Is it to continue the "one-click issuance" and engage in internal competition, or to truly address user pain points and establish differentiation?

Written by: Haotian

Here are several insights regarding the future evolution of perp dex:

1) The "digital game" of swapping trading volume for airdrop expectations is not sustainable.

If a large number of users are inflating trading volume (wash trading) for airdrop expectations rather than genuinely using the product, if professional arbitrageurs are low-cost stripping away most of the incentive budget, and if project parties tacitly allow or even encourage these behaviors for better data presentation.

Over time, the entire points system will turn into an expectation game with no real value creation linked to it, and there will always be a day when the bubble bursts;

2) The low fee war between platforms has users' "hidden buy orders."

The internal competition between platforms will compress the "revenue model" to the extreme, but what is the value capture balance point for maintaining zero fees? If what seems like "zero fees" actually incurs losses in areas like liquidation penalties and funding rates that users cannot see or do not care about, this approach will ultimately be unsustainable.

Either sell PFOF to market makers like Robinhood, or become a broker providing value-added services; these all require long-term iterative product capabilities to succeed;

3) The prosperity of perp dex dominated by CLOB is merely an in-house carnival.

Perp dex is not a new species, but this wave of trillion-level false prosperity is more about the volume generated by Crypto Native assets like BTC and ETH. In the future, as TrdfFi assets shift on-chain, such as stocks, foreign exchange, and commodities that have real demand, the CLOB's full-chain order book model may not be effective, and instead, Oracle or RFQ models may be more efficient.

The question arises: should we proactively embrace traditional incremental assets, or spend $100,000 to purchase CLOB Dex code to engage in an incentive war? It will be clear who is truly creating value.

4) High valuations supported by a black-box execution layer cannot be effectively verified.

Although some perp dex claim their differentiation, the massive trading data and hidden black-box technology cannot truly justify high valuations. If users do not know how orders are processed, where liquidity comes from, or how prices are formed, and if the so-called "optimal execution" is actually profiting from user MEV and relies on information asymmetry, this is not a true technological moat.

Using zk proof to validate logic is correct, but whether real-time order tracking, order data metrics, and technical means can withstand market scrutiny is key;

5) Perp dex as a Service will dilute the overall value of the entire track.

If everyone is doing CLOB, supporting similar trading pairs, using maker/taker fees, and having a points system, if the only differences are a better UI, higher airdrop expectations, and more aggressive KOL shilling, over time, the overall value of the Perp DEX track will be severely diluted.

Is it to continue the "one-click issuance" and engage in internal competition, or to truly address user pain points and establish differentiation? The former will only lead the entire track into a death spiral, while the latter may allow for the emergence of truly valuable projects.

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。