$LIT is currently valued at ~$650m circulating mcap ($2.7) and $2.6b FDV, with revenues annualising around $60m and declining.
$HYPE, by comparison, trades at roughly $6b circulating mcap ($25.5) and $25b FDV, while annualised revenue sits near $700m.
On a multiples basis, HYPE trades at ~8x P/E (circulating) and ~28x FDV P/E, whereas LIT trades at ~10.5x circulating P/E and ~43x on an FDV basis.
Given this, LIT is currently more expensive than HYPE on both circulating and fully diluted metrics, despite weaker fundamentals. Additionally, 100% of Hyperliquid revenue is directed toward buybacks, while LIT’s revenue distribution and token value accrual remain unclear. Fundamentally, there is no clear catalyst for LIT, and airdrop-related churn is likely to persist for some time.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
$LIT is currently valued at ~$650m circulating mcap ($2.7) and $2.6b FDV, with revenues annualising around $60m and declining.
$HYPE, by comparison, trades at roughly $6b circulating mcap ($25.5) and $25b FDV, while annualised revenue sits near $700m.
On a multiples basis, HYPE trades at ~8x P/E (circulating) and ~28x FDV P/E, whereas LIT trades at ~10.5x circulating P/E and ~43x on an FDV basis.
Given this, LIT is currently more expensive than HYPE on both circulating and fully diluted metrics, despite weaker fundamentals. Additionally, 100% of Hyperliquid revenue is directed toward buybacks, while LIT’s revenue distribution and token value accrual remain unclear. Fundamentally, there is no clear catalyst for LIT, and airdrop-related churn is likely to persist for some time.