Dissecting Hyperliquid's Top Profitable Addresses: What Winners Actually Pay in Fees

The comparison in one line: Hyperliquid's top profitable addresses pay a median effective rate of about 1.4 basis points — a third of the standard taker tier (0.045%). The largest account by value pays 0.24 bps, nearly 20x less than a default user. The gap isn't luck; it's three things: maker-dominant execution, volume tiers, and stacked rebates/discounts.

Recent analyses dissected tens of thousands of Hyperliquid addresses to answer how winners trade. We flip to a lens almost nobody uses: how much do the winners pay to trade?

This is possible because Hyperliquid's fills are fully public and every fill carries the actual settled fee — no estimation needed. All numbers below come from the public API on 2026-09-02; reproduction steps are at the end.

The big picture — with a health warning

Of 44,348 leaderboard addresses, 22,248 (50.2%) show positive all-time PnL, and 59.6% are positive over the last 30 days.

Far better than the folk wisdom that 90% lose — but this is a survivorship sample: the leaderboard only contains accounts still alive and trading. It says active accounts often win; it does not say half of everyone wins.

Method (transparent, reproducible)

1. Load all 44,348 leaderboard rows (account value; day/week/month/all-time PnL, ROI, volume);
2. Filter: all-time PnL>0 and ROI>0, account value ≥ $100k, 30-day volume ≥ $1M — 2,770 qualify;
3. Take the top 15 by 30-day PnL and pull each address's latest 2,000 public fills (30,000 fills total), summing the real fee field.

Finding 1: winners pay a third of the standard rate

The 15 addresses did $238.9M of sample volume for $42,236 in net fees — 1.77 bps average, ~1.4 bps median, range 0.53–4.7 bps.

Effective fee rate (basis points, lower is better)Standard taker tier (default user)4.5 bpTop 15 addresses · average1.77 bpTop 15 addresses · median1.4 bpLargest account by value0.24 bpMedian is one-third of the standard tier; the largest account is ~20x lowerStandard tier = Hyperliquid official taker rate; effective rate = sum of fee field ÷ volume from public fills, pulled 2026-09-02

Benchmark: the standard taker tier would cost ~$107,500 on the same volume. The winners paid 60% less.

Fees paid on the same $238.9M of volume (USD)At the standard taker tier107500 $Actually paid by the top 1542236 $$65,264 less than the standard tier (−61%)Sample = latest 2,000 public fills per address, 2026-09-02

Finding 2: 9 of 15 are maker-dominant

By the taker flag in fills, 9/15 addresses cross the spread on fewer than half their fills; three are near-pure makers (0%, 5%, 8% taker).

Taker share of the 15 addresses (lower = more maker-style)Near-pure makers (3 addresses)4 %Maker-dominant (6 more addresses)32 %Taker-dominant (6 addresses)72 %9/15 are maker-dominant — low fees are an execution style, not luckGroup averages; same data source

High-turnover edges are tiny (public analyses put them around 0.2–0.45% of volume) — fees live in the same order of magnitude. Fee management is not a savings tip; it decides whether the strategy exists at all.

Finding 3: the largest account gets paid on two-thirds of its fills

The top address by account value (~$59.3M) did its latest 2,000 fills in 0.85 days, trading $51.9M:

• fees paid: $2,389;
• maker rebates received: $1,163 (62% of fills had negative fees — the venue paid them);
• net: $1,226 — 0.24 bps.

The same volume at the standard taker tier is $23,354. Top players trade the same market at ~20x lower cost than a default account.

Three address sketches

High-turnover taker: $51.3M in 10 days, 81% taker, net 2.64 bps (59% of standard) — pure volume-tier compression; $860k closed PnL in the window against $13.5k in fees, fees ≈ 1.6% of profit.

Pure maker: $9.06M over 36.5 days, 0% taker, net 1.16 bps, $2.98M closed PnL — post-only execution, cost nearly negligible.

Ultra-high-frequency: 2,000 fills in under 3 hours, $23.3M volume, 1.02 bps net, 5% taker — a style that cannot exist at standard-tier rates.

What a regular trader can copy

Bluntly: not the volume tiers. But three things transfer:

1. Audit your own real rate — userFills works for your address too; sum your fees over volume and learn what you actually pay;
2. Post, don't cross, when your strategy allows — the maker/taker gap is structural and compounds;
3. Use every discount you can reach — staking discounts and referral channels have no volume gate. Registering via a rebate route gets you a fee discount: entry here.

The comparison, summarized

	Default user (standard tier)	Top winners (median)	Largest account
Effective rate	0.045%	≈0.014%	≈0.0024%
vs. standard	1×	~1/3	~1/19
Main driver	default-tier taker	maker-dominant + volume tier	maker rebates + top tier
What you can copy	—	maker habit, full discounts	nothing (volume-gated)

One line: same market, 3–20x cost difference — driven by execution style and tier, not luck. The half you can copy (maker orders + discounts) is available today.

Honest limits

• 2,000-fill windows span 0.02–280 days across addresses — not a like-for-like time comparison;
• Cross-venue hedges are invisible; profitability is leaderboard-defined;
• Fee tiers/staking are inferred from outcomes, not known;
• This is a cost-structure piece, not trading advice — copying positions without the system behind them is meaningless.

Data & reproduction

• Leaderboard: stats-data.hyperliquid.xyz/Mainnet/leaderboard (pulled 2026-09-02, 44,348 rows)
• Fills: api.hyperliquid.xyz/info userFills (latest 2,000 per address, real fee field)
• Standard tier: the Hyperliquid official taker rate quoted here is checked as of 2026年9月2日; this site syncs official rates daily
• Our raw per-address results are archived and open to review

Rates are actual-paid estimates from public data; your account may differ. Not investment advice.