Pump.fun adds Hyperliquid perpetuals with fees up to 0.10% per order

Pump.fun has introduced a Hyperliquid-powered perpetual futures interface, with published fees of up to 0.10% per order and access restrictions covering the United States and Ontario.

Pump.fun’s terms, updated Oct. 17, describe the service as a software interface that sends signed trading instructions to Hyperliquid. The protocol handles orders, margin, funding, liquidations and settlement, while Pump.fun says it does not act as the counterparty.

Pump.fun perpetuals follow earlier trading-data discovery

The platform’s public website now lists a Perps section alongside its existing trading products. Its accessible market page displayed a market table during this review, although individual contract details did not load.

Reporting on Oct. 16 put the maximum leverage at 40 times for Bitcoin and 25 times for Ether. CoinLaw attributed those figures to a Pump.fun application data response identified on Oct. 9, which contained prices, funding rates, open interest, and trading volumes.

The earlier data discovery and the current published product documents establish different stages of the rollout. CoinLaw’s report cautioned that the application data alone did not establish whether users could place orders.

Published fees cover orders and bridge transfers

Pump.fun’s fee schedule sets a builder fee of up to 0.10% of each order’s notional value, covering orders that open, add to, or close a position. Users approve that fee by signature when first using the service, and the charge appears separately before order confirmation.

A second charge applies when customers move assets through the bridge available in the app. Pump.fun lists a fee of up to 0.25% per transfer to or from Hyperliquid, charged on top of the bridge operator’s own fees.

The schedule says the app may combine those two bridge charges into one displayed figure. Hyperliquid’s trading and funding charges remain separate, as does its one-time account activation fee, which the protocol deducts from the first deposit.

Pump.fun explicitly excludes perpetual orders from its general Platform Fee. The same page lists that general charge at 0.45% for wallets without a referral code and 0.40% for wallets with another user’s code.

The documented rates are ceilings, not confirmation that every order or transfer will incur the maximum.

At the published maximum rates, a $10,000 order would carry a $10 builder fee, while a $1,000 bridge transfer would carry a $2.50 Pump.fun transfer fee. Those calculations exclude third-party charges and do not establish the rate applied to a particular customer.

HyperEVM trading preceded the derivatives integration

Before the derivatives integration, Pump.fun added trading for HyperEVM tokens against USDC on Aug. 26, as crypto.news previously reported. The announcement covered existing tokens on HyperEVM, Hyperliquid’s Ethereum-compatible smart-contract environment.

Pump.fun described the earlier offering as carrying close to zero trading fees and providing referral rewards. Its announcement did not publish an exact fee schedule, so the August description should not be applied to the newly documented perpetual product.

Hyperliquid’s documentation identifies HyperEVM as part of the same blockchain as HyperCore, which operates the network’s spot and perpetual order books. HYPE pays transaction costs in the smart-contract environment.

The August coverage recorded $12.43 billion in daily perpetual trading volume and $82.47 billion over seven days, citing DefiLlama. Both figures describe activity at that historical snapshot, not available liquidity or current trading volume.

Revenue figures capture the businesses before integration

CoinGecko’s revenue comparison offers a separate view of the two businesses before the integration. Its figures through Sep. 15 placed Hyperliquid at $429.04 million and Pump.fun at $322.21 million.

The study ranked Hyperliquid first and Pump.fun second in its adjusted comparison, which excluded Tether, Circle and Grayscale. According to the study, the pair generated a combined $751.25 million, representing 22.10% of the comparison pool.

Pump.fun’s revenue came mainly from token creation and trading fees linked to its Solana launchpad, the September coverage said. Hyperliquid’s revenue came from its trading business, with fees supporting community mechanisms that include HYPE purchases through the Assistance Fund.

CoinGecko treated the ranking as a fixed year-to-date snapshot. It did not capture the full month of September or establish either platform’s revenue after the perpetual interface appeared.

US restrictions remain separate from energy-perpetual proposals

Pump.fun’s terms prohibit the perpetual feature for specified people and entities in the United States, including its territories, and Ontario. The restrictions extend to sanctioned parties and people acting on behalf of prohibited users.

The terms warn that leveraged positions can lose all posted collateral and that Hyperliquid can liquidate positions automatically.

Separate from Pump.fun’s product, Hyperliquid Policy Center and trade[XYZ] submitted an Aug. 26 filing seeking a regulated U.S. route for energy perpetuals. Their request covered West Texas Intermediate crude, Brent crude, and Henry Hub natural gas.

The filing responded to a CFTC review of continuous energy futures trading and perpetual contracts tied to physical or storable commodities. The groups argued that existing regulatory authority could accommodate the products without new legislation.

According to the filing, trade[XYZ] had operated markets on Hyperliquid since October 2025 and recorded more than $500 billion in cumulative volume across several asset classes. The submission proposed stablecoin margin, leverage limits, and regulated onchain market infrastructure.