“The correct final question is therefore not whether a real company, real people, real software, real strategies or real payouts exist.”
That sentence comes from an independent intelligence report prepared by one of my Avengers as part of our investigation into HypeRocket, and it gets straight to the heart of what we found.
HypeRocket presents itself as an opportunity to make money from algorithmic cryptocurrency trading. Its marketing promotes returns of up to 0.5% a day from trading, with the possibility of higher effective returns if the HYPE token increases in value. Participants can also purchase Performance Packages that increase their advertised return limit from 250% to as much as 400%, while unlocking deeper access to a multi-level affiliate compensation plan.
At first glance, it would be easy to investigate HypeRocket by looking for all the usual warning signs and then shouting “scam.”
I’m not going to do that.
I have spent weeks examining HypeRocket and the company behind it, Bitopex Trading LTD. I have reviewed its marketing, Terms, compensation structure and trading claims. I registered an affiliate account myself, entered the backend and downloaded its internal Pitch Material. I also approached CEO Sven Möller directly, gave the company a detailed right of reply and extended its deadline when it asked for more time.
My Avengers have gone considerably deeper.
Their investigation found evidence of real corporate infrastructure, substantial software development and genuine quantitative-strategy research connected with Bitopex and HypeRocket. They mapped more than a thousand technical nodes, examined historical Bitopex infrastructure, traced the relationship with MarketPeak and investigated the earlier BPX token ecosystem.
That evidence matters.
If I’m going to warn people about putting money into HypeRocket, I also have an obligation to tell them what we found in its favour.
But finding real developers, real software and evidence of genuine trading research does not answer the financial question that matters most to somebody considering an investment.
Where does the money paying participants actually come from?
HypeRocket has confirmed to me that participant contributions are divided between affiliate compensation and trading capital. Its current compensation structure includes commissions on deposits, package purchases, network trading returns and team activity. One part of the compensation plan — Streamline — expressly allocates 1% of platform deposits to reward qualifying members.
At the same time, HypeRocket says its trading operation generates the profits underpinning participant distributions.
That claim can be tested.
What I want to see isn’t another screenshot of a profitable trade or another presentation showing an algorithm. I want to know whether the complete money trail demonstrates that realised profits generated outside the participant network are sufficient to meet the financial obligations being created inside it.
That distinction is crucial.
A company can be real. Its CEO can be real. Its software can work. Algorithms can trade. People can receive withdrawals.
And you can still be asking the wrong question.
Before anyone sends cryptocurrency to HypeRocket, buys an $8,000 package or recruits friends and family into the opportunity, I believe they should understand exactly what they are buying, how the compensation structure works, what has actually been independently verified and what remains unproven.
That’s what this investigation is about.
I Went Inside HypeRocket
Rather than rely solely on public marketing, I registered a HypeRocket affiliate account myself.
The backend immediately showed me the language participants are surrounded by: Deposit, Withdraw, Reinvest, Total Investments, Total Profits, Commissions and ROI Progress. Even with nothing invested, my dashboard displayed a live “Today’s Performance” figure and encouraged me to “Boost your Performance” by purchasing one of five Performance Packages.
Those packages start at $100 and rise to $8,000.
The more expensive the package, the greater the advertised return limit and the deeper the access to HypeRocket’s affiliate compensation structure. The $100 Starter package provides access to five of the 15 commission levels and advertises a maximum 260% ROI. At the other end, the $8,000 Apex package unlocks all 15 levels and advertises a 400% maximum ROI, a further $10,000 Bonus ROI and a lifetime Pool Share.
Separate from those packages, HypeRocket markets deposits starting from $50, with no stated maximum in its presentation. Participants deposit USDT or USDC and are told their capital begins working immediately.
HypeRocket’s Terms add an important detail about what happens next.
The company told me that the participant’s original contribution is not simply sitting there waiting to be returned. It forms part of the trading capital, while payments and commissions received by the participant count towards the applicable return limit.
That is something I would want to understand before investing.
HypeRocket also describes itself as a network-marketing opportunity. Its own presentation says it is a “network marketing concept built with intention on top of an already successful trading infrastructure.”
That is probably the simplest description of what I found inside.
There is a claimed trading operation underneath, while sitting above it is a sophisticated affiliate system designed to reward participants for building networks, generating deposits and purchasing packages.
There is also a curious issue in HypeRocket’s current documents. Its Tipster agreement says no mandatory financial expenditure is required and free registration is sufficient for becoming a Tipster. Its Terms say participation in the affiliate programme requires an active investment. Its current affiliate material goes further and says at least the $100 Starter Bundle must be activated before affiliate commissions can be earned.
Those statements may apply to different stages or types of participation, so I don’t regard them as proof of a contradiction. But anyone considering becoming an affiliate deserves a clear explanation of which rule actually applies.
What became clear from going inside HypeRocket is that this isn’t simply a case of buying access to a trading bot.
You are entering an investment and network-marketing ecosystem where your deposit, trading returns, package level, ROI limit and ability to earn from other participants are interconnected.
So the next thing I wanted to establish was whether the trading engine underneath that ecosystem was real — and what the evidence actually proves.
The Trading Story — What Is Actually Real?
This is where the investigation became more interesting.
HypeRocket says its system trades HYPE using algorithmic strategies and advertises trading returns of up to 0.5% per day. Its marketing can push the headline higher by adding potential appreciation in the HYPE token, but those are two different things. A token increasing in price is not trading profit generated by HypeRocket.
The company also promotes an impressive trading history. Its material has claimed 11 algorithms were trading live on OKX, while its pitch deck presents a portfolio showing 113% compound growth, less than 5% maximum drawdown and 15 profitable months out of 15.
Sven Möller has also shown exchange accounts during presentations. HypeRocket describes one example involving more than $1 million and over 21% profit in the previous month as “irrefutable proof.”
I wanted to know how much of this could actually be corroborated.
And this is where I need to give HypeRocket some credit.
The deeper technical investigation carried out by my Avengers found substantial Bitopex and HypeRocket development infrastructure. More than 1,000 technical nodes were mapped, including development, production, backend, API and pre-production environments.
Bitopex-linked communications also discuss HypeRocket as another project, refer to futures strategies being run there and discuss further generations of trading algorithms. Investigators located a detailed quantitative strategy environment modelling options positions, perpetual hedging, fees, funding and multiple strategy variations.
In other words, I don’t think the evidence supports dismissing HypeRocket as a website with imaginary algorithms behind it.
There appears to be real technical and quantitative development taking place.
But there is an equally important limitation.
One strategy environment located during the investigation describes itself as shadow/read-only/no orders. That makes it useful evidence of quantitative research and development, but not evidence that those trades were actually executed with participant money.
HypeRocket itself offered to let me examine one or two production algorithms under a non-disclosure agreement. I appreciated the offer, but it still wouldn’t answer the historical question.
Code can prove an algorithm exists.
It cannot prove how much money that algorithm traded last January, what orders were actually filled, what losses occurred, how much profit was realised or whether those profits funded participant withdrawals.
That requires different evidence: authenticated exchange records, order and fill histories, deposits and withdrawals, fees, daily account equity and realised profit and loss. Independent read-only exchange verification or an appropriate third-party audit could achieve the same thing without revealing HypeRocket’s proprietary code.
So this investigation has actually moved beyond asking:
“Does HypeRocket really trade?”
There is enough evidence of genuine trading-related development that I think the more important question is:
How much real external profit has that trading produced?
Because once you understand the amount of money HypeRocket’s affiliate structure can distribute throughout its participant network, that distinction becomes critical.
Follow The Money
This is the part of HypeRocket that I believe every potential participant should understand before investing.
HypeRocket told me directly that participant contributions are divided between affiliate compensation and trading capital. That means some incoming participant money is deliberately allocated to paying the affiliate network. The unresolved question is how much remains for trading and whether the profits generated from that trading are sufficient to support everything else.
HypeRocket’s current compensation plan pays 11% on eligible deposits across as many as 15 levels.
Performance Packages create another layer. Packages range from $100 to $8,000, and HypeRocket’s material shows commission rates on the larger package sales totalling as much as 45% across 15 levels. These percentages shouldn’t simply be added together because they apply to different transactions, but they demonstrate how significant recruitment and network compensation are to the model.
Then there is the Streamline Bonus.
HypeRocket’s material explicitly states that 1% of platform deposits is distributed through Streamline pools to qualifying early participants. This is important because, for this particular bonus, there is no mystery about the calculation base: it is tied directly to incoming deposits.
There are further incentives, including Matching commissions connected to downline earnings, rank and Infinity bonuses, package-volume rewards and a Fast Start incentive for a Starter participant who recruits five people who also purchase Starter packages.
None of this proves that HypeRocket’s trading returns are funded by new investors.
That distinction matters.
But it does establish something HypeRocket itself acknowledges: participant money enters a system where part of it supports affiliate compensation while another part is supposed to become trading capital.
And I still don’t know the complete split.
How much of every $1,000 entering HypeRocket ultimately reaches an external trading account? How much goes to commissions? How much becomes company revenue, reserves or operating expenses? How much realised profit comes back from exchanges? And how does that compare with the platform’s outstanding obligations to participants?
There is another complication. HypeRocket’s current Terms describe an Auto Top-Up function that can move money from a participant’s available balance into a new active investment. That reinvestment receives its own return limit and may itself generate affiliate commissions.
This means any serious audit needs to distinguish new outside money, reinvested internal balances, affiliate commissions and genuine external trading profits. Otherwise impressive growth inside the platform could tell us very little about how much new wealth is actually being generated outside it.
This is why following the money matters more than watching another trading demonstration.
For me, the most valuable evidence now would be surprisingly simple: take one genuine participant and trace the entire journey.
Their original deposit transaction. Where it went. How it was aggregated. What portion reached an exchange or decentralised trading venue. What trading occurred. What realised profit came back. Where their withdrawal came from.
Do that repeatedly and the financial model begins to reveal itself.
Until then, we know HypeRocket has an elaborate system for bringing money in and distributing commissions throughout a network.
What remains to be independently demonstrated is how much new money the trading operation actually generates.
MarketPeak, Bitopex And HypeRocket
The history behind HypeRocket matters because Bitopex did not suddenly appear with HypeRocket in 2026.
Bitopex existed before the current Costa Rican company. The Bitopex brand and domain have a public footprint dating back to 2023, while Bitopex Trading LTD was incorporated in Costa Rica in December 2024.
That leaves a question I hadn’t appreciated when I first began this investigation: who legally operated Bitopex before the Costa Rican company existed?
I have not found evidence establishing how earlier customer balances, contracts, trading accounts, intellectual property or liabilities were transferred into the current company. That doesn’t prove anything improper happened, but it is a legitimate piece of the corporate history that remains unclear.
The relationship with Sergej Heck’s MarketPeak is clearer.
HypeRocket corrected me when I initially questioned whether MarketPeak had collapsed and effectively rebooted as Bitopex. The company says that characterisation is wrong, and the evidence I now have supports describing the relationship more precisely.
MarketPeak and Bitopex had a documented commercial and network relationship.
Surviving MarketPeak material says its customers could carry their existing MarketPeak network structure into Bitopex and were offered an exclusive eight-level Bitopex compensation plan. It also connected MarketPeak membership purchases and upgrades with allocations of Bitopex’s BPX token, initially credited within the MarketPeak back office.
That is considerably more substantial than two unrelated companies simply knowing each other.
The historical BPX material provides another tangible piece of the story. Bitopex documentation describes a 40 billion BPX token supply and publishes several allocation wallets. This gives investigators an on-chain economic layer that can be examined rather than relying solely on promotional claims.
It also demonstrates a longer-running pattern in the business model.
MarketPeak membership activity could provide access to BPX and Bitopex network benefits. HypeRocket now uses Performance Packages to determine how deeply participants can access its affiliate structure and how high their maximum advertised return limit can become.
The mechanisms aren’t identical, and I don’t want to pretend they are.
But there is continuity in combining financial participation with network earning opportunities.
Sergej Heck remains relevant to that evolution. HypeRocket says he doesn’t control Bitopex, its trading accounts, wallets or participant funds. It describes him instead as an external Marketing Advisor involved with affiliate-plan recommendations, presentations and leader training.
That distinction is important.
My investigation therefore isn’t based on claiming MarketPeak secretly became Bitopex or that Sergej Heck secretly controls HypeRocket. The evidence doesn’t establish either proposition.
What it does establish is a documented history connecting MarketPeak’s network with Bitopex, followed years later by HypeRocket being deliberately constructed around Bitopex’s claimed trading infrastructure and a much larger network-marketing compensation model.
That history is worth knowing before deciding whether to become part of it.
What The Evidence Still Doesn’t Prove
After digging through HypeRocket’s infrastructure, trading material and corporate history, I am satisfied there is more substance here than a superficial investigation might suggest.
But several critical things remain unverified.
First, I have not seen independent evidence confirming that HypeRocket’s claimed historical trading occurred at the scale being advertised. The existence of algorithms and development environments doesn’t establish the capital actually deployed, orders executed or profits realised.
Second, there is no independent reconciliation showing total realised external trading profits against everything HypeRocket owes or pays participants and affiliates.
That is the most important missing number.
Third, the segregation of participant funds remains unclear. I specifically asked whether participant money is separated from company operating funds and how that segregation works. I have not received evidence allowing me to independently establish that.
There is also a smart-contract question.
HypeRocket’s Terms say investments are made through blockchain smart contracts and acknowledge that deposit addresses may change or be reassigned. Yet our investigation has not identified a canonical public HypeRocket smart-contract address, verified source code or an independent public smart-contract audit.
That doesn’t prove these things don’t exist.
It means we haven’t been able to independently verify them.
There is also no public proof-of-assets and proof-of-liabilities reconciliation that I have seen showing, at a particular point in time, what HypeRocket controls versus what it owes its participants.
This is where I think potential investors need to separate two very different ideas:
“HypeRocket appears to have real technology” is not the same statement as “HypeRocket has demonstrated that its financial model is sustainable.”
The first proposition now has considerable supporting evidence.
The second remains unresolved.
And given the advertised returns, affiliate commissions and potential 400% return limits being created inside the system, I believe that financial evidence matters far more than another impressive-looking dashboard.
The good news is that none of these questions are impossible to answer.
Authenticated historical exchange records, independent verification of realised trading profits, a clear explanation of fund segregation, identification and auditing of the relevant smart contracts, and a point-in-time reconciliation of assets against participant liabilities would dramatically strengthen HypeRocket’s case.
Until that evidence exists, potential investors are being asked to trust a financial proposition that has not yet been independently reconciled from deposit to trading profit to withdrawal.
HypeRocket Was Given A Right Of Reply
Before publishing allegations or raising serious questions about any company, I believe the people involved deserve an opportunity to respond.
I contacted HypeRocket on 15 September 2026 with detailed questions covering its trading claims, participant funds, affiliate compensation, regulatory position, MarketPeak relationship and the source of money being used to pay participants.
HypeRocket engaged with me rather than ignoring the questions.
The company requested additional time, which I granted, and on 18 September Sven Möller provided a substantive response. Several of his corrections have changed how I have presented this investigation.
HypeRocket clarified that Sven founded Bitopex, not Sergej Heck. It rejected the suggestion that MarketPeak collapsed and rebooted as Bitopex. It confirmed there is no contractual partnership or endorsement from Hyperliquid, and explained that Sergej’s involvement is as an external Marketing Advisor rather than somebody controlling trading or participant funds.
HypeRocket also stressed that its advertised daily trading figures are maximums rather than guaranteed returns and acknowledged that actual performance can be lower or zero.
I accepted those corrections where the evidence supported them.
But its answers also produced further questions.
HypeRocket told me participant contributions are divided between affiliate compensation and trading capital and that distributions are funded from trading capital and its performance. I therefore asked for evidence capable of independently establishing that historical trading performance and reconciling it with participant distributions.
I wasn’t asking Sven to hand over proprietary source code.
I suggested authenticated exchange records, historical trade exports, appropriate read-only verification, an independent audit or another credible method that could establish the trading history without compromising HypeRocket’s intellectual property.
I also asked for clarification about fund segregation, the allocation of participant contributions and the regulatory and legal framework relied upon by the company.
HypeRocket asked for further time.
I granted another extension.
On 23 September, Sven told me the follow-up remained on his task list but that he didn’t have sufficient time that week to provide a proper response.
Eventually I had to draw a line. A right of reply needs to be genuine, but an investigation cannot remain unpublished indefinitely because the subject would prefer more time.
So I informed HypeRocket that I would proceed using the evidence available, while leaving the door open.
That door remains open now.
If HypeRocket provides substantive evidence that answers the outstanding financial questions, I will examine it fairly and update this investigation where appropriate.
That is particularly important because my investigation has already uncovered evidence favourable to HypeRocket. I am not interested in forcing the facts towards a predetermined conclusion.
I want the evidence to tell us what HypeRocket really is.
And right now, the most important part of that evidence is still missing.
Before You Invest
HypeRocket: Follow The Money
After everything my Avengers and I have uncovered, I am not telling you that HypeRocket has been proven to be a Ponzi scheme. The evidence does not justify me making that statement.
What I am saying is that the most important financial question remains unanswered.
HypeRocket appears to have real people behind it, substantial technical infrastructure and genuine quantitative development. I have found considerably more substance than I expected when this investigation began, and I’ve deliberately included that evidence because people considering HypeRocket deserve the complete picture.
But technology isn’t the same thing as financial sustainability.
Before I invested a dollar, I would want to know how much of every participant deposit actually reaches external trading accounts, how much is allocated to commissions and operating costs, how much realised trading profit has genuinely been produced, and whether those profits can be independently reconciled against everything being paid or owed to participants.
I would also want to know whether participant funds are segregated, who ultimately controls those funds, which smart contracts and trading accounts are being used and what protections exist if the trading strategies suffer significant losses.
These aren’t unreasonable demands to make of a company asking people to deposit cryptocurrency while advertising daily trading returns, affiliate commissions and potential return limits reaching 400%.
And importantly, HypeRocket has the ability to answer them.
It doesn’t need to reveal proprietary algorithms or publish its trading secrets. Independent verification of historical exchange activity, realised profit and loss, assets, liabilities and the movement of participant funds could provide meaningful evidence without exposing its intellectual property.
That’s why my position on HypeRocket remains quite simple.
Don’t confuse evidence that something is being built with evidence that the economics behind it have been proven.
If you’re considering investing, don’t make that decision because somebody showed you a profitable trading account, an impressive algorithm, a growing network or a withdrawal screenshot.
Follow your money.
Find out where it goes, what generates the return and where the money paying you ultimately comes from.
Until HypeRocket can independently demonstrate that complete financial journey, I would not invest based on its marketing claims alone.
Disclaimer: How This Investigation Was Conducted
This investigation relies entirely on OSINT — Open Source Intelligence — meaning every claim made here is based on publicly available records, archived web pages, corporate filings, domain data, social media activity, and open blockchain transactions. No private data, hacking, or unlawful access methods were used. OSINT is a powerful and ethical tool for exposing scams without violating privacy laws or overstepping legal boundaries.
About the Author
I’m DANNY DE HEK, a New Zealand–based YouTuber, investigative journalist, and OSINT researcher. I name and shame individuals promoting or marketing fraudulent schemes through my YOUTUBE CHANNEL. Every video I produce exposes the people behind scams, Ponzi schemes, and MLM frauds — holding them accountable in public.
My PODCAST is an extension of that work. It’s distributed across 18 major platforms — including Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, YouTube, and iHeartRadio — so when scammers try to hide, my content follows them everywhere. If you prefer listening to my investigations instead of watching, you’ll find them on every major podcast service.
You can BOOK ME for private consultations or SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS, where I share first-hand experience from years of exposing large-scale fraud and helping victims recover.
“Stop losing your future to financial parasites. Subscribe. Expose. Protect.”
My work exposing crypto fraud has been featured in:
Coffeezilla 2026): Featured in the investigation exposing the alleged $328M Goliath Ventures Ponzi scheme
Bloomberg Documentary (2025): A 20-minute exposé on Ponzi schemes and crypto card fraud
News.com.au (2025): Profiled as one of the leading scam-busters in Australasia
OpIndia (2025): Cited for uncovering Pakistani software houses linked to drug trafficking, visa scams, and global financial fraud
The Press / Stuff.co.nz (2023): Successfully defeated $3.85M gag lawsuit; court ruled it was a vexatious attempt to silence whistleblowing
The Guardian Australia (2023): National warning on crypto MLMs affecting Aussie families
ABC News Australia (2023): Investigation into Blockchain Global and its collapse
The New York Times (2022): A full two-page feature on dismantling HyperVerse and its global network
Radio New Zealand (2022): “The Kiwi YouTuber Taking Down Crypto Scammers From His Christchurch Home”
Otago Daily Times (2022): A profile on my investigative work and the impact of crypto fraud in New Zealand