Hyperliquid Labs co-founder and CEO Jeff Yan has challenged the idea that Hyperliquid competes directly with every platform building on its infrastructure. Speaking with Risk Labs co-founder Hart Lambur at TOKEN2049 2026 on October 7, Yan described a model in which other platforms can access Hyperliquid’s trading infrastructure and liquidity while maintaining their own customers and trading experiences.
The argument reframes Hyperliquid as more than a standalone decentralized trading platform. Rather than treating every integration as a competitive threat, Yan sees the potential for other businesses to use its underlying infrastructure to expand their own services. Lambur compared this approach to the internet, where companies build competing products and services on shared infrastructure.
Hyperliquid Wants Other Platforms to Build on Its Infrastructure
Yan pointed to VALR’s integration through Builder Codes as an early example of this model. The mechanism allows an external platform to connect with Hyperliquid’s trading environment while retaining its own relationship with users. This creates a possible arrangement in which the platform manages customer acquisition and its interface while Hyperliquid supplies underlying trading infrastructure and liquidity.
The distinction matters in crypto markets, where exchanges and trading applications often compete for the same users, transaction volume and liquidity. Under a traditional competitive model, a new trading interface might be viewed as a rival seeking to take market share. Under Yan’s vision, an integration can instead expand access to Hyperliquid’s infrastructure without requiring every participating platform to become a direct competitor.
Builder Codes provide a way to identify and attribute activity associated with integrating applications. Their role in the broader model is to help external platforms build trading services around Hyperliquid while creating a framework for tracking activity generated through those integrations.
However, the model does not eliminate competition. External platforms may still compete over user experience, fees, distribution and customer loyalty. Hyperliquid must also remain attractive in terms of liquidity, execution and reliability if other businesses are to continue building on its infrastructure.
The Internet Analogy and Hyperliquid’s Long-Term Ambition
Lambur’s comparison to the internet captures the central idea: internet businesses do not generally need to compete with the underlying network itself to build valuable services. Search engines, online stores, messaging applications and financial platforms can operate on shared infrastructure while competing with one another at the application layer.
Yan’s argument suggests that decentralized trading could develop along similar lines. Instead of every application building and maintaining an independent trading system, platforms could rely on common infrastructure to access markets and liquidity. If this approach gains traction, Hyperliquid could become a foundational layer for a wider range of trading products.
Such a strategy could also broaden the ways users encounter Hyperliquid. Traders might access its markets through an external exchange or application without necessarily using Hyperliquid’s own interface directly. For the infrastructure provider, this creates a potential path to growth beyond attracting individual users to a single product.
The key question is whether integrations translate into durable trading activity and sustainable economics. More connected applications do not automatically guarantee greater liquidity, stronger revenue or long-term adoption. Platforms must deliver value to their own users, while Hyperliquid must demonstrate that its infrastructure can support those services reliably.
Yan’s comments therefore outline a strategic vision rather than proof that Hyperliquid has no competitors. The decentralized trading sector remains competitive, and other protocols can pursue similar infrastructure-led models. Still, the internet analogy offers a useful way to understand Hyperliquid’s ambition: to become infrastructure that other businesses use, rather than a product that must win every customer relationship directly.
If more platforms adopt this model, Hyperliquid’s position could increasingly depend on the strength of its underlying markets and the usefulness of its integration tools. The long-term test will be whether independent applications can build successful businesses on top of its infrastructure while creating lasting value for the wider ecosystem.
About The Author
