How Does Project X Work?
Project X is an automated market maker DEX built on Hyperliquid's HyperEVM, forked from Uniswap V4. It offers concentrated liquidity trading with 86% of fees going to liquidity providers. The project is self-funded by pseudonymous developers and has no token yet.
TVL
$43M
Sector
DEX
Risk Grade
C+
Value Grade
D-
Core Mechanisms
DEX/AMM
Concentrated liquidity AMM forked from Uniswap V4, optimized for HyperEVM's 50ms finality
Standard concentrated liquidity AMM based on Uniswap V4 codebase. Core mechanics are well-understood. Adapted for HyperEVM's low-latency environment.
DEX/Fee-Distribution
86% of trading fees to LPs, 14% to protocol operations
High LP fee share (86%) designed to attract liquidity. Standard fee split mechanism, though the ratio is more LP-favorable than most AMMs.
Incentive/Points
Points system for future token airdrop eligibility
Standard points-based incentive system suggesting a future token distribution. No official token launch timeline announced.
Cross-Chain/Aggregation
Phased expansion from HyperEVM DEX to multi-chain EVM aggregator
Roadmap includes Phase 2 EVM Aggregator and undisclosed Phase 3. Currently single-chain (Hyperliquid). Integration with LI.FI for cross-chain routing.
Oracle/On-Chain-Price
AMM pool prices as on-chain price discovery with Hyperliquid orderbook context
Standard AMM pricing derived from pool state. Benefits from coexistence with Hyperliquid's orderbook for price reference.
Risk-Management/Audit
Security audits by PeckShield and 0xQuit
Audited by two firms (PeckShield and 0xQuit). PeckShield is well-established; 0xQuit is less known. No formal bug bounty program disclosed.
How the Pieces Interact
With no VC investors, legal entity, or identifiable team members holding accountability, there are no external checks on fund management. The team could abandon the project or extract value without consequence.
HyperEVM is a relatively new execution environment. Any bugs in HyperEVM's EVM compatibility layer, consensus, or bridge could compromise Project X pools regardless of the AMM contract's own security.
Ultra-fast finality combined with concentrated liquidity may enable sophisticated MEV strategies that extract value from LPs faster than they can rebalance, reducing effective LP returns despite the 86% fee share.
Points-driven TVL is mercenary capital. When the token launches and airdrops complete, a significant portion of the $43M TVL may exit, causing liquidity fragmentation and increased slippage for remaining users.
Custom modifications to the Uniswap V4 codebase for HyperEVM integration may introduce vulnerabilities not present in the original audited code. Fork divergence from upstream increases maintenance and security burden.
What Could Go Wrong
- Project X is run by pseudonymous developers (@Lamboland_ and @BOBBYBIGYIELD) with no legal entity disclosure, leaving users with no recourse if the team disappears or acts maliciously — a classic rug pull risk profile.
- The protocol launched in July 2025 and reached $40M+ TVL within days, but has minimal track record. Being 100% self-funded with no VC backing means limited financial resilience during a crisis or exploit.
- As a Uniswap V4 fork on HyperEVM, Project X inherits any upstream vulnerabilities while operating on a relatively new and less battle-tested EVM environment (Hyperliquid's HyperEVM).
Team Abandonment or Rug Pull
ModerateTrigger: The pseudonymous founding team ceases development, extracts protocol-owned liquidity, or disappears without notice
- 1.Team stops responding on social channels; no code commits or governance updates — Community uncertainty grows; smart LP capital begins withdrawing preemptively
- 2.Protocol-controlled fees (14% of trading revenue) stop being allocated to operations — Infrastructure costs go unpaid; frontend goes offline or becomes unmaintained
- 3.Without frontend access, only sophisticated users can interact directly with contracts — TVL drops rapidly as retail users unable to manage positions; liquidity fragments
- 4.Remaining concentrated liquidity positions become stale with no active management — Wide spreads and poor execution quality drive remaining volume to competing DEXes
Risk Profile at a Glance
Overall: C+ (39/100)
Lower score = safer