure intensifies, making it almost impossible for true long-term supporters to Possibly hold the token (as complex supply dynamics will affect price more than the strength of the project in the medium term).

The final thing I appreciate about Hyperliquid, although it is rarely mentioned, is the cultural aesthetic of its community. “Community” refers to those who actually use the product. Cryptocurrency's love of community has evolved into an implicit requirement that each product need its own pseudo-cult, whether real or bot-generated, filled with exaggerated visual logos, slogans, and what-ifs that might be real , a Discord that might be a bot-generated profile, conveying some version of the same few slogans every day. Building a cult around an image or slogan that has nothing to do with the base product is a substitute for the cult that should be around your product itself.

Hyperliquid's cult exists, but it is—or at least started to be—a cult of users, not followers. As far as I know, its most obsessive users don't even have a consensus self-referential name of their own. I've heard "bozos" is the de facto term, but overall HL has very few cryptographic hallmarks. I'm not sure if I've seen any HL pepe; there are PURR cats and PIPs, but that's basically it. Aesthetically, it’s a clean brand that takes itself seriously, with posts that aren’t filled with cartoon characters.

However, Hyperliquid's cult is exploding and its social media is being completely botified. Its followers seemed to have tripled in the past few weeks, but there were only about 30,000 people when they started processing billions of dollars in daily trading volume. Compare that to other projects that have hundreds of thousands or even millions of followers on Twitter (and you don’t know a single user!).

Ignore the product, most founders building serious projects can't Simply not raising money, obviouslyThe obvious reason is that they don't have the $5 million to $10 million to fund a small development team for several years. Those with this privilege should consider investing their money and reaping the outsized returns that could be possible if executed well. If you are a college graduate starting a business or are a regular person in any way, this may not be an option for you.

Even though Hyperliquid in some ways sets unrealistic expectations for people who can't afford not to raise outside capital, I think if you're not raising huge Funding, this reset is actually a good thing.

Readers need look no further than the type of announcement that grants the biggest status boost and consistently triggers the most bot-driven growth: fundraising announcements. Over the past few years, fundraising announcements have become a defining status symbol in cryptocurrency; the bigger, the better. This creates natural pressure on founders to raise more and more money at higher and higher valuations, regardless of how much capital they actually need to reach the next stage. This isn't unique among cryptocurrencies, but it certainly doesn't do it any favors if you believe in its underlying ethos in any way.

Even if you can't not raise money, you can raise a more reasonable amount, focus on the product, and avoid getting into the game of who can raise the biggest round of funding. Instead, compete to see who can build the best product - that's more fun and hopefully better for crypto as a whole.

HL puts DeFi at the forefront and redefines the model of token distribution

Selling pressure should be resolved quickly

Reject groups that are not product focused

The market has allowed you to focus more on product development rather than financing