Project X

Project X is a fee-driven DEX on Hyperliquid L1 where LPs capture the large majority of trading fees.

Current fee split (24h):

• Total fees: $71.3K (headline metric also reports $89.0K for 24h fees)
• LP share of fees: 85.7% → $61.1K paid to LPs
• Protocol take rate: 14.3% → $10.2K protocol revenue

Fee capture & efficiency:

• 24h volume: $118.7M vs $71.3K fees ⇒ implied fee load of ~0.060% (~6 bps) for that day.
• 30d volume: $2.66B vs $2.0M fees ⇒ ~0.075% (~7.5 bps) over the month.

Trend context (what’s “normal” lately):

• 30d fees: $2.0M ⇒ ~$66.7K/day average.
• Most recent 24h fees ($71.3K) are slightly above the 30d daily average.

Why this matters for earners: there’s no indication of external reward subsidies in pool data (reward APY is consistently N/A), so your yield is fundamentally a function of trading activity (volume), your pool’s share of liquidity, and price volatility (which impacts impermanent loss).

Liquidity provision is the core earning path on Project X. Across 107 pools with $72.6M total pool TVL, the weighted average APY is 25.7% while the median APY is 2.2%—a sign that a few high-activity pools drive most attractive returns.

Top pools (by TVL)

Risk-adjusted read

• More conservative LPing: pools with lower APY often imply lower fee generation and/or more balanced flows (e.g., WHYPE-KHYPE ~0.6% 30d avg), but you still face volatility because these are not flagged stablecoin pools.
• Balanced: WHYPE-UETH (17.7% 30d avg) and WHYPE-USD₮0 (10.4% 30d avg) target meaningful fee yield while concentrating risk in a major-asset vs WHYPE relationship.
• Aggressive: USDH-WHYPE (70% current APY) and WHYPE-USDC (53.6%) are high-return but typically reflect higher price divergence risk (impermanent loss can overwhelm fees during strong trends).

Note: 7d IL is not reported (N/A), so you must actively monitor price moves and LP performance.

Project X does not show any single-token staking, ve/lock mechanisms, or LP-token staking yields in the available metrics—earning is effectively LP fee APR only (pool rows show Reward APY: N/A, and Pools with Reward Incentives: 0).

What to do instead (passive-income substitutes on Project X):

• Use lower-volatility/low-APR pools as a pseudo “staking-like” approach (e.g., WHYPE-KHYPE ~0.6% 30d avg APY), accepting that returns are lower but typically require less active management than high-yield volatile pairs.
• If you want more stable passive income, focus on finding and using the single pool flagged as “Stablecoin” (stablecoin pools: 1), but verify the pair and contract in the UI before depositing since it’s not among the top TVL pools listed here.

Because there is no dedicated staking program surfaced by the data, your “passive” outcome depends on (a) trading volume feeding fees, and (b) not losing more to impermanent loss than you gain in fees.

If you’re specifically looking for staking-style emissions or lock-based yield, Project X currently does not present that pathway; LPing is the primary monetization route.

Project X’s current earnings profile appears non-incentivized: yields are dominated by base trading fees, not token emissions.

Hard evidence from pool and yield data:

• Pools with Reward Incentives: 0 (out of 107 total pools).
• Top pools consistently report Reward APY: N/A (e.g., WHYPE-USDC 53.6% base, USDH-WHYPE 70.0% base).

Implications for users:

• No observable liquidity mining (extra rewards on top of fees) to “farm,” so APYs can compress quickly if liquidity increases or if volume declines.
• Your edge comes from pool selection and timing, not from chasing emissions.

What incentives may still exist (but are not evidenced here):

• Trading fee rebates, referral programs, points systems, seasons, or campaigns are not reflected in the available metrics and cannot be relied upon for expected return.

Bottom line: treat Project X as a pure fee marketplace right now—good for LPs who can tolerate volatility and manage position risk, but less attractive for users who depend on emissions/points to reach target yields.

Below are concrete playbooks based on current pool APYs and the platform’s fee-only yield profile.

🛡️ Conservative (capital preservation focus)

1) Prefer the lowest-volatility-feeling pools by observed yield, accepting lower income (e.g., WHYPE-KHYPE ~0.6% 30d avg APY).

2) If you want a steadier profile, locate and evaluate the one pool flagged “Stablecoin” (stablecoin pools: 1); size positions modestly until you confirm behavior.

Expected APY range: ~0–3% (anchored by median APY 2.2% and low-yield examples).

⚖️ Balanced (moderate risk/reward)

1) Split liquidity across 2 pools with decent fee production: WHYPE-UETH (17.7% 30d avg) + WHYPE-USD₮0 (10.4% 30d avg).

2) Rebalance monthly: keep each position near your target weights to reduce drift-driven risk.

3) Cap exposure to any single volatile leg (WHYPE-heavy pools can become directional bets).

Expected APY range: ~8–20% (aligned with the 30d averages shown).

🔥 Aggressive (max yield focus)

1) Focus on the highest current fee APR pools: USDH-WHYPE (70.0% current; 37.8% 30d avg) and/or WHYPE-USDC (53.6% current; 38.1% 30d avg).

2) Actively monitor price moves; reduce exposure during strong trends to limit impermanent loss.

3) Consider diversifying across 2–3 high-APY pools rather than “all-in” one pair (APYs vary widely; median is only 2.2%).

Expected APY range: ~25–70% (but highly path-dependent on volatility and IL).

Project X currently shows 0 audits and provides no audit links. From a risk-adjusted earnings standpoint, that materially increases smart contract and protocol risk versus audited peers.

What we can verify:

• Audits: None reported (0); Audit links: N/A.
• Operating history signal: 254 days of fee history exists, suggesting meaningful live usage over time, but it is not a substitute for audits.

Key risks for earners:
1) Smart contract / protocol risk: unaudited code increases tail risk (bugs, edge-case failures, or integrations behaving unexpectedly).
2) Impermanent loss (IL): IL data is not reported (7d IL: N/A), so LPs must model scenarios. For standard constant-product AMMs, IL examples vs holding:

• If one asset +100% vs the other, IL ≈ 5.72%.
• If one asset +300% (4×) vs the other, IL ≈ 20.0%. These scenarios are realistic for volatile pools like WHYPE-USDC, WHYPE-UBTC, WHYPE-UETH, and USDH-WHYPE. 3) Economic risk: APYs are fee-only (no rewards), so returns can fall quickly if volume drops or liquidity rises.

Practical safeguards: keep position sizes conservative, diversify across pools, and treat high APYs as compensation for both IL + unaudited risk until reputable audits and security programs are published.

Project X offers real earning power for LPs because it routes a large share of fees to liquidity providers, and it already supports meaningful trading activity, but it is not a “farm” (no incentives) and the lack of audits is a major constraint.

Top 3 strengths
1) Strong LP revenue share: LPs receive 85.7% of fees (protocol takes 14.3%).
2) High activity supports fees: $2.66B 30d volume producing $2.0M 30d fees.
3) Some standout fee APYs: e.g., USDH-WHYPE 70.0% APY (current) and WHYPE-USDC 53.6% APY.

Top 3 weaknesses
1) Unaudited (0 audits): heightened tail risk.
2) No rewards/incentives: 0 incentivized pools; all yield is fee-driven.
3) Volatile-pair dominance: stablecoin presence is minimal (1 stablecoin pool) and top APYs are mostly volatile exposures.

One-sentence recommendation: Consider Project X if you’re comfortable with active LP management and unaudited risk, focusing on fee-rich pools while controlling impermanent loss.