Don't Just Focus on Trading Volume, Learn to Understand the 'True and False Prosperity' of Perpetual Contracts

marsbitPublicado a 2026-02-23Actualizado a 2026-02-23

Resumen

Title: Look Beyond Trading Volume: Understanding the Real Growth of Perpetual Contracts Perpetual contracts (perps) have become a dominant force in crypto trading, with their volume now accounting for about 75% of decentralized exchange activity, up from 44% in February 2025. This surge occurred even as the total crypto market cap fell nearly 40% between August 2025 and February 2026, indicating a shift towards derivatives for speculation and hedging during volatility. However, volume alone can be misleading. It may reflect high-frequency, incentive-driven activity rather than meaningful capital deployment. A more nuanced view comes from combining volume with Open Interest (OI)—the total value of outstanding contracts. While cumulative perps volume doubled in the past six months to $14 trillion (exceeding the previous four years' total), OI grew by about 50%, from $13B to ~$18B before settling at $13B. The OI/Volume ratio, a measure of capital efficiency, rose from 0.33x to 0.49x over the past year. This growth wasn’t linear: it peaked at ~0.72x from June to mid-October 2025, then dropped to ~0.38x after a major liquidation event in October wiped out $19B in leveraged positions. At the platform level, Hyperliquid leads in capital efficiency with an OI/7-day volume ratio over 45% and a take rate of 3.2 bps, effectively converting trading activity into sustained positions and fee revenue. Aster follows with a 34% ratio but a lower take rate of 1.6 bps, prioritizing capital ...

Original Title: Reading Perps Beyond Volume

Original Author: Prathik Desai, Token Dispatch

Original Compilation: Bitpush News

Just when you think finance is getting dull, it always has a way of surprising you. Lately, it seems like everyone is restructuring the financial system in ways few could have foreseen, even those from the entertainment and media industries.

Take Jimmy Donaldson (aka "MrBeast" on YouTube) as an example. Not only does he have a snack empire, but he recently also acquired a banking app aimed at promoting financial literacy and money management among teenagers and young adults. Why? Perhaps nothing is more straightforward than monetizing a subscriber base of 466 million users with financial products.

This summer, the world's largest derivatives exchange, the CME Group, will launch single-stock futures, allowing users to trade futures on over 50 top U.S. stocks, including Alphabet, NVIDIA, Tesla, and Meta.

These restructurings show us how the ways people engage with finance are changing. And nothing illustrates this better than the explosion of the Perpetual Markets over the past few years.

Perpetual futures (or Perps) are a type of financial derivative contract that allows market participants to speculate on the price of an asset without an expiration date. Perps also allow people to express views on assets quickly and cheaply. They are more captivating than traditional markets because they offer instant access and leverage. Unlike traditional markets, they don't require broker onboarding processes, jurisdictional paperwork, or adherence to "traditional" market hours.

Furthermore, on-chain perpetual markets allow any asset (whether traditional or crypto) to be traded in a permissionless, highly leveraged manner. This makes speculation fun, especially when humans can't resist gambling on the trajectory of volatile assets outside of traditional trading hours. This allows risk to be priced in real-time.

Think about what happened two weeks ago. When traditional and crypto markets crashed simultaneously, traders flocked to Hyperliquid, driving perpetual gold and silver trading into a frenzy. On January 31st, Hyperliquid alone accounted for 2% of the global daily trading volume in its Silver perpetual market, which had been live for less than a month.

This explains why dashboards of perpetual contract trading volume are increasingly dominating crypto communities and forums. Trading volume is an absolute value. It looks large, refreshes every few minutes, and is perfect for leaderboards. But it misses a key nuance: volume can reflect movement that lacks meaning. A market's high volume might be due to depth, but it could also be because rewards and incentives encourage higher-frequency activity. This activity is often recursive and largely meaningless.

This week, I delved into other metrics of the perpetual trading markets. When used in conjunction with trading volume, these metrics add more dimensions and tell a completely different story than volume alone.

Let's begin.

A Few Data Points

The user-friendly interface of perpetual markets makes them a low-barrier, default interface for expressing views across various markets and global assets. The wide selection of highly leveraged derivative trading on both traditional and crypto assets on a single platform has led to perpetual contract volume surpassing spot trading volume on decentralized exchanges. From 44% in February 2025, the share of perpetual contract volume has skyrocketed to around 75% today (relative to spot volume).

This growth has been particularly pronounced in the past few months:

· In the four years ending July 31, 2025, the cumulative total perpetual trading volume across all platforms was $6.91 trillion.

· In just the past six months, this volume has doubled, reaching $14 trillion.

All this growth occurred against the backdrop of the total crypto market capitalization shrinking by nearly 40% between August 1, 2025, and February 9, 2026. This activity suggests traders are increasingly leaning towards derivative trading, hedging, and short-term positioning, especially when spot markets become highly volatile and bearish.

But there's a catch. With such massive activity, it's easy to misread the volume metric. Especially because perpetual trading isn't just about buying an asset and holding it long-term; it also involves repeatedly adjusting bet sizes using leverage over shorter time frames.

So, when market turnover speeds up, a question inevitably comes to mind: does record-breaking volume reflect more capital flowing in, or the same capital cycling faster?

This is where observing Open Interest (OI) becomes meaningful. If volume reflects capital flow, then OI measures outstanding risk exposure. On perpetual exchanges, OI refers to the total dollar value of active, unsettled long and short contracts held by traders.

If perpetual trading is being adopted by the mass market, we would expect to see not only larger capital flows but also proportionally growing open interest exposure.

· Last February, OI averaged around $4 billion;

· Now that number has more than tripled, to approximately $13 billion. In fact, the average for the entire month of January reached about $18 billion before dropping by about 30% in the first week of February.

While perpetual trading volume has doubled in the past five months, OI has grown by about 50% (from $13 billion to ~$18 billion, then back to $13 billion). To understand this better, I looked at the capital efficiency (i.e., OI as a percentage of daily volume) over the past year.

The OI/Volume ratio jumped 50% from last year's 0.33x to 0.49x today. But this progress wasn't smooth; the 50 basis point increase in this ratio went through multiple peaks and troughs:

· Phase 1 (Feb-May 2025): The Lull. The OI/Volume ratio averaged ~0.46x, with average OI of ~$4.8B and average daily volume of ~$11.5B.

· Phase 2 (June - Mid-Oct): The Jump. The ratio averaged ~0.72x. During this period, average OI rose to $14.8B, and average daily volume was $23B. This marked not only record-high volumes but also increased risk exposure and greater capital commitment to these derivatives.

· Phase 3: The Reversal. The start of this phase coincided with the massive liquidation on October 10th, which wiped out over $19B in leveraged positions within 24 hours. From mid-October to late December, the OI/Volume ratio dropped to ~0.38x, driven primarily by volume growth while open interest largely stagnated. October, November, and December saw the three highest monthly volumes of 2025, averaging over $1.2 trillion per month. During the same period, OI averaged around $15B, slightly below the average of the previous three months.

Protocol Level

Here, I want to add more dimensions at the protocol level for perpetual markets. This helps us understand how efficiently perpetual exchanges convert trading activity into "sticky capital" and revenue.

As of February 10th, here is how the top 5 perpetual exchanges by 24-hour volume performed:

· Hyperliquid: Its ratio of OI to 7-day average daily volume is over 45%, able to convert a large share of its volume into lasting positions. This suggests that for every $10 traded on the platform, $4.5 is投入 (invested) into active positions. This is important because high OI rates lead to tighter spreads, deeper liquidity, and confidence in scaling trades without slippage.

· Hyperliquid's fee revenue reinforces this story. Its Take Rate is ~3.2 basis points, converting the largest share of its 24-hour volume into fee income.

· Aster: Currently ranked second, it maintains a decent capital efficiency (OI/Vol) of 34%, even though its volume is almost half of Hyperliquid's. However, its monetization capability is notable—with a lower take rate (~1.6 bps), Aster clearly prioritizes capital retention on its platform over fee maximization.

· edgeX & Lighter: Both perform similarly on the capital efficiency ladder, with an OI/Vol of 21% each. However, edgeX's fee monetization is comparable to Hyperliquid's, at 2.8 bps.

Summary

It's remarkable that today's perpetual contract market is no longer a simple growth story; it requires a nuanced reading of multiple metrics. At the macro level, volume is exploding: the growth in cumulative perpetual trading volume in six months exceeded the total of the previous four years. But the picture only becomes clear when OI and volume are read together.

A clearer victory lies in the growth of the OI/Volume ratio. This is a direct signal that there is "patient capital" willing to trust and bet on the various products and markets emerging in perpetual trading exchanges.

What is even more值得关注 (worth watching) in the future is how individual players will evolve from here and what they choose to optimize. Over time, platforms that can optimize "trading conviction" and achieve sustainable monetization will be far more important than those that merely rely on rewards and incentives to dominate volume leaderboards.

Preguntas relacionadas

QWhat is the main limitation of using trading volume as the sole metric to evaluate the health of perpetual markets?

ATrading volume alone can be misleading because it may reflect high-frequency, recursive activity driven by incentives rather than meaningful capital inflow or deep market conviction. It doesn't distinguish between 'real' growth and activity that lacks significant economic substance.

QWhat key metric, when combined with trading volume, provides a more nuanced view of perpetual market activity?

AOpen Interest (OI) is the key metric. It measures the total dollar value of active, unsettled long and short contracts, representing the amount of 'patient capital' and real risk exposure in the market, not just the flow of capital.

QHow did the OI/Volume ratio for perpetual markets change from its average in early 2025 to February 2026?

AThe OI/Volume ratio increased by approximately 50%, rising from an average of around 0.33x in February 2025 to about 0.49x by February 2026, indicating an improvement in capital efficiency and the presence of more conviction-based trading.

QAccording to the article, which perpetual exchange demonstrated the highest capital efficiency (OI/Volume ratio) among the top five by volume?

AHyperliquid demonstrated the highest capital efficiency, with an OI to 7-day average daily volume ratio of over 45%, meaning that for every $10 traded, $4.50 was committed to an active position.

QWhat event in October 2025 marked a significant shift in the market, causing the OI/Volume ratio to drop to ~0.38x?

AThe shift began with a massive liquidation event on October 10th, 2025, which wiped out over $19 billion in leveraged positions within 24-hour period. This was followed by a phase where trading volume growth was driven largely by high-frequency activity while open interest stagnated.

Lecturas Relacionadas

STAR 50 Soars 10.73%, Why Did A-Shares Stage a "V-Shaped Reversal"?

After a prolonged decline, the Chinese A-share market staged a strong rally on July 21. The STAR 50 index surged 10.73%, its largest single-day gain in nearly a year, leading a broad-based "V-shaped" reversal. The Shanghai Composite Index rose 1.79%, the Shenzhen Component Index gained 4.81%, and the ChiNext Index jumped 7.05%. Total market turnover reached 2.97 trillion yuan, an increase of 256.1 billion yuan from the previous session, with over 3,100 stocks advancing. The semiconductor sector spearheaded the rebound, with related ETFs posting significant gains. Analysts attribute the surge to three converging factors. First, coordinated capital inflows from "national team" institutions, insurance funds, listed company buybacks, and fund house self-purchases have bolstered market liquidity and confidence. Second, supportive policy signals, including commitments from regulators to ensure stable market operations, provided a favorable backdrop. Third, a stabilization and recovery in overseas markets, notably South Korea, created a positive external environment. Institutions suggest the most severe panic selling phase for the tech sector has likely passed, following a significant digestion of crowded positions and leveraged funds. While short-term volatility may persist, the medium to long-term outlook remains underpinned by enduring trends like AI computing demand expansion and semiconductor localization. The market's focus now shifts to the sustainability of supportive fund flows, earnings reports, and upcoming catalysts from the global AI industry chain.

marsbitHace 18 min(s)

STAR 50 Soars 10.73%, Why Did A-Shares Stage a "V-Shaped Reversal"?

marsbitHace 18 min(s)

U.S. Tech Momentum Stocks Post Largest Single-Day Gain Ever, But Is the Plunge Over?

US tech momentum stocks staged a sharp rebound on Tuesday (July 21st). Morgan Stanley's TMT Momentum Factor surged over 12%, marking its largest single-day gain on record, exceeding even peaks from the 2000 dot-com bubble. Key momentum indices from Goldman Sachs also posted their strongest daily performances in years. The rally was led by semiconductors, with the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index jumping 4.6%. This rebound followed three consecutive down days and a cumulative 33% plunge in momentum stocks, one of the steepest drawdowns since the dot-com era. Analysts attribute the surge largely to a short squeeze. Heavy selling had pushed high-beta momentum stocks into deeply oversold territory, forcing many short sellers, particularly in Asia, to cover their positions, creating a self-reinforcing buying spiral. However, the rebound's internals appear weak. Trading volume was notably low, and advancing stocks still lagged decliners on the S&P 500, indicating a narrow, concentrated rally rather than broad market participation. Diverging views emerge on the outlook. BTIG warns the bounce has hit key resistance and recommends selling into strength, citing extreme volatility and historical parallels to past market tops. Conversely, Goldman Sachs and UBS believe the momentum unwind is nearing its end, suggesting it may be time to gradually add exposure, as positioning has been significantly reduced. They caution, however, that high volatility warrants a measured approach, potentially using defined-risk strategies. The upcoming earnings season, particularly reports from major tech firms like Alphabet, is seen as a critical test for the rally's sustainability. Simultaneously, bond markets flashed a warning, with yields rising partly due to spiking oil prices. Analysts note that if long-term Treasury yields break decisively higher, it could pose a significant headwind for equities, especially growth stocks.

marsbitHace 25 min(s)

U.S. Tech Momentum Stocks Post Largest Single-Day Gain Ever, But Is the Plunge Over?

marsbitHace 25 min(s)

U.S. Tech Momentum Stocks Record Largest Single-Day Gain Ever, but Has the Rout Ended?

U.S. tech momentum stocks staged a dramatic rebound on Tuesday, July 21st. Key momentum indices like the Morgan Stanley TMT Momentum Factor and Goldman Sachs' High Beta Momentum Long Index posted historic or near-historic single-day gains, fueled largely by semiconductor stocks. This sharp rally followed a severe three-day sell-off that saw momentum stocks plunge 33%, marking one of the steepest pullbacks since the dot-com bubble. Analysts attribute the bounce primarily to a short squeeze, as forced covering from over-leveraged traders, particularly in Asia, created a buying spiral. However, the rally's health is questioned due to weak market breadth—overall trading volume was low, and decliners outnumbered advancers in the S&P 500 despite the index's gain—suggesting a narrow, concentrated surge rather than broad recovery. Opinions on the sustainability diverge. BTIG strategists warn the rebound has hit key resistance levels, citing extreme volatility and historic stock dispersion as signs of an ongoing broader correction, and recommend selling into strength. Conversely, Goldman Sachs and UBS view the aggressive momentum unwinding as nearing its end, noting reduced positioning and a lack of new fundamental catalysts. They suggest the sell-off presents a selective opportunity to add exposure, albeit cautiously and gradually using defined-risk strategies. The immediate trajectory hinges on the ongoing earnings season, with market focus on Alphabet's capital expenditure guidance for AI investment clarity. Meanwhile, bond markets present a risk, with rising Treasury yields—potentially heading toward 5.5%—and widening credit spreads for mega-cap tech companies posing a threat to equity valuations. The combination of technical factors, earnings results, and macro conditions leaves the durability of the rebound in doubt.

链捕手Hace 28 min(s)

U.S. Tech Momentum Stocks Record Largest Single-Day Gain Ever, but Has the Rout Ended?

链捕手Hace 28 min(s)

Long-Divided Must Unite, Long-United Must Divide: When L1 Becomes Its Own Rollup, What Is Ethereum's Endgame?

"The Inevitable Cycle: When L1 Becomes Its Own Rollup – What is Ethereum's Endgame?" For years, the Ethereum community grappled with concerns that L2s were fragmenting the ecosystem and eroding L1's value. While L2s provided cheaper execution, they also splintered liquidity and the unified user experience of a single chain. This has prompted a fundamental reassessment of the relationship between L1 and L2. Ethereum's roadmap is evolving. The "Scale" initiative merges L1 and L2 expansion into a holistic framework. L1 itself is advancing with higher gas limits, statelessness, and zkEVM verification, no longer content to be just a low-throughput settlement layer. Consequently, the primary value proposition of L2s is shifting from merely providing cheap blockspace to offering L1 cannot easily provide: application-specific optimizations, privacy features, and flexible governance models. L2s are becoming a spectrum of execution environments with varying degrees of security inheritance from Ethereum. A critical challenge in this multi-chain future is interoperability. The vision is to make Ethereum "feel like one chain again." This relies on advancements in native account abstraction (like EIP-7702) and intent-based architectures (Open Intents Framework), where users declare desired outcomes, and solvers handle the complex cross-chain execution. Furthermore, shortening Ethereum's finality time from minutes to seconds is crucial, as it underpins trust between chains for bridges, stablecoins, and cross-chain applications. Perhaps the most provocative idea is that Ethereum L1 itself could become a form of "its own Rollup." As zkEVM and proof systems mature, high-performance nodes could execute transactions and generate validity proofs. Regular validators would then verify these proofs instead of re-executing all transactions. This blurs the traditional L1/L2 hierarchy, making "Rollup" more of a general execution-verification architecture. Native Rollup aims to integrate L2 validation more directly into the Ethereum protocol, allowing L2s to inherit L1's security more fully and move away from reliance on security councils. In the end, L2s are not destined to replace L1 or be made obsolete by it. The likely future is a unified system where diverse execution environments—each optimized for specific use cases like DeFi, gaming, or privacy—coexist. They will share a common foundation of security, liquidity, and verifiable state, seamlessly connected to restore a cohesive user experience. The next phase for Ethereum is not just about scaling through separation, but about intelligently reintegrating what was separated back into a coherent whole.

链捕手Hace 44 min(s)

Long-Divided Must Unite, Long-United Must Divide: When L1 Becomes Its Own Rollup, What Is Ethereum's Endgame?

链捕手Hace 44 min(s)

Trading

Spot
活动图片