To be honest, I don't think we can determine the sustainability of the Perp DEX narrative solely based on indicators like the successful model of HyperliquidX, the wealth effect driven by Aster, and the farming craze of Lighter. The reasons are as follows:

1) The success of Hyperliquid has a certain degree of randomness; as I analyzed in my previous articles on Perp, Hyperliquid's rise is essentially a "variant" born out of the ongoing tug-of-war between DEX and CEX. It does not represent a victory for DEX, nor does it signify the failure of CEX; it is a compromise innovation.

This success model is difficult to replicate. Especially the "first-mover advantage + network effect" moat cannot be solved by simply copying the product model. HL took 2 years to go from 0 to 70% market share; who still has that window of opportunity now?

2) Aster's extremely short-term wealth effect seemingly relies only on the invincible cz's calls and the community's expectations of being Binance's favored child, but the essence behind this is the resource tilt of the exchange and the operations of the market makers behind it.

There are many strategic considerations from exchanges and interpretations of liquidity driven by phenomenal products; many KOLs in the market can analyze this more enticingly, so I won't elaborate further.

There is one core question: if there is no product performance that has been fully validated by the market, what can support the dozens of times increase in a short period? Long-term data indicators like OI positions, TVL stability, and revenue data can withstand scrutiny, and most importantly, the growth flywheel of "transaction fees + buybacks" is the beginning of supporting all of this.

Applying this to $ASTER, there are VCs, KOLs with subsequent selling pressure, potential selling pressure from BNB holders after Binance spot trading, and the demand for dark pool trading has not been validated by the market. Whether transaction fees will continue to be bought back is uncertain. In this case, defining it as the next Hyperliquid might be too hasty.

3) Other emerging Perp DEXs do have expectations of technical innovation, although they have not been effectively validated. However, from a data perspective, they are clearly exaggerated by the market's farming expectations at this stage. For example, Lighter relies on zero transaction fees to continuously attract TVL and refresh trading volume data, with many people shilling that it has surpassed Hyperliquid.

This actually exposes the problem: how long can trading volume sustained by subsidies and various farming airdrop expectations last? What will happen if the airdrops do not meet expectations? If the technical narrative cannot withstand scrutiny, what should be done? What truly determines its market position must be the continuous "trading fees + buybacks," and it must be able to maintain a long-term balance and win-win situation among market makers, traders, and ordinary traders.

All of this requires a long time, or rather, a complete market cycle for testing; at least, we cannot make premature qualitative judgments now.

4) What worries me the most is that everyone only sees the threat Hyperliquid poses to @binance, but overlooks its collateral impact on other Perp DEXs on L1 and L2.

Hyperliquid's new "trading chain" positioning validates the necessity of specialized optimizations at the chain level for trading experience, but what about other general-purpose chains that rely on trading applications? After all, attention and liquidity are both limited, and the rise of a batch of new trading chains will inevitably have a direct impact on the ecosystems of other public chains.

Let’s not forget that the prosperity of the DeFi market relies on the full activation of market "innovation" and "liquidity" through modularity and composability. If Hyperliquid's single trading chain model can seize market share from CEX, that would be a monumental achievement. However, if the replicas merely shuffle market share away from other L1 and L2 Perp DEXs, and a large portion of the emerging Perp DEXs still have the shadow of CEX exchanges behind them, then does the arrival of this market prosperity align with everyone's original intention of a "decentralized revolution"?

Of course, you might say that forcing exchanges to evolve is also progress, and I do not deny that. HL's innovative evolution is not wrong, and the disputes driven by exchanges over Perp DEXs (new forces of CEX) are also not wrong. I also look forward to the revival of more genuine on-chain Perp DEX markets; after all, everyone wants a piece of the pie. OK, I hope you understand all of this and be a smart retail investor.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。