$23M from One Builder Code: Inside Hyperliquid's Revenue Leaderboard

Phantom has earned $23.6 million from a single Hyperliquid builder code. One integration, one fee parameter attached to every order, and a wallet that already had millions of users. That is the entire playbook.

Builder codes are Hyperliquid's permissionless revenue-sharing mechanism. Any application that routes trades through the exchange can attach a fee of up to 0.1% on perps to every order, and the protocol credits that fee directly to the builder's account. No token launch, no governance vote, no application process. Just 100 USDC in a perps account and a line of code.

Across the full ecosystem, 1,411 builder codes have been registered on Hyperliquid. They have collectively generated $90.7 million in revenue on $274.9 billion in routed volume. But the distribution is wildly uneven. The top two builders alone account for more than 42% of all builder code revenue ever earned. This article breaks down exactly who earns what, how much each user is worth, and what separates the builders making millions from the ones making hundreds.

Figures as of July 2026, from HyperTracker's builder leaderboard.

The full leaderboard: top 15 by all-time revenue

We pulled the complete builder leaderboard from our /builders/list endpoint. Here is every builder that has crossed $775K in all-time revenue, ranked by total fees earned.

| Rank | Builder | Revenue | Users | Volume | Joined | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 1 | Phantom | $23.6M | 153,128 | $44.8B | Jun 2025 | | 2 | Based | $15.2M | 42,967 | $44.9B | Jun 2025 | | 3 | MetaMask | $8.1M | 52,534 | $9.0B | Aug 2025 | | 4 | PVP | $8.0M | 28,223 | $17.1B | Jul 2024 | | 5 | Insilico | $3.7M | 3,339 | $36.3B | Jul 2024 | | 6 | Infinex | $2.8M | 9,283 | $5.2B | Aug 2025 | | 7 | Axiom | $2.4M | 34,093 | $23.0B | Jan 2025 | | 8 | TreadFi | $2.2M | 4,835 | $11.1B | Apr 2025 | | 9 | Dreamcash | $1.8M | 11,215 | $7.6B | Jun 2025 | | 10 | Liquid | $1.5M | 9,499 | $3.2B | Jun 2025 | | 11 | Rabby | $1.5M | 19,031 | $6.5B | Aug 2025 | | 12 | Mass | $1.5M | 1,054 | $2.5B | Jun 2025 | | 13 | Okto | $790K | 8,702 | $3.7B | Apr 2024 | | 14 | Defiapp | $780K | 8,183 | $5.5B | Mar 2025 | | 15 | Minara AI | $775K | 4,933 | $2.6B | Dec 2025 |

The concentration is striking. Phantom and Based together have earned $38.8M of the ecosystem's $90.7M total, which means two builders captured roughly 43% of all builder code revenue ever generated on Hyperliquid. The remaining 1,409 builders split the other 57%.

Phantom: the $23.6M wallet integration

Phantom's dominance is a case study in distribution advantage. The wallet launched its Hyperliquid perps integration in June 2025 and reached 153,128 users routing $44.8 billion in volume through its builder code. Hyperliquid publicly congratulated Phantom on reaching $20M in builder code revenue "in under a year."

The wallet's edge is straightforward: it already had a massive user base from Solana. When Phantom added perps trading inside the wallet, users didn't need to learn a new interface or visit a separate site. They opened their wallet app, saw the perps tab, and started trading. Every trade Phantom routes through Hyperliquid carries the builder fee. No acquisition cost. No marketing spend. Pure distribution leverage.

On $44.8 billion in volume, $23.6M in revenue works out to roughly 5.3 basis points per dollar traded. That's well within the 0.1% (10 basis point) cap that Hyperliquid allows. It also means Phantom chose a fee that's low enough to avoid driving users away, yet high enough to build a significant revenue stream on volume alone.

Based vs. Phantom: same volume, different economics

Based sits at number two with $15.2 million in revenue, but the comparison with Phantom reveals something counterintuitive. Based routed nearly identical volume: $44.9 billion compared to Phantom's $44.8 billion. Yet it earned $8.4M less in fees.

The math is simple: Based charges a lower effective fee rate. On $44.9B in volume, $15.2M in revenue translates to roughly 3.4 basis points per dollar traded. Phantom's rate sits at approximately 5.3 basis points. That 1.9 basis point difference, when multiplied across tens of billions in volume, accounts for the gap.

Based also did it with 42,967 users compared to Phantom's 153,128. Fewer users generating the same volume means Based's users trade significantly more per person. The profile is different: Phantom's strength is breadth (wallet users who also trade perps), while Based's strength is depth (dedicated traders who generate enormous per-user volume).

The efficiency outliers: Mass and Insilico

Revenue per user tells a completely different story than total revenue. When you divide each builder's all-time revenue by their user count, the leaderboard reshuffles.

Mass leads at $1,395 in revenue per user from just 1,054 users. Insilico follows at $1,113 per user from 3,339 users. Compare that to Phantom at $154 per user or Axiom at $69 per user.

What explains a 20x difference in per-user monetization? Niche protocols attract high-frequency, high-volume traders. Mass has only 1,054 users but they generated $2.5 billion in trading volume, which works out to roughly $2.4M per user in lifetime trades. These are not casual wallet users dabbling in perps. They are dedicated traders whose primary workflow runs through the application.

Insilico tells the same story even more dramatically. Its 3,339 users generated $36.3 billion in volume. That is $10.9M in volume per user. By comparison, Phantom's 153K users each traded roughly $293K on average.

The takeaway for builders: volume-per-user matters more than user count if your goal is maximizing builder code revenue. A small cohort of power traders can generate more fees than a large base of casual users.

How builder codes work (the 60-second version)

Builder codes are an on-chain fee attribution system. When a user trades through an application that has integrated with Hyperliquid, the application attaches its builder address and a fee parameter to the order. The protocol deducts that fee on execution and credits it to the builder's account.

The mechanics:

• Fee cap: 0.1% on perps, 1% on spot
• Barrier to entry: 100 USDC in a perps account
• User consent: traders must sign an approval for a maximum builder fee before any fees can be charged (signed by the main wallet, revocable anytime)
• Flexibility: fees are set per-order, so builders can adjust their rate dynamically
• Transparency: all builder fee data is published on-chain and queryable via API

Builder fees sit on top of Hyperliquid's base protocol fees (0.045% taker, 0.015% maker at the lowest volume tier). So a trader using Phantom pays both the protocol fee and Phantom's builder fee on every trade. The total cost stays competitive with centralized exchanges because Hyperliquid's base fees are already among the lowest in perps trading.

The wallet wars: Phantom vs. MetaMask vs. Rabby

Three major wallets have registered builder codes on Hyperliquid: Phantom, MetaMask, and Rabby. Their results are strikingly different in scale but surprisingly similar in efficiency.

| Wallet | Revenue | Users | Volume | Rev/User | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Phantom | $23.6M | 153,128 | $44.8B | $154 | | MetaMask | $8.1M | 52,534 | $9.0B | $153 | | Rabby | $1.5M | 19,031 | $6.5B | $77 |

Phantom and MetaMask both monetize at roughly $153-154 per user, despite MetaMask having a third of Phantom's user base and a fifth of its volume. The per-user economics converge because both wallets attract a similar type of user: someone who already owns crypto and decides to try perps trading from their existing wallet. The user profile is comparable even if the scale isn't.

Rabby monetizes lower at $77 per user. With 19,031 users generating $6.5 billion in volume, the per-user volume ($341K) is actually higher than Phantom's ($293K). The lower revenue-per-user suggests Rabby charges a lower builder fee rate, which could be a deliberate strategy to attract volume through lower costs.

The long tail: 1,396 builders splitting $16M

Below the top 15, the economics get thin. The top 15 builders have collectively earned $74.6M of the $90.7M total. That leaves $16.1M split across the remaining 1,396 builders, an average of roughly $11,500 each.

But averages are misleading with power-law distributions. Most of those 1,396 builders have earned very little. Many likely registered a builder code, integrated it into a bot or a small frontend, and generated minimal volume. The builder code system has a near-zero cost to enter (just 100 USDC), so there is no barrier preventing builders from registering codes they never meaningfully use.

For builders evaluating whether to integrate, the lesson from the top 15 is clear: revenue follows distribution. The builders earning millions are either wallets with existing user bases (Phantom, MetaMask, Rabby) or trading platforms with dedicated, high-frequency users (Based, PVP, Insilico, TreadFi). Building a standalone frontend and hoping users find it is the weakest strategy. Plugging into an existing workflow where users already trade is what separates $23M from $23.

Tracking the leaderboard with HyperTracker

Every number in this article came from a single API call to HyperTracker's /builders/list endpoint. The endpoint returns the full builder leaderboard with revenue, volume, user counts, and registration dates for every builder code on Hyperliquid, across configurable timeframes: all-time, monthly, weekly, or daily.

Query the builder leaderboard yourself

HyperTracker's builder analytics API gives you programmatic access to every builder code's revenue, volume, and user metrics on Hyperliquid. Track the leaderboard over time, compare builder performance, and integrate our data into your own dashboards or research.

Explore HyperTracker API

For builders shipping on Hyperliquid, our data answers practical questions. Which builder codes are gaining users the fastest? Which ones generate the most volume per user? How does your revenue compare to the market? For traders, our data reveals which applications carry which builder fees, so you can factor the cost into your execution decisions.

Builder codes turned Hyperliquid into something unusual in DeFi: a platform where third-party distribution is directly incentivized and transparently measured. $90.7 million has flowed from protocol to builder without a single grant proposal, foundation approval, or token allocation. The applications that brought users earned fees. No politics, no lobbying, no governance theater. Ship, route volume, get paid.