The two cryptocurrencies named in the October 10, 2026, Motley Fool article are Zcash (ZEC) and Hyperliquid (HYPE). Its suggestion that both could double by 2029 is a speculative thesis, not a verified forecast or a promise of a 100% return. The assets have different potential catalysts—and different risks—so reported investor activity alone is not a reason to treat either as a likely winner.
What does “could double” mean here?
The phrase comes from The Motley Fool’s October 10, 2026 article. It identifies ZEC and HYPE as coins that could double by 2029, but the article’s scenarios depend on assumptions about adoption, token demand, supply, and broader market conditions. They are not authoritative price targets, and the available figures do not establish that either token will rise 100%.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
The useful question is not whether the headline sounds persuasive, but what would have to happen for each thesis to work—and what could undermine it. The two tokens serve different roles, so they should not be treated as interchangeable bets.
How the two investment theses differ
| Asset | Thesis described in the October 10, 2026 article | Upside scenario or mechanism reported | What the claim does not establish |
|---|---|---|---|
| Zcash (ZEC) | Optional transaction privacy, alongside a supply policy the article describes as capped at 21 million coins with mining-reward halvings. | The article attributes to Grayscale Research an August 2026 bull case of $8,100 by 2030 if ZEC reaches 10% of Bitcoin’s market capitalization. It says a doubling would correspond to about 2.6% of Bitcoin’s market capitalization if Bitcoin’s market capitalization stayed steady. | Neither the scenario nor its assumptions are a guaranteed price outcome; the protocol and supply details are reported by the article, not independently verified here. |
| Hyperliquid (HYPE) | A token associated with a blockchain the article describes as a decentralized exchange, especially for perpetual futures. | The article says 99% of protocol fees go toward HYPE buybacks and describes 500,000 HYPE as the stake threshold for launching perpetual-futures markets. | A fee allocation or market-launch threshold does not guarantee continuing fee levels, token demand, buybacks, or price appreciation. These are article-reported operational claims and may change. |
What would need to go right for Zcash?
Zcash’s proposed appeal is transaction privacy: The Motley Fool article describes shielded transactions as capable of obscuring the sender, recipient, and amount. It also presents a stated 21 million maximum supply and mining-reward halvings as features that could matter to scarcity. These are descriptions in the October 10, 2026 article, rather than independently confirmed protocol specifications.
The article’s strongest numerical example is conditional. It reports that Grayscale Research’s August 2026 bull case put ZEC at $8,100 by 2030 if it captured 10% of Bitcoin’s market capitalization. The article’s comparison says a doubling could occur at a 2.6% share if Bitcoin’s market capitalization remained steady. That steady-market-cap assumption matters: a change in Bitcoin’s market value would change the implied comparison, and reaching a market-cap share would require demand for ZEC to rise relative to Bitcoin.
For an investor assessing that thesis, relevant questions include whether people want to use shielded transactions, whether privacy features remain accessible in the jurisdictions and services that matter to them, and whether network use translates into sustained demand for ZEC. The article’s scenario does not answer those questions or show that the projected market-cap share is likely.
What would need to go right for Hyperliquid?
Hyperliquid’s thesis, as presented in the October 10, 2026 article, centers on activity on a decentralized exchange, particularly perpetual futures, and on the reported use of protocol fees for HYPE buybacks. Buybacks could create a source of token demand if fees are generated and the stated allocation continues. They do not by themselves demonstrate that demand will exceed token selling or that a token’s market price will rise.
The same article describes a 500,000 HYPE stake threshold for launching perpetual-futures markets and says prediction markets were under testing. These details point to possible protocol functions, not proof of durable usage or future revenue. Because fee policies and operating parameters can change, readers should check current protocol documentation before relying on them.
The key distinction is between activity on a protocol and value accruing to its token. A bullish case needs users to keep using the platform, fees to persist, and the token’s demand and supply dynamics to support its price. The reported buyback allocation alone does not establish any of those outcomes.
What does “investors are buying” actually show?
The October 10, 2026 article reports several kinds of exposure and activity. They are not equivalent to a broad consensus that either token is undervalued:
- Zcash treasury-company investment: The article reports a $58.9 million investment by Winklevoss Capital in a Zcash treasury company in November 2025. An investment in a company that holds or focuses on ZEC is not the same as a direct purchase of ZEC by every investor in that company.
- Reported HYPE-related positions: The article attributes a $23 million Duquesne Family Office position and $4.4 million in HYPE-focused ETF holdings to Jane Street, both as of June 30, 2026. ETF exposure is not necessarily direct token ownership, and reported holdings are a snapshot rather than evidence of current positions or future performance.
- Unstaking and private sale: The article says 3.7 million HYPE was unstaked for a private sale to an unnamed institution in early October 2026. An intended private sale does not establish that the transaction closed, who ultimately acquired the tokens, whether the buyer will hold them, or whether they will remain off the market.
The article’s account of these events is not independently confirmed here by original filings or transaction records. Large holdings or sales can also matter for concentration and liquidity, but these reported examples do not show how either token’s overall ownership is distributed.
Risks to weigh before considering either token
- Volatility and loss: The article notes both assets have had sharp drops and turbulent histories. A possible doubling thesis does not cap losses; an investor can lose a substantial part or all of the amount committed.
- Scenario risk: ZEC’s market-cap comparison depends on assumptions about Bitcoin’s market capitalization and ZEC’s share of it. HYPE’s buyback argument depends on continuing protocol activity, fee generation, and the stated allocation.
- Adoption risk: A feature or market-launch mechanism is not the same as sustained use. The cited material does not provide independently verified, comparable measures of usage for the two assets.
- Concentration and liquidity: Reported institutional positions and a possible private sale are not a complete view of token ownership or tradable supply. Large transactions can affect market conditions, but the available figures do not establish the likely price impact.
- Changing conditions: Protocol parameters, market structure, regulation, and available access can change. Historical holdings or article-reported mechanics should not be assumed to remain current.
A practical way to evaluate the claims
- Separate the asset from the related entity. Identify whether a claim concerns ZEC or HYPE itself, a company holding a treasury, an ETF, or a transaction involving an institution.
- Test the key assumption. For ZEC, examine what would support the market-cap share scenario and whether the Bitcoin-market-cap assumption is plausible to you. For HYPE, look at current protocol activity and confirm whether the fee and staking parameters still apply.
- Look for current primary evidence. Check official protocol documentation, filings, or transaction records for current mechanics and reported holdings; do not treat a news article’s account as independent confirmation.
- Decide whether the downside is tolerable. A speculative crypto position should not depend on a headline or an assumption that the token will double. Consider whether you could withstand a steep decline without jeopardizing essential financial goals.
This is general information, not individualized investment advice. The cited article offers a reason to investigate ZEC and HYPE, not evidence that either is suitable for a particular investor.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
