These 2 Cryptocurrencies Have Better Outlooks Than Solana or Ethereum. Should You Buy Them?

The article argues that Hyperliquid and Zcash have a stronger investment case than Ethereum and Solana because they create direct, mechanical links between network activity and holder returns. Hyperliquid has crossed $1.3 billion in cumulative buybacks, while Zcash routes 20% of newly issued coin value to ecosystem funding; both face meaningful regulatory risks, including roughly $700 million of HYPE unlocks on June 6 and potential EU privacy-coin restrictions in mid-2027. The piece is opinionated rather than news-driven, so the likely market impact is limited.

Analysis

The key market implication is not that these tokens are ‘better crypto,’ but that they are closer to cash-flow equities than most of the asset class. That changes who can own them: systematic allocators, crossover funds, and even some event-driven desks can justify exposure when there is a transparent bridge from user activity to token scarcity or ecosystem funding. In contrast, large-cap proof-of-stake assets with diffuse value capture may keep losing relative attention as capital rotates toward clearer per-token economics.

Hyperliquid’s model creates a reflexive loop: volume funds buybacks, buybacks tighten float, and tighter float makes each incremental fee dollar more price-sensitive. The near-term risk is supply overhang around the next large unlock window; if buybacks slow even modestly, the market can re-price the token as a high-beta flow trade rather than a structurally deflationary asset. The bigger second-order issue is competitive and regulatory arbitrage: if the U.S. eventually clears the category, venues with deeper compliance and distribution could compress Hyperliquid’s moat faster than the current narrative assumes.

Zcash is a different animal: it is effectively a self-funding development vehicle with a hard supply cap, which makes it more investable as a long-duration scarcity trade. But the same feature that supports the thesis also caps the user base, because regulatory pressure can choke off liquidity faster than fundamentals can compound. Over a 6-24 month horizon, the trade is less about adoption and more about whether the market is willing to pay for an asset whose issuer economics are unusually explicit for crypto. The consensus may be underestimating how much that clarity matters in a risk-off regime, where mechanical capital return often beats vague roadmap optionality.

Key Decisions for Investors

• Long HYPE / short a basket of high-FDV, low-cash-flow L1 tokens over 3-6 months — thesis is that explicit buybacks will continue to rerate relative to assets with weak holder yield; stop if unlock-driven dilution overwhelms buyback pace.
• Buy ZEC on pullbacks as a 6-18 month scarcity-plus-self-funding trade — favor staged entries given headline regulatory risk; target is rerating versus privacy-token peers if liquidity survives the next policy review cycle.
• Sell rallies in ETH vs HYPE on a relative-value basis — ETH’s tokenholder value capture remains indirect, so a sustained fee-growth environment should keep HYPE’s multiple premium intact until unlocks or regulation change the narrative.
• If accessible, use call spreads on HYPE into the post-unlock window — asymmetry is attractive if trading activity stays firm, but define risk tightly because the first drawdown after a large supply event can be sharp and liquidity-sensitive.