Last month, we took a look at Hyperliquid’s embrace of real-world assets, which earned the platform coverage in mainstream financial outlets including the Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg.  

Our analysis found that Hyperliquid’s markets for stocks, commodities, and indices generated little revenue despite attracting a wave of new users. But it left one question unanswered: do those new users become regular users? And how do they compare to those who came to trade crypto? 

Using a fresh data set, we found that Hyperliquid has work to do if it wants to truly challenge “TradFi” on its home turf. 

First, a quick refresher. RWAs are a relatively new asset class on Hyperliquid, the result of a 2025 upgrade that allowed users to launch their own markets. But it wasn’t until this year’s war in Iran that those RWA markets drew mainstream coverage, luring oil traders who needed a venue that was open for business 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Last month, we found that those markets succeeded in attracting new users, rather than merely giving existing users a new asset to trade; in the first half of 2026, nearly one-third of new Hyperliquid users placed their first trade on a real-world asset market, according to DefiLlama data. 

Those traders even generated a third of all new volume on Hyperliquid. Surprisingly, however, they were responsible for just 8.3% the fees paid by new users.

To summarize, Hyperliquid’s real-world asset markets were a genuine lure, but the users it lured weren’t particularly profitable. That could change, of course, which raises the question: did they even stick around? 

For the most part, no. 

From January to April, there were about 92,000 new users who placed their first trade on a real-world asset market. From April to June, that figure grew 82%, to about 169,000. 

In that same span, though, the number of RWA-first wallets trading in a given week barely budged, hovering between 7,000 and 12,000. 

Another data point reaffirms their indifference. Nearly half of new, RWA-first wallets traded on RWA markets exactly once between January and June. Just over two-thirds traded three days or fewer in that span. 

On the other hand, new wallets that came to trade crypto were far more active. About one-third traded just once, and 59% traded three days or fewer. 

All told, just a handful of new users became high-frequency traders. But those who came to trade crypto were twice as likely as the RWA-first cohort to fall into that bucket.

Most of the RWA-first wallets did not continue trading real-world assets. Maybe they came for commodities, and stayed for crypto? 

Unfortunately for Hyperliquid, that doesn’t seem to be the case. In fact, there appears to have been very little crossing over. 

About 80% of RWA-first wallets never traded crypto, and 82% of crypto-first wallets never touched real-world assets. 

That said, some traders are asset-agnostic, crossing over like its their job. To learn more about those traders — and to learn more about the data above — read our full report here.

Three curators, Steakhouse Financial, Sentora, and Gauntlet, control 76% of the nearly $9 billion market. But TVL share does not predict revenue capture. Sentora converts 12% of its YTD fees into revenue, compared with 5.59% for Steakhouse and just 1.01% for Gauntlet. Sentora has also generated $28.14 million in fees this year, despite managing less TVL than market leader Steakhouse.

Find out more about Sentora’s role in today’s vault economy in this report.

LlamaSearch replaces your new tab page with a search bar that checks against a DefiLlama-curated list of legitimate crypto sites. This privacy-first Chrome extension never leaks your data and only requires one permission to replace your new tab page.

Search & surf safely with LlamaSearch.