PERPS ATLASPERPETUAL MARKETS INTELLIGENCE
PERP DEX DIRECTORY
Home / Research / Perp Dex Revenue 30 Vs 90 Days
← Research library
DATA INVESTIGATION

Perp DEX revenue: what 30 versus 90 days actually tells us

A 30-day revenue figure is a recent observation, not a forecast. We compare it with the preceding 60 days on the same source scope for three perp venues, then ask whether any of that business activity reaches the token.

By PerpsAtlas Research · Published · Updated · 5 min read

Why compare 30 and 90 days?

Annualizing the last 30 days assumes that particular month will repeat. A campaign, new market, volatility burst or accounting correction can make that a poor base case. A 90-day total gives context, but even it is not a full-cycle forecast. We use both windows to ask whether the recent month differs from the preceding two months; we do not turn either window into a prediction about token holders.

For this edition, the 90-day interval is 25 June through 22 September 2026, inclusive, in UTC. The recent 30-day window ends on the same date. The earlier 60-day monthly pace is (90-day total minus recent 30-day total) divided by two. The comparison works only when both numbers describe the same product and metric. The dated figures below came from DefiLlama child fee/revenue series and were checked against its reported 30-day totals. They can be revised by the provider.

Sources: DefiLlama data definitions: fees, revenue and token-holder revenue ↗ · DefiLlama Ostium daily revenue ↗ · DefiLlama edgeX Perps V1 daily revenue ↗ · DefiLlama edgeX V2 daily revenue ↗ · DefiLlama Hyperliquid perps daily revenue ↗

Ostium: a post-reopening series, not one steady 90-day regime

Ostium's source recorded $1,465,320 of revenue over 90 days, including $36,007 in the most recent 30. The preceding 60 days therefore averaged $714,656.50 per 30 days. The recent month was about 95% below that earlier monthly pace. Fees tell the same directional story: $2,518,700 over 90 days, $126,359 in the recent 30, versus $1,196,170.50 per 30 days in the preceding 60 (about 89% lower). These are within-venue comparisons, not a ranking of Ostium against different business models.

Ostium reported a 15 July LP-vault exploit, paused trading, then announced staged and full reopening on 23 July with new positions enabled. This 90-day window therefore mixes days before the incident, a pause and the resumed venue. The earlier 60-day monthly pace also contains exceptional late-August provider-revenue days and is not a durable baseline. DefiLlama records negative dated corrections in Ostium's fee series; we preserve them rather than deleting inconvenient days. The window arithmetic establishes a change in the provider's recorded economics, but does not isolate a loss of users from a changed operating regime, volatility, incentives or revisions. See the updated Ostium dossier for a separate complete-day post-reopening audit. Ostium has no verified live platform token, so this is a business question, not a return to an existing holder.

Sources: DefiLlama Ostium daily fees ↗ · DefiLlama Ostium daily revenue ↗ · Ostium official incident and reopening announcements ↗ · DefiLlama data definitions: fees, revenue and token-holder revenue ↗

edgeX: combined V1 and V2 income improved; the buyback bridge remains incomplete

For edgeX, the pinned V1-plus-V2 fee children totalled $12,937,064 over 90 days and $5,050,280 in the most recent 30. The preceding 60 days averaged $3,943,392 per 30 days, so recent fees were about 28% higher. Source-reported revenue on the same two-child scope was $9,040,319 over 90 days and $3,647,716 in the recent 30, versus an earlier monthly pace of $2,696,301.50 (about 35% higher). This is a stronger recent reported run rate; the V2 share and its ramp-up need inspection before calling it durable organic growth.

The holder-revenue row is different: DefiLlama supplied $2,050,550 over 90 days and $614,162 over 30 days under its edgex-perps child. Its Ethereum adapter values EDGE transfers into a tracked buyback address independently of V1 trading fees, and the V2 adapter comments that this row resembles purchases across products. There is no separate V2 holder-revenue row. Dividing these transfers by V1-plus-V2 revenue would still invent a platform payout percentage because the funding source, timing and Arc coverage have not been reconciled. The token-supply picture separately needs actual tradable float and vesting dates.

Sources: DefiLlama edgeX Perps V1 daily fees ↗ · DefiLlama edgeX V2 daily fees ↗ · DefiLlama edgeX Perps V1 daily revenue ↗ · DefiLlama edgeX V2 daily revenue ↗ · DefiLlama EDGE buyback series exported under edgex-perps ↗ · edgeX official tokenomics ↗ · DefiLlama edgeX fee and Ethereum buyback adapter ↗ · DefiLlama edgeX V2 adapter and buyback-scope comment ↗

Hyperliquid: stronger recent perp economics are not the whole exchange

Hyperliquid's pinned perp child recorded $180,926,925 of fees over 90 days, including $73,914,789 in the last 30. The preceding 60 days averaged $53,506,068 per 30 days; the recent month was about 38% above that pace. Source-reported revenue was $135,614,399 over 90 days and $58,076,314 in the recent 30, versus an earlier monthly pace of $38,769,042.50 (about 50% higher). This does not prove that the next month will grow again.

The perps child includes native and builder-deployed perp activity under its reviewed adapter, while spot and other chain flows are outside this row. Its holder-revenue and revenue series identify the same Assistance Fund economic flow in this source and must not be added together. The documented Assistance Fund mechanism matters for HYPE, but gross trading fees are not a cash dividend to every holder. Verify the burn execution, supply path and durability of this income pace without assuming peak conditions.

Sources: DefiLlama Hyperliquid perps daily fees ↗ · DefiLlama Hyperliquid perps daily revenue ↗ · DefiLlama Hyperliquid perps daily holder revenue ↗ · Hyperliquid official trading fees and Assistance Fund ↗ · DefiLlama data definitions: fees, revenue and token-holder revenue ↗

What this comparison deliberately leaves out

These three venues had aligned source windows and a usable revenue series in the dated audit. They are not the entire tracked universe. GRVT and Variational lacked a pinned fee series in this source; Extended had fees but no verified revenue row; Paradex's recorded perp economics do not include its separate options/RFQ business. Aster's perp-fee row and platform-wide ASTER buyback row refer to different scopes, so they cannot form a single payout ratio. Missing rows are coverage gaps, not zero business activity.

Fees, revenue and holder-revenue definitions describe different destinations for a dollar of trading charges. DefiLlama says fees are what users pay, revenue is the portion retained after suppliers, and holder revenue is the portion attributed to tokenholders. Its attribution need not balance on each day because a revenue-funded buyback may be executed later. Emissions, subsidies, operating costs, dilution and a holder's actual claim require separate evidence. Cross-venue comparison starts with matched product and flow definitions, not three large numbers in a table.

Sources: DefiLlama data definitions: fees, revenue and token-holder revenue ↗ · DefiLlama Paradex perps daily fees ↗ · DefiLlama Aster perps daily fees ↗ · DefiLlama Aster Spot daily holder revenue ↗

When should the investment thesis actually change?

We treat a divergence as a research trigger. Income growth may reflect a changed product mix or temporary incentives, while FDV is a separate market observation. Neither alone establishes a token-holder benefit. Repeated comparable observations, the current token rules, executed transfers and a dated supply bridge are needed before making an evidence claim.

The next collection should record the same 30- and 90-day windows again, then explain how much of the change came from product expansion, trading conditions, incentives or a source revision. For edgeX, a V1/V2 buyback bridge matters more than another gross-volume headline. For Ostium, compare complete post-reopening days on the same source scope, investigate the August spikes and distinguish provider revenue from retained net income before projecting either weak or exceptional days. For Hyperliquid, the relevant question is durable perp income and what actually accrues to HYPE after builder shares and future supply.

Sources: DefiLlama data definitions: fees, revenue and token-holder revenue ↗ · Hyperliquid official trading fees and Assistance Fund ↗ · edgeX official tokenomics ↗

What we monitor next

  • Repeat the child-series audit after a complete UTC day and record provider revisions separately from new trading income.
  • Reconcile edgeX V1 and V2 token-funded purchases before estimating a platform-wide holder allocation.
  • Reconcile Ostium's complete post-reopening income, exceptional August days and source corrections; test whether Hyperliquid's higher recent pace survives a quieter market.

Frequently asked questions

Does 30-day revenue show what token holders received?

No. It is a recent provider observation. A holder-flow conclusion also needs current token rights, matching product scope and evidence of actual purchases or distributions.

Why not add Hyperliquid revenue and holder revenue?

The reviewed perps rows refer to the same Assistance Fund flow under the source methodology. Adding them would count the same economic amount twice.

Does Aster have no buybacks because this article does not compare its perp revenue?

No. The available Aster Spot holder-revenue adapter reports platform-wide ASTER purchases, while the perps fee row has a different scope. This edition does not turn those into a payout percentage.

Compare the evidence

Open the comparison desk →

Source register

  1. DefiLlama data definitions: fees, revenue and token-holder revenue · checked 2026-09-23
  2. DefiLlama Ostium daily fees · checked 2026-09-23
  3. DefiLlama Ostium daily revenue · checked 2026-09-23
  4. Ostium official incident and reopening announcements · checked 2026-09-28
  5. DefiLlama edgeX Perps V1 daily fees · checked 2026-09-23
  6. DefiLlama edgeX V2 daily fees · checked 2026-09-23
  7. DefiLlama edgeX Perps V1 daily revenue · checked 2026-09-23
  8. DefiLlama edgeX V2 daily revenue · checked 2026-09-23
  9. DefiLlama EDGE buyback series exported under edgex-perps · checked 2026-09-24
  10. DefiLlama edgeX fee and Ethereum buyback adapter · checked 2026-09-24
  11. DefiLlama edgeX V2 adapter and buyback-scope comment · checked 2026-09-24
  12. edgeX official tokenomics · checked 2026-09-23
  13. DefiLlama Hyperliquid perps daily fees · checked 2026-09-23
  14. DefiLlama Hyperliquid perps daily revenue · checked 2026-09-23
  15. DefiLlama Hyperliquid perps daily holder revenue · checked 2026-09-23
  16. Hyperliquid official trading fees and Assistance Fund · checked 2026-09-23
  17. DefiLlama Paradex perps daily fees · checked 2026-09-23
  18. DefiLlama Aster perps daily fees · checked 2026-09-23
  19. DefiLlama Aster Spot daily holder revenue · checked 2026-09-23
Research revisions
  • 2026-09-28 — Reframed the source-checked article for the evidence-only policy; removed price-model conclusions while retaining dated facts and source limits.
  • 2026-09-28 — Corrected the Ostium comparison for the July exploit, trading pause, 23 July reopening and exceptional post-reopening income days; preserved original dated arithmetic.
  • 2026-09-24 — Corrected the EDGE buyback row's adapter-level scope and removed unsupported V1-only funding attribution; the dated 30/90-day numerical snapshot is unchanged.
  • 2026-09-23 — First dated edition using complete UTC-day 30/90-day source windows ending 22 September 2026.

AI-assisted research checked against cited sources. Facts, assumptions and interpretation are distinguished; this is not a financial audit or a recommendation tailored to you. Editorial standards.

Compare protocols →