The primary remaining open question (and really all that matters) is how these USDH ticker applicants plan to get to 5bn supply Without real scale, USDH will drive little new for Hyperliquid than USDC is already bringing--I’m skeptical that giving rebates to users or buying HYPE with fees in the early days is enough of a path forward to make a dent here Think about it: if whoever turns out to be the USDH team is earning 4% APY via treasuries backing USDH (assuming USDH will end up being a fiat-backed stable) and decides to give 50% of that revenue to 5 HIP-3 exchanges in order to grow by integration with about 100m USDH supply, that will be: >2% net going to HIP-3 exchanges >Assume ~100m USDH evenly spread across the exchanges >20m USDH per exchange each getting 0.4% boost = $80k per year per exchange Even if USDH goes to $1bn, that’s only $800k per year per exchange. These incentive numbers could obv be adjusted if the USDH team wants to take an aggressive power-law-style bet on one HIP-3 exchange and potentially allocate more than 50% of the treasury revenue to that exchange, but that then detracts from other places they can incentivize growth. And I wouldn’t discount USDT/USDe/USDC also coming to play this incentive game if this is the path they see to come win supply Need to see a clearer path to shake USDC dominance for these USDH proposals to become more interesting

Some thoughts about the USDH ticker: - 95–100% of the revenue going back to the Assistance Fund might sound juicy, but in my opinion it’s not a good idea. You need to incentivize the use of your stablecoin (how many super-mega-compliant stablecoins are deployed with zero usage?). - Perp trading against multiple quote assets isn’t live yet, but it will be soon. Even if USDH is only a ticker, I think that if the issuer is solid enough, it will be whitelisted quite soon. If that happens, it will be their main source of growth, especially if users are incentivized to hold it instead of USDC. - HIP-3 will be another source of growth and many of these markets will need incentives if they want to onboard market makers, liquidity, and volume. An interesting approach is to use part of the revenue USDH generates to incentivize them. - Native Markets is the only proposal that mentions HIP-3 and they state that part of their 50% revenue allocation will be used to incentivize these markets. - What does “revenue” (or “net revenue”) mean in each proposal? Is it only the revenue generated by the underlying assets (USD allocated in T-bills, etc.), or does it also include the revenue generated by USDH itself (fees from HIP-3 markets, etc.)? > Agora refers to net revenue from USDH’s treasury assets (only underlying asset fees). > Paxos mentions that it will allocate 95% of the interest from reserves backing USDH (only underlying asset fees). > Native Markets states that they will split all revenue equally between the AF and growth (including all fees, not just those from the underlying assets). - Compliance is important, but aligning with Hyperliquid’s growth is much more important in this case. - What’s better: potentially adding $200M to the Assistance Fund (from $1.5B to $1.7B), or potentially adding $100M to HIP-3 markets, spot markets, and other growth drivers (from $0 to $100M)? I believe all the top proposals will be able to issue a strong stablecoin. For me, the main question is: who can help Hyperliquid the most? What’s the better long-term strategy? Who is more aligned with Hyperliquid and its ethos? I believe in HIP-3 and believe that its markets will print a big amount of fees in the future, so my vote stays with @fiege_max and Native Markets. All that said, I could be wrong since I didn’t attend every space or read every comment, so if you really want a clear view, I recommend doing your own research.