Hyperliquid plans to allow external operators to create prediction markets on its blockchain, widening its challenge to Polymarket while requiring prospective deployers to put nearly $32 million of its native token at risk.
The proposed HIP-4 upgrade would require each deployer to stake 500,000 HYPE, worth about $31.7 million at Monday’s token price. Hyperliquid would initially introduce the system on testnet before extending it to the main network, the platform said on July 19.
The change would give builders control over which individual questions they list and how those markets are settled.
Hyperliquid’s validators would retain authority over the broader rules, including the standardized templates deployers must use and penalties for markets that are unclear, improperly resolved, or left unsettled.
The arrangement seeks to address one of Hyperliquid’s largest disadvantages relative to Polymarket: the limited number of event contracts that its validators can create themselves. It also places a high financial threshold around a system designed to expand market creation beyond the validator group.
Hyperliquid’s HIP-4 builds system for expanding prediction markets
HIP-4 has operated on Hyperliquid’s mainnet since May 2, but its initial rollout has been limited to a small group of validator-curated contracts.
The markets are integrated into HyperCore, the platform’s native trading engine, allowing users to trade event outcomes using the same account they use for spot assets and perpetual futures. Each contract is fully collateralized and settles at either 0 or 1, depending on whether the specified event occurs.
The contracts do not use leverage, limiting a trader’s maximum loss to the amount paid for the position. That structure also allows outcome markets to sit alongside Hyperliquid’s higher-risk derivatives products without introducing liquidations or margin calls.
The planned upgrade would give HIP-4 a repeatable process for adding contracts at a scale that validator-led deployment could not easily support.
Validators would approve standardized templates governing specific market types, with the requirements stored and enforced on-chain. The templates would establish how questions must be constructed, which conditions determine settlement, and what information can be used to resolve the result.
Deployers could then use an approved template to introduce individual contracts, set their precise terms, and complete settlement after the underlying event concludes.
That process would allow similar markets, such as sports fixtures or scheduled economic releases, to be launched without requiring a new validator vote for every question.
Hyperliquid expects direct validator deployments to continue only in limited cases. The platform said that, once the new system is operating, canonical markets would ideally account for fewer than 10 questions or outcomes each year.
Each deployer would initially receive capacity for 100 outcomes, represented by up to 200 tradable outcome tokens. Questions with multiple possible outcomes would require multiple slots, while settled contracts would free up capacity for future markets.
Hyperliquid plans to add an auction mechanism for operators seeking larger allocations. Deployers would also be able to receive a fee share of up to 50% from the markets they operate, although the final economics remain subject to community feedback.
The required HYPE would remain locked for six months, and deployers would have to settle all outstanding markets before withdrawing their stake.
Validators could vote to seize part or all of it if an operator records an incorrect result, fails to resolve a contract within one week, or launches a market whose terms do not support a clear settlement.
Those requirements would make deployment an ongoing operating responsibility rather than a one-time listing decision. Builders would need to manage market definitions, settlement data, and unresolved disputes while preserving enough capacity to continue introducing new contracts.
HIP-3 gives Hyperliquid a blueprint
The transition toward permissionless prediction markets is a direct replication of the strategy Hyperliquid utilized to scale its HIP-3 perpetual futures framework.
That system, which permits independent developers to list customized derivative contracts, has transformed from a niche product into the exchange’s primary volume driver.
Data from DeFiLlama shows that builder-deployed contracts accounted for about 2% of Hyperliquid’s perpetual trading volume at the beginning of 2026. Their share has since climbed toward half of daily trading volume, showing how rapidly markets created by external teams have moved from the platform’s edge into its core business.
Demand for those markets has pushed real-world asset activity on Hyperliquid to new highs. The platform said open interest in RWA-linked contracts reached a record $3.6 billion, while total open interest climbed to a 2026 high of $11 billion.
TradeXYZ has led that expansion with perpetual contracts linked to the Nasdaq-100 and companies including Nvidia and Tesla. The products give traders exposure to price movements without ownership of the underlying shares.
Their appeal also rests on continuous access. Unlike US-listed stocks, the contracts remain tradable at night and on weekends, allowing users to respond to earnings, policy announcements, and geopolitical developments while traditional exchanges are closed.
HIP-3’s growth suggests that external operators can identify and serve markets that Hyperliquid’s validators would struggle to build at the same pace.
It has also created a network of developers, market makers, and trading interfaces that could now apply the same playbook to HIP-4, expanding the platform’s outcome contracts beyond the limited number of validators that can deploy themselves.
Hyperliquid enters a prediction market dominated by larger rivals
While HIP-3 proved that external builders can redirect trading activity within Hyperliquid, HIP-4 will need to attract users in a market where Polymarket and Kalshi already have advantages in liquidity, distribution, and brand recognition.
Over the past year, prediction markets have expanded beyond the election-driven trading cycles that once defined the sector. As of July 2026, decentralized venues had processed more than $311 billion in cumulative volume across more than 1.65 billion transactions, drawing over 4 million users.
Sports have become an increasingly important source of that activity. Prediction-market trading during the World Cup was equivalent to about 27% of legal US sports-betting volume, up from roughly 9% at the beginning of the year, estimates from H2 Gambling Capital showed.
Institutional interest is also broadening the industry’s potential use beyond consumer speculation.
Bernstein expects annual prediction-market volume to rise from $51 billion in 2025 to about $1 trillion by 2030 as contracts tied to cryptocurrencies, economic indicators and corporate risks become more widely used for forecasting and hedging.
That growth has intensified competition among platforms pursuing different routes into the market.
Polymarket has built a wide catalog spanning politics, sports, digital assets and cultural events, supported by an interface designed around discovering and comparing questions. Kalshi has used its regulated US position to expand sports trading and deepen relationships with financial institutions.
Hyperliquid is approaching the opportunity through its existing base of active derivatives traders. Rather than building and promoting every market itself, the platform plans to provide the execution infrastructure while outside operators develop contracts, interfaces, and specialist audiences.
That model could help HIP-4 add outcomes faster than a validator-led system. However, it does not remove the challenge of persuading users to leave established venues or attracting operators capable of meeting the 500,000 HYPE staking requirement.
The breadth of available questions, the reliability of settlements, and the quality of consumer-facing discovery will determine whether HIP-4 develops into a third major prediction-market venue.
Without those elements, outcome contracts could remain an additional product for Hyperliquid’s existing trading base rather than a direct rival to Polymarket and Kalshi.