Ramses V3 (HyperEVM) currently shows very low fee pass-through to LPs and a high protocol take, meaning your LP PnL will be dominated by incentives rather than organic swap fees.

Observed fee split (most recent 24h distribution dataset):

• Total fees (24h): $1.9K
• LP share of fees: 9.7% → LP fees (24h): $182
• Protocol take rate: 90.3% → Protocol revenue (24h): $1.7K

Longer window fee scale:

• Fees (7d): $25.0K
• Fees (30d): $90.5K
• Fees (all-time): $993.6K
• Revenue (all-time): $858.3K (protocol-side capture)

Fee capture ratio (what you should infer):

• On this dataset, LPs capture ~9.7% of fees, which is materially below the “LPs get most swap fees” pattern common on many DEXs.
• The protocol captures the bulk of fee flow (~90%+) as revenue.

Trend / track record:

• There are 134 days of fee history, which is enough to evaluate persistence of activity, but still relatively early.

Note on metrics: other dashboards may report different “fees” totals (e.g., a separate 24h fees figure exists), but the actionable earning implication remains: LP fee income is small relative to incentives on Ramses V3 (HyperEVM).

All listed pools currently show 0.0% base APY and APY entirely from rewards, so LP selection is primarily a decision about incentive size vs. IL risk.

Top pools (liquidity + yield signal)

Risk-adjusted takeaways

• Most conservative: USDH-USDC (stablecoin flag = Yes) and USDC-USD₮0 (both USD-pegged assets by naming). These target lower volatility and typically lower IL, but returns are also lower (6–15% range by current/30d).
• Middle risk / diversified majors: WHYPE-UETH and USDC-UETH balance incentives with more “blue-chip” exposure.
• High risk / high incentive farming: WHYPE-USD₮0 and WHYPE-UBTC show extreme reward APYs; these are the most exposed to price-driven IL and out-of-range concentrated liquidity risk.

Because Ramses is a concentrated liquidity DEX, tighter ranges can boost fee efficiency but also increase the chance you go out-of-range; plan for active management on volatile pairs.

No staking product with verifiable APY/APR, lock duration, or token requirements is available in the current dataset.

What is known:

• Ramses is described as being powered by x(3,3) (a more fluid and accessible version of ve(3,3)), which indicates the protocol likely has a vote/locking-oriented tokenomics design.

What you cannot rely on from the available information:

• No confirmed single-token staking yields.
• No confirmed lock periods (e.g., weeks/months) or minimums.
• No confirmed auto-compounding vault mechanics.

Practical alternatives for “passive income” on Ramses V3 (HyperEVM):

• Use the lowest-volatility LP pools (e.g., USDH-USDC at 6.4% APY; USDC-USD₮0 at 12.2% APY) where returns are currently reward-driven.
• Prefer pools with higher TVL (e.g., $300K–$470K range above) to reduce position-level slippage when adjusting.

If you want pure staking-style yield, you’ll need published staking terms (APR + lock rules). Until those are clearly available, the only data-backed yields here are LP reward APYs.

Ramses V3 (HyperEVM) is currently an incentive-first DEX: every tracked pool is reward-incentivized, and the displayed yields are almost entirely rewards rather than trading fees.

Hard signals of incentives being the primary yield source:

• Pools with reward incentives: 13 / 13
• Across major pools, Base APY = 0.0% while Reward APY = Total APY (e.g., WHYPE-USD₮0: 1116.0% APY = 1116.0% rewards; USDC-UETH: 105.0% APY = 105.0% rewards).
• Weighted average APY: 230.2% and median APY: 105.0% across 13 pools, consistent with aggressive reward emissions.

Why incentives matter more than fee income on this DEX:

• LP fee share is only 9.7% of fees (LP fees $182 out of $1.9K in the latest 24h distribution), while the protocol take rate is 90.3%. This makes reward emissions the dominant driver of LP returns.

What’s not evidenced here (so shouldn’t be assumed):

• No data confirms a points system, seasonal campaign, referral program, or trading fee rebates.

Actionable interpretation: treat Ramses LPing as reward farming with concentrated-liquidity risk, not as a “collect organic fees” venue—at least under the current revenue split and APY composition.

Below are concrete playbooks using pools with published APYs. Since base APY is 0.0%, these strategies are primarily reward capture with varying IL exposure.

🛡️ Conservative (capital preservation focus)

1) Provide liquidity to USDH-USDC (stablecoin pool) targeting steadier exposure. Expected APY: ~6%–13% (current 6.4%, 30d avg 12.8%).
2) Add a second low-vol pair such as USDC-USD₮0. Expected APY: ~12%–15% (current 12.2%, 30d avg 14.7%).
3) Keep ranges wider (typical for concentrated liquidity) to reduce out-of-range risk; accept lower capital efficiency.

⚖️ Balanced (moderate risk/reward)

1) Split capital across WHYPE-KHYPE and WHYPE-UETH to diversify within majors. Expected APY: ~29%–99% (current 29.0% and 53.7%, 30d avg up to 99.0%).
2) Add USDC-UETH for a different exposure mix. Expected APY: ~89%–105% (30d avg 88.6%, current 105.0%).
3) Rebalance periodically to avoid sitting out-of-range for long periods.

🔥 Aggressive (max yield focus)

1) Farm extreme-incentive pools like WHYPE-USD₮0. Expected APY: ~528%–1116% (30d avg 527.8%, current 1116.0%).
2) Add smaller-TV L but high-incentive pairs like WHYPE-UBTC. Expected APY: ~393%–435% (30d avg 392.6%, current 435.4%).
3) Treat these as actively managed positions; be prepared for sharp IL and rapid APY decay.

Rule of thumb on Ramses today: if you’re not optimizing incentives, the fee split implies you’re leaving most of the opportunity on the table.

Ramses lists 2 audits and provides an audit index at: https://docs.ramses.xyz/pages/audits

What can be stated with certainty:

• Audit count: 2
• Audit access: publicly linked via Ramses documentation.

What is not evidenced in the available details (so remains unverified here):

• Audit firm names, dates, and scope (the presence of links is known; the contents are not summarized in the current dataset).
• Bug bounty program existence/terms.
• Governance controls (e.g., multisig signers, timelocks) and incident history.

On-chain maturity / operating history:

• 134 days of fee history indicates a measurable operating window, but still a relatively young track record.

Impermanent loss (IL) — theoretical estimates

Reported IL metrics are N/A for pools, so below are theoretical IL figures for a 50/50 AMM under spot price moves (illustrative for directionality; concentrated liquidity can experience larger variability depending on range):

Highest IL sensitivity pools (by composition):

• WHYPE-USD₮0, WHYPE-UBTC, UBTC-USDC (volatile-vs-stable or volatile-vs-volatile) where price swings can be large.

Bottom line: two audits is a positive baseline, but without firm/scope/date details and with concentrated-liquidity complexity, security posture is adequate but not best-in-class from what’s currently verifiable.

Ramses V3 (HyperEVM) offers strong earning potential if you are targeting reward emissions in incentivized concentrated-liquidity pools; organic fee yield to LPs appears secondary given the 9.7% LP fee share and 90.3% protocol take rate.

Top 3 strengths
1) High activity vs TVL: ~$9.5M 24h volume on ~$2.9M TVL suggests capital-efficient markets for active LPing.
2) Broad incentives coverage: 13/13 pools incentivized, with a 230.2% weighted average APY and 105.0% median APY.
3) Clear, liquid “core” pools: Several pools have meaningful TVL (e.g., $348K–$476K), supporting entry/exit.

Top 3 weaknesses
1) LPs capture a small slice of fees: only 9.7% of fees to LPs in the latest split dataset.
2) Yield quality risk: many APYs are reward-only (base APY 0.0%), so returns can change quickly with incentive schedules.
3) Concentrated liquidity complexity: IL/out-of-range risk is material, and pool IL metrics are not provided (7d IL shown as N/A).

One-sentence recommendation: Best for users willing to actively manage concentrated liquidity to harvest incentives; not ideal for set-and-forget fee farming.