Pump.fun Adds Hyperliquid Perps With Up to 0.10% Order Fees

Pump.fun perps charge on full order value

Pump’s published fee schedule lists a builder fee of up to 0.10% of each order’s notional value, including orders opening, adding to or closing positions. Notional means the full market exposure, which can substantially exceed the collateral backing a leveraged trade.

For illustration, a fully filled $10,000 opening order would incur $10 at that ceiling. Closing an unchanged $10,000 exposure at the same rate would add another $10. The resulting $20 is a worked example of Pump’s builder charge alone, before trading costs, funding or bridging.

Against hypothetical collateral of $500, those two charges would equal 4% of the initial collateral. That calculation does not establish an offered leverage tier, actual execution price or fee rate for any particular account.

Hyperliquid’s builder-code documentation says interface builders receive fees on fills and users approve a maximum charge. Its perpetuals ceiling is 0.1%, matching Pump’s published maximum. Approval of a ceiling should not be confused with proof that every order incurs that maximum.

The protocol also says users can revoke builder permissions. That permission concerns an application’s ability to attach a builder charge; revoking it does not itself settle a derivative or eliminate the market risk of an existing position.

The documents separate this charge from Pump’s newly listed 0.45% Platform Fee, or 0.40% with another user’s referral code. The fee page explicitly says that Platform Fee does not apply to orders submitted through the Perpetuals Feature. Adding it to the perpetuals builder fee would misstate the schedule.

Pump also lists a charge of up to 0.25% on each in-app transfer to or from Hyperliquid, additional to the bridge operator’s costs. At the ceiling, transferring $1,000 would add $2.50 for Pump; moving the same amount back would add another $2.50. Those assumptions exclude changes in balances and third-party charges.

The terms identify Relay as the bridge provider at the document date. They distinguish assets in transit with the bridge operator or its solvers from collateral already held in a Hyperliquid account. A transfer can be delayed or fail, so successful submission through Pump is not equivalent to completed delivery of trading collateral.

Hyperliquid funding and liquidation rules still apply

An interface fee is only one part of the economics of holding a perpetual contract. The derivative has no fixed expiry, but keeping a position open can generate continuing payments and exposure to forced closure.

Hyperliquid’s funding documentation describes hourly payments between opposing traders. Positive funding means longs pay shorts; negative funding reverses the direction. The protocol says it collects no fee on those peer-to-peer payments.

Consequently, funding is separate from Pump’s builder revenue and can either reduce or increase an account balance. A quoted interface percentage cannot establish the full cost of a position held across several funding intervals.

Leverage also magnifies price changes relative to collateral. In a simplified example, a 1% adverse move on $10,000 of exposure produces a $100 mark-to-market loss, equal to 20% of $500 in starting collateral, before fees and funding. This arithmetic is not a liquidation-price estimate.

Under Hyperliquid’s liquidation rules, forced closure begins when account equity falls below maintenance requirements. Calculations use a mark price combining external prices and order-book information; an app’s latest displayed trade is not by itself the liquidation trigger.

Account configuration changes how far losses can reach. Hyperliquid distinguishes cross margin, which shares collateral across positions, from isolated margin assigned to a particular position. Its documentation says an isolated backstop liquidation leaves cross positions and margin untouched, while a cross backstop liquidation transfers the cross positions and margin to the liquidator.

The distinction became visible in the weekend’s chip-stock perpetual liquidations. That separate episode concerned stock-linked instruments and does not establish losses caused by Pump’s new feature, but illustrates why the underlying venue’s pricing rules remain relevant through a different interface.

U.S. restrictions leave open positions on Hyperliquid

Pump’s terms exclude U.S. and Ontario users, among other restricted categories. Eligibility for the broader platform therefore does not establish eligibility for this derivatives feature. The documents also make access subject to Hyperliquid’s separate terms.

That differs from the eligibility framework described in Robinhood’s U.S. perpetuals rollout. Similar product names do not make the providers’ access rules interchangeable.

Pump says collateral and positions remain on Hyperliquid if its interface is restricted, withdrawn or unavailable. It does not promise automatic closure. Managing a position through another interface remains subject to applicable access rules.

Alternative.me’s index displayed 53, classified as Neutral, versus 55 previously when checked around 15:04 UTC. It measures broad crypto sentiment, rather than demand for Pump’s perpetuals.

The next measurable test is adoption: account availability, actual charged rates and attributable trading activity. Those figures were not disclosed in the reviewed documents, leaving the published fee limits and responsibility for open positions as the clearest immediate changes for users.