While CEXs Are Still Competing on Experience, Hyperliquid Is Already Trading Precious Metals and Forex

marsbitPublished on 2026-01-28Last updated on 2026-01-28

Abstract

While centralized exchanges (CEXs) are still competing on user experience, Hyperliquid has expanded into trading precious metals and foreign exchange. The platform is shifting its narrative from being a user-friendly decentralized exchange (DEX) to becoming a crypto-native, on-chain Nasdaq through its HIP-3 protocol, offering synthetic assets like oil, forex, and metals. This move reflects a broader industry trend where on-chain liquidity is beginning to integrate with real-world assets, offering tighter spreads, faster execution, and 24/7 availability. Hyperliquid is also introducing new market rules such as full transparency, permissionless listings, and fee redistribution, using code-based trust to challenge the opaque advantages of CEXs and traditional finance.

Author: Haotian

While mainstream assets are collectively stagnant, $HYPE has managed to chart an independent strong bullish candle, which is indeed thought-provoking. Many are asking why the Perp DEX sector has been quiet lately, but the performance of @HyperliquidX actually provides the answer:

1) The narrative ceiling has changed. The old story of Perp DEXs approaching CEX-level experience is no longer compelling. It seems Hyperliquid is breaking away from the internal competition of being a "user-friendly DEX" and is breaking through to a full range of synthetic assets via the HIP-3 protocol.

It's shifting from the positioning of a DEX good enough to take down CEXs to a narrative of becoming the most crypto-native Nasdaq on-chain. Moving from pure crypto speculation to seamless trading of crude oil, forex, and precious metals—this directly elevates the vision;

2) The "backflow" of on-chain liquidity into real-world assets. Just look at how exchanges like Bitget, OKX, and Bybit are all building platforms and pushing the narrative of "asset tokenization"—it's clear that the growth ceiling for pure crypto assets has been reached.

Don't doubt it: when you find that the spread for trading silver on-chain is narrower than on CEXs, the response is faster than brokers, and it operates 24/7 without closing, it is no longer just a DEX but transforms into an all-weather global asset routing hub. This is an inevitable result of on-chain liquidity starting to backflow into the real world. Whoever hoists this banner first will be the winner;

3) A dimensional shift in rules. In the past, Perp DEXs were humbly imitating and trying to接近 CEX experience, but Hyperliquid has clearly elevated the game. The new rule logic is: absolute on-chain transparency, permissionless listing, fee rebate mechanisms, and other emerging market rules.

Ultimately, it uses code trust to dismantle the black-box advantages of CEXs and TradFi. Interestingly, decentralization isn’t even mentioned.

A major Bitcoin market player, inactive for four years, transferred Bitcoin worth about 46 million dollars! Here are the details

A large Bitcoin investor, inactive for four years, has moved 730 BTC worth approximately $46.12 million. The assets, accumulated over seven years, were transferred to a newly created wallet from an address with no prior transaction history. Analysts suggest the move could be linked to recently discovered security vulnerabilities in hardware wallets, potentially prompting long-term holders to migrate funds for safety. There is no evidence the bitcoins were sent to an exchange, leaving the intent—whether for security or potential sale—unclear. This follows another recent large transfer of over 16,400 BTC (worth >$1 billion) by a separate long-term holder. Such activity signals renewed movement of funds among major investors, though transfers between wallets do not necessarily indicate imminent selling and can be for security or portfolio management purposes.

cryptonews.ru7m ago

A major Bitcoin market player, inactive for four years, transferred Bitcoin worth about 46 million dollars! Here are the details

cryptonews.ru7m ago

Bitcoin may find bear market bottom in August: 10x Research

Research firm 10x Research suggests Bitcoin could confirm a bear-market bottom in August if it achieves a monthly close above $63,000, which would turn several of their technical indicators bullish. While their analysis was prepared with Bitcoin trading at $63,140, a slight gain from July's close could trigger this signal. The report cites steady Federal Reserve rates as a base case but notes risks from potential rate hikes and geopolitical conflict. Additional selling pressure is expected from miners and treasury companies. Grayscale's research head separately suggested Bitcoin may have bottomed earlier than the traditional four-year cycle, with macro conditions being the primary price driver. Other indicators, like over half of Bitcoin's supply being held at a loss and a record balance held by long-term investors, are also seen as signs a market bottom is approaching.

cointelegraph22m ago

Bitcoin may find bear market bottom in August: 10x Research

cointelegraph22m ago

In-depth: The Foreign Guest Genspark

The article "The Foreign Guest: Genspark" investigates the identity and business practices of AI startup Genspark, which presents itself as a Palo Alto-based "AI Costco" offering a subscription bundle of over 70 models and numerous AI agent tools. Despite its official Silicon Valley narrative, Genspark's founding team has deep roots in Chinese tech giant Baidu, a history systematically downplayed in its branding. The company actively cultivates an image as an elite US firm, heavily publicizing partnerships and endorsements from OpenAI, Anthropic, and Microsoft, while distancing itself from the Chinese AI community and obscuring its connections to Chinese investors and open-weight models (like those from DeepSeek, Moonshot AI, and MiniMax) that power its services. Genspark's core strategy involves rapidly cloning and integrating successful AI product concepts (e.g., from Perplexity, Manus, Plaud) into its unified platform, supported by aggressive marketing, including Super Bowl ads and paid native content in publications like The Wall Street Journal. Critically, the article suggests a significant portion of its engineering and product development is conducted by a team in Beijing, operating outside its official US corporate structure. This duality allows Genspark to leverage Chinese talent and models for efficiency and cost reduction while constructing a public facade as a purely American success story. The piece concludes that Genspark's most effective agent is its own corporate identity, meticulously engineered to obscure its Chinese underpinnings and be perceived solely as a Silicon Valley company.

marsbit40m ago

marsbit40m ago

Should Bitcoin Be "Immutable"? Craig Wright Reignites Governance Route Dispute

The debate over Bitcoin's governance is reignited by Craig Wright, who argues the protocol should remain permanently fixed and immutable. He views Bitcoin's core value as its transparent, unchangeable monetary rules, contrasting it with traditional finance. This stance sparks discussion on whether Bitcoin should evolve to address security threats, user demands, and efficiency, or if its determinism is its primary strength. The article notes that Bitcoin has undergone significant upgrades like SegWit and Taproot, achieved through community consensus rather than top-down decisions. However, tension persists between the need for stability—which fosters trust—and the need for adaptation to remain competitive. A key concern is the influence of core developers versus the decentralized ideal. Ultimately, the debate centers on finding a governance model that balances immutable core principles with the ability to innovate. This challenge is fundamental to Bitcoin's future as a decentralized global system.

marsbit42m ago

Should Bitcoin Be "Immutable"? Craig Wright Reignites Governance Route Dispute

marsbit42m ago

Debate: Korean Workers Fear Unemployment, While Musk Envisions a Society 'Without Work'?

While South Korean auto workers fear job losses from robotics, Elon Musk envisions a future where AI and robots render most work optional. This article explores the growing tension between immediate anxieties over automation and long-term visions of a post-work society. The piece begins with recent strikes at Hyundai's Korean plants, where unions, amid standard wage negotiations, also sought job guarantees against advancing robotics—specifically mentioning Boston Dynamics' Atlas. This reflects how anxiety about technological displacement is emerging even before robots are fully capable of replacing skilled labor on assembly lines. The author argues that while current robotics still struggle with the nuanced, experiential knowledge of veteran workers, the *perception* of imminent replacement is fueling social conflict prematurely. This modern "Luddite" sentiment is compared to the 19th-century English textile workers who smashed machines. Historically, Luddites weren't simply anti-technology; they were protesting the rapid devaluation of their skills and the unequal distribution of productivity gains. Similarly, today's workers ask who will bear the cost of transition and share in the new wealth created by machines. In contrast, figures like Elon Musk propose an optimistic endpoint: with AI and robotics driving extreme abundance, the link between work and survival could break. He suggests concepts like "Universal High Income" could allow society to share the technological bounty, transforming work from a necessity into a choice. The core challenge, however, lies in the transition. The author notes that technology's benefits diffuse slowly, while its disruptive costs—job losses, skill obsolescence—can be concentrated and immediate. The risk is a painful interim period where productivity gains are captured by a few before new social contracts, safety nets, and retraining systems are established. The conclusion calls for proactive governance. Just as past industrial revolutions gave rise to labor standards and social safety nets, the robotics era needs its own frameworks. These should address job transition support, distribution of productivity gains, safety liability, and ethical deployment. Embracing such "constraints" is not opposition to progress but a necessary step to ensure technology benefits society broadly. The discussion sparked by Hyundai's workers, therefore, is not premature but essential.

marsbit53m ago

Debate: Korean Workers Fear Unemployment, While Musk Envisions a Society 'Without Work'?

marsbit53m ago

Trading

Spot