HYPE's FDV has reached about 91 billion US dollars, which is 10 times that of UNI. Is it really worth that much? According to statistics, HYPE has earned approximately 14.39 million US dollars in the past 7 days, while UNI has earned approximately 3.07 million US dollars HYPE's income is 4.7 times that of UNI, while FDV is 10.6 times that of UNI That is to say, the market values HYPE significantly more expensive There are various opinions in the community, some believe that this is because HYPE's revenue, repurchase, and transaction scale have been verified; Some people also believe that Hyperliquid, with an order book as its core, will have its own boundaries in the future. On the contrary, Uniswap may benefit from tokenized stocks, RWAs, and more financial assets being put on the chain, just beginning to show its imagination But this judgment overlooks a key issue: Does it really mean that more financial assets will eventually be discovered through AMM when they are put on the chain? To understand this issue, it is necessary to first clarify the three most common modes of on chain transactions: order book, AMM, and RFQ Order book, which is the main mode adopted by Hyperliquid You can understand it as an open trading hall, where buyers display the price and quantity they are willing to purchase on the market, and sellers display their own quotes. The buyer and seller constantly compete, ultimately forming a market price This model is suitable for assets with active trading and sufficient liquidity. It can provide professional functions such as limit orders, stop loss orders, and partial trades. The price is publicly available and the depth is also clear at a glance. It is currently the most common price discovery method in mainstream financial markets But the order book also has a clear limitation: it requires market makers to continuously place orders. If a new asset lacks professional market makers and there are not enough buyers and sellers, the market position will be very thin and the transaction will be difficult to complete This is exactly the problem that AMM is solving AMM can be understood as an automatic quotation machine. The liquidity provider first puts two types of assets into the pool, and then the smart contract automatically quotes according to the formula. Even without real-time market makers placing orders, as long as there are funds in the pool, users can complete transactions Therefore, AMM is particularly suitable for cold start of new coins, small currencies, and long tail assets. A new asset does not need to convince professional market makers first, it only needs to establish a liquidity pool to immediately obtain a tradable price This is also one of the most important values of Uniswap: it gives almost all on chain assets the opportunity to be traded But AMM also comes at a cost Firstly, there is a slippage point. The larger the trading scale, the easier it is for users to push the prices in the pool away from the market price. In pools with low liquidity, a large order may even cause significant price fluctuations; Secondly, there is impermanent loss. If there is a change in the price outside the pool, arbitrageurs will enter the pool to rebalance their assets. For liquidity providers, the final asset portfolio they hold may be worse than simply holding coins. Going deeper, AMM itself usually does not actively discover fair prices, it is more like moving prices from external markets If the prices of Binance, Hyperliquid, or other markets change first, arbitrageurs will trade between these markets and Uniswap until the prices in the liquidity pool approach the external market again In this process, liquidity providers actually bear the cost of arbitrage by traders with faster information, commonly known as LVR Public memory pools can also bring MEV issues, as transactions are exposed before they are officially executed. Other participants can see the path, sliding point limit, and transaction size, and then obtain profits through running, clip attacks, or batch auctions Uniswap V3 improves capital efficiency through centralized liquidity, allowing LPs to place funds near current prices rather than evenly spread across the entire price range But this also places more management responsibility on LPs. Once the price leaves the set range, the funds will become one-sided holdings, no longer incurring transaction fees, and unpredictable losses may also be amplified The third mode is RFQ, which refers to inquiry based transactions It's more like you're holding an order, asking several market makers for quotes at the same time, and then choosing the best quote to close the deal. The advantage of RFQ is that the sliding point for large transactions is relatively low, and the order intention will not be fully exposed to the public market in advance, but it also has limitations The quotation and price discovery are not fully disclosed, and the buyer also discloses the trading scale and direction to the market maker before the transaction. When encountering sharp rises and falls, market makers may expand spreads or even refuse quotes due to their inability to hedge in a timely manner. For new currencies and long tail assets without mature hedging markets, professional market makers are usually unwilling to participate So, AMM、 Order book and RFQ are not simply substitutes. Order book is more suitable for price discovery and pricing benchmarks, RFQ is more suitable for handling institutions and large orders, and AMM is good at providing cold start liquidity for new assets and long tail assets This also explains why saying 'HYPE has its own limitations, while UNI has just shown its imagination' is not entirely accurate Hyperliquid's order book model has significant advantages in price discovery, professional trading, and large-scale liquidity The imagination of Uniswap comes from another route: as more and more stocks, RWAs, and other financial assets enter the chain, they all require issuance, exchange, and liquidity infrastructure Among them, mature assets may use order books or RFQs to complete major transactions, while new assets and long tail assets may first establish their initial market through AMM HyperEVM can also accommodate these modes simultaneously. Mature and active assets can be entered into the order book; Large transactions can use RFQ; Assets that have just been launched and currently do not have market makers can be activated from AMM Therefore, the real opportunity for UNI is not to replace Hyperliquid. But rather, after more financial assets are put on the chain, it will continue to be the easiest underlying protocol for creating markets, allocating liquidity, and completing asset exchanges This is also why the gap in FDV cannot be explained solely by current income. The high valuation of HYPE is based on the validated transaction size, order book liquidity, and revenue repurchase loop; The low valuation of UNI reflects that it has not fully transmitted protocol activities to the token value for a long time in the past If UNI's repurchase mechanism can continue and tokenized stocks and RWAs bring new trading demands, the market may reassess its revenue and strategic position The future on chain finance may not necessarily belong to a certain trading model The more likely structure is that the order book is responsible for discovering prices, RFQ is responsible for executing large transactions, and AMM is responsible for initiating new markets and undertaking long tail liquidity It seems that the story on the chain has just begun UNI Uniswap HYPE Hyperliquid DeFi