Author: Eric, Foresight News

Throughout 2025, Hyperliquid has been an unavoidable topic. This perpetual contract platform, which was launched by founder Jeff at his own expense without VC investment, has successfully established perp DEX as an independent track. At its peak, its daily trading volume exceeded 10% of Binance's contract trading volume and accounted for over 70% of the total trading volume of perp DEX.

Regarding the question of "What exactly is good about Hyperliquid?", opinions vary widely. Good liquidity, many large traders, and an experience close to CEX are all reasons mentioned in various interpretations. However, upon closer examination, these so-called "reasons" are actually "results." Hyperliquid did not make a splash in the market from the very beginning; it gradually became well-known after more than a year of operation.

In light of this, I interviewed several users of Hyperliquid and other perp DEXs to uncover the real reasons why perp DEXs are genuinely threatening CEXs for the first time. The following content is organized and expressed from the first-person perspective of the interviewees:

Respondent A (Web3 practitioner, researcher): Hyperliquid can't really be considered a DEX

I started using on-chain contract products back when dYdX and Perpetual Protocol were around. Looking back, early contract products were very concerned about decentralization, so they tried to execute as much of their mechanisms on-chain as possible. However, this geek spirit came at the cost of product experience; the infrastructure was not yet mature, and a high proportion of on-chain execution led to many problems.

These problems, such as transaction failures, being stuck, and high gas fees, did not significantly impact spot trading or staking, etc., as the applications were just beginning to flourish, and people's tolerance was still quite high. But for perp trading, this became somewhat unacceptable; when the chain is congested, it’s frustrating when margin cannot be added, and positions cannot be closed or stop losses executed.

dYdX was popular for a while at the end of 2021, sparking many discussions about DEXs replacing CEXs, largely because it improved transaction speed through L2. Unfortunately, I think dYdX came out too early; if it had waited a bit longer, the outcome might have been different.

The later attention on GMX was due to its innovative mechanism. I personally believe GMX has achieved the ultimate in pure on-chain logic, with the idea of having the protocol's own vault as the counterparty for users currently seeming like the optimal solution. However, the core issue is that GMX cannot accommodate large traders; a single profitable trade by a large trader could lead to significant losses for the vault. Nevertheless, GMX is a noteworthy attempt that deserves historical recognition.

The founder of Hyperliquid has run a trading company, and I think his greatest strength lies in understanding the essence of user expectations: it’s not decentralization, but transparency. Hyperliquid's chain is not decentralized at all, but all transactions are traceable. This transparency is actually the core of users' expectations for "decentralization." Hyperliquid is essentially a CEX; the difference is that Binance and OK settle in the cloud, while Hyperliquid settles on-chain, with no essential difference.

Hyperliquid's advantage is its productization capability; it does not get bogged down by decentralization issues, focusing entirely on the user experience of the product. For someone like me, who leans towards Web3 products, if the user experience is not significantly different, I still prefer DEXs over CEXs, at least my money is under my control, and all transactions can be verified on-chain, which is more reassuring.

Respondent B (Hyperliquid superfan): CEXs can't make money, why not choose DEX?

I have no beliefs; my only purpose in Web3 is to make money, whatever makes money, I play.

If you, like me, are obsessed with trading coins every day, you’ll know that starting in 2024, trading coins has become incredibly difficult. I used to play on CEXs, both spot and contracts, and overall I was still making money, but starting in 2024, CEXs became unplayable; everything was a one-way flow, and shorting altcoins sometimes led to sudden surges. I can clearly feel that in the last round, everyone was making money together, but this round, exchanges started to "act in bad faith," beginning to harvest without limits, making it unplayable.

I got involved with Hyperliquid after the token launch; I felt bad about missing out on one of the largest airdrops in history, so I FOMO'd into buying HYPE. After calming down, I actually regretted it; generally, generous airdrops lead to long periods of dumping, but then Hyperliquid held some kind of token auction, and some projects that couldn't afford to go on CEXs felt that Hyperliquid had a good community atmosphere, so they tried launching on Hyper.

Many projects found that the results were quite good after launching, gradually gaining more fame, and more people began buying HYPE to bid for token listings, causing HYPE to keep rising. Many projects that listed on HYPE but not on CEXs also performed well. You know, I was chatting in the community and found that many people who had never traded contracts before started "falling in love" with trading contracts because they made a lot of money on HYPE, and many of the projects they initially invested in also made them a good profit.

I had experience trading contracts before, but this wave of Hyperliquid really relied on the wealth effect to get many people who originally didn't trade contracts to start "loving" contract trading; there are indeed a group of "die-hard fans."

I don't know if HYPE was really driven by the market or if the team pushed it up themselves, but I genuinely made a good amount of money. If you ask me why I play Hyperliquid, the biggest reason I can think of is the wealth effect. It feels like this round, CEXs made a significant strategic misjudgment; I don't know if it was for trading volume data or what, but either they should list VC tokens and create one or two skyrocketing targets, or they should lower their stance and list meme tokens early. Now they are stuck in a high-low situation, unwilling to spend money to pump, giving away market share for free.

To be honest, I don't think the user base of perp DEXs can compare to CEXs, but if CEXs didn't act foolishly, there might not even be the term perp DEX.

Respondent C (Airdrop specialist): Only projects with cash flow and income are worth pursuing

The first perp DEX I used was dYdX, and back then, the airdrops were quite generous, but when airdrops became something that project teams had to deliver, it became increasingly difficult.

In the past two to three years, many times, getting a good result from airdrops has become difficult because the concept of "airdrop" itself has changed; the volume of airdrops has become small, and the rules are sometimes quite strange. Many cash-strapped projects pretend to be generous with airdrops, but many have funneled money back into their own pockets through insider trading. If you specialize in chasing airdrops, you will find that in the past two years, many new addresses suddenly appeared a few days or weeks before snapshots, interacting wildly according to rules that were only disclosed afterward; this is clearly insider trading.

I missed the Hyperliquid airdrop, but I believe there are two reasons why Hyperliquid was generous with its airdrops: first, the founder is wealthy and has a broader vision, knowing that making a bigger pie means sharing the profits; second, Hyperliquid itself can generate actual income, so it doesn't need to rely on selling tokens to survive, making the airdrops naturally generous.

Perp DEXs and prediction markets have real fee income; even without issuing tokens, they can thrive, so there’s no need to ruin their reputation by being stingy with airdrops. After understanding this issue, I now consider whether a project has sustainable income when selecting projects.

When we chase airdrops, we need to minimize losses as much as possible, so the trading volume we generate is not really about making contracts; it’s actually about opening long positions on one perp DEX and short positions on another to hedge, incurring only a bit of fees and spreads. Many times, we are placing limit orders, which for real traders means providing liquidity. So now, if you look at the trading volume, Hyperliquid may not always be first.

From what I understand, Hyperliquid has actually attracted many foreign users; there are not many domestic users, which may also be why it did not initially attract the attention of Chinese users. (Note: Another respondent familiar with foreign communities mentioned that exchanges in Europe and the US are partially subject to regulatory restrictions on contract products, so European and American users tend to prefer on-chain products when choosing contract products. However, previous perp DEXs did not provide a good experience, and Hyperliquid is the first widely recognized product, thus attracting a large number of European and American users, especially large traders who are somewhat obsessed with "on-chain." Hyperliquid's Discord has over ten thousand users, with only a little over 600 being Chinese users.)

Lastly, Hyperliquid has a high customer acquisition return. For many trading influencers, if there is a product with an experience not much different from CEXs, higher customer acquisition commissions, and because it is an on-chain product that cannot blatantly eat customer losses, the acceptance among their followers is very high.

Respondent D (Senior executive of a project): This round, you can't avoid trading contracts

I started getting involved in blockchain in 2016, but I didn't trade contracts until before 2024. For a long time, the consensus was "spot is safe," so I mostly traded spot. But since meme tokens became popular, many things have changed.

Meme tokens have completely altered the logic of many from the last round, and all liquidity has shifted to them. Aside from Bitcoin, liquidity for Ethereum and others has almost dried up, so starting from the end of 2024, "spot has also become risky."

I also participated in trading meme tokens, and after they became popular, I naturally thought about investing in SOL. Since meme trading was done on on-chain platforms, I looked for an on-chain platform (which is Hyperliquid) to go long on SOL with 5x leverage; as long as the meme continues to be hot, the rise of SOL is almost inevitable.

It was my first time using leverage for trading, but I later realized that using leverage in this round is almost unavoidable. A few years ago, the overall leverage ratio in the industry might have been 0.5 or 0.8 times; if you traded spot (which is 1x), it was actually leveraged compared to the industry average. But this round, on one hand, the high volatility of memes, combined with insufficient liquidity for other tokens, has led many people to cycle loans and increase leverage; the overall leverage ratio in the industry may have reached 2 or 3 times, making it difficult to outperform by just trading spot, so leveraging is necessary.

I consider myself to have a relatively large amount of capital. Lighter approached me early on, hoping I would try it out. However, I'm not a gambler; I trade contracts based on deterministic events. I distinctly remember a time when many tokens would rise after being listed on Hyperliquid, only to start falling once major CEXs announced they would list them. My strategy was simple: go long on Hyperliquid after a token was listed, and then short it once it was on a CEX.

Another point is that Hyperliquid has an independent community culture, which leads many in the Hyperliquid community to mindlessly oppose CEXs. These individuals are fixated on shorting tokens that are listed on CEXs. So, you’ll notice something interesting: the funding rates for many tokens on CEXs and Hyperliquid are at two extremes, which is essentially free money. I believe a significant portion of the positions on Hyperliquid is actually used for arbitrage.

The four respondents above are quite representative, and the views of other respondents are largely included. In summary, the rise of perp DEXs represented by Hyperliquid in this cycle can be attributed to both internal and external factors.

The internal factors refer to what Hyperliquid has done right. Hyperliquid's founder, Jeff, established a market-making and high-frequency trading company, Chameleon Trading, in early 2020, accumulating rich experience in trading and market-making, as well as considerable wealth. This has allowed Hyperliquid's development to remain unaffected by VCs, cycles, or market pressures. Additionally, the team has struck a balance between user demands for "experience" and "transparency" in product design, giving Hyperliquid a perfect start.

Subsequently, Hyperliquid targeted foreign users, providing new options for investors restricted from using contract products and large traders who are fond of on-chain products. Later community operations, airdrops, and the token auction mechanism all smoothly connected, with generous airdrops and continuous token price increases bringing in loyal fans and an independent "HYPE culture," attracting attention from investors like James, who lost over a hundred million. As user numbers and trading volumes increased, more market makers joined, gradually pushing the platform to the top of the perp DEX rankings. On January 27, Jeff tweeted that the liquidity of Bitcoin contracts on Hyperliquid had surpassed that of Binance.

With favorable conditions and the right people, Hyperliquid's success also relies on timing. Many respondents mentioned the same point: "Trading on CEXs is no longer profitable in this cycle." The comparison to "Hyperliquid is doing well" actually highlights how poorly CEXs have performed, whether in token selection or creating wealth effects; CEXs have indeed not done as well as some on-chain products in this round.

After multiple instances of "insider trading" and "peak upon listing," users gradually lost confidence. Many exchanges attribute this to industry and cyclical factors, but Hyperliquid's emergence has slapped everyone in the face, akin to the perfect concern after a breakup, easily causing confused users to switch sides. In fact, users know it's not entirely CEXs' fault; perhaps CEXs have tried their best, but the results fall far short of user expectations.

The conclusion is clear: choosing perp DEXs is not a matter of preference but a necessity. The current prosperity of on-chain trading can be said to be the result of exchanges handing users over; many who originally only traded spot were forced to choose memes and contracts due to lack of profit, and they leaned towards on-chain products because of their flexibility and transparency.

From this perspective, the decision of certain exchanges to support new perp DEXs in hopes of competing with Hyperliquid is akin to telling the market: we no longer know how to improve CEXs.

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。