Secures Over $60 Million in Funding from Dragonfly, Sequoia, and Others. An In-Depth Look at the On-Chain Derivatives Protocol Variational | CryptoSeed

链捕手Publicado a 2026-05-22Actualizado a 2026-05-22

Resumen

Variational, a decentralized derivatives trading platform, has raised over $61.8 million in total funding, including a recent $50 million Series A led by Dragonfly Capital. Investors include Sequoia Capital, Coinbase Ventures, Bain Capital Crypto, and Hack VC. The platform, with over $810 million in Open Interest (ranking 4th among on-chain derivatives protocols), is founded by Lucas Schuermann and Edward Yu. Both are Columbia University graduates and former partners at quant fund Qu Capital. They later held senior roles at Genesis Trading, handling billions in trading volume. The broader team includes talent from Google, Meta, and top trading firms like Jane Street. Operating on Arbitrum, Variational distinguishes itself by aggregating external liquidity from CEXs, DEXs, and traditional market makers using an RFQ (Request-for-Quote) model, positioning itself more as a broker than an exchange like Hyperliquid. Its dual product line features Omni for retail users (offering up to 50x leverage on ~450+ crypto and TradFi pairs) and Pro for institutional OTC trading. Currently in a pre-TGE phase, Variational has launched an "Omni Points" system, with 50% of its upcoming $VAR token supply allocated for community incentives through trading-based rewards and referrals until Q3 2026.

Author: momo, ChainCatcher

Recently, the decentralized derivatives trading platform Variational announced the completion of a $50 million Series A financing round led by Dragonfly. Combined with three previous funding rounds, Variational has raised a cumulative total of $61.8 million. Its investor lineup is quite impressive, including not only Dragonfly but also renowned institutions such as Sequoia Capital, Coinbase Ventures, Bain Capital Crypto, Hack VC, and others.

According to DeFiLlama data, the open interest (OI) on Variational has exceeded $810 million. While there remains a significant gap compared to Hyperliquid's $9.4 billion, its OI currently ranks fourth among on-chain derivatives protocols.

In the fiercely competitive decentralized derivatives sector, why has Variational continued to secure backing from top-tier institutions? What is the team's background? What are its differentiated approaches? This article provides a brief overview.

What is the team's background?

In terms of team background and entrepreneurial experience, Variational and Hyperliquid share several similarities: both teams graduated from prestigious universities, come from quantitative trading backgrounds, founded quantitative funds, and subsequently transitioned to building on-chain derivatives platforms.

However, unlike Hyperliquid's early mystique and anonymous team approach, Variational discloses its founding team's background and entrepreneurial journey in its whitepaper.

Variational was co-founded by Lucas Schuermann and Edward Yu. CEO Lucas graduated from Columbia University and was previously responsible for trading systems engineering architecture; Edward Yu has a Chinese background and was originally a quantitative analyst. The two met while studying and conducting research in the engineering department at Columbia University and co-founded the quantitative hedge fund Qu Capital in 2017.

In 2019, Qu Capital was acquired by Digital Currency Group. Subsequently, both joined Genesis Trading: Lucas served as Vice President of Engineering, and Edward Yu served as Vice President of Quantitative Trading.

According to the whitepaper, before leaving Genesis in 2021, their team had processed trading volumes in the hundreds of billions of dollars. After leaving, they founded their proprietary trading firm, Variational, and secured $10 million in funding.

In the following years, the team operated proprietary trading strategies while integrating with mainstream CEX and DEX trading interfaces. Later, based on their own trading business and system experience, they began developing and operating the Variational Protocol.

Additionally, Variational's development and quantitative team members also hail from technology and quantitative institutions such as Google, Meta, Virtu Financial, IMC Trading, and Jane Street. The whitepaper states that core technical team members generally possess over a decade of experience in software engineering or quantitative research.

What are its product features? How does it differ from Hyperliquid?

Judging from the trading interface, there isn't a significant difference between Variational and Hyperliquid. The platform currently lists approximately 450 trading pairs, mainly covering cryptocurrency and TradFi assets, offering users leverage up to 50x. The TradFi section is currently in Beta testing. According to official disclosures, the TradFi market will list over 100 trading pairs.

However, in its press release, Variational emphasizes a distinctly different positioning from Hyperliquid.

Variational describes its model as more akin to a brokerage rather than another exchange in the style of Hyperliquid. Its target users are not limited to crypto-native traders; it aims to make the on-chain derivatives trading experience closer to traditional markets through zero-fee trading and liquidity aggregation.

Currently operating on Arbitrum, Variational employs a dual-product-line model. The Omni version primarily targets retail users, positioned as a perpetual contracts trading product aggregating liquidity from multiple sources, while the Pro version caters to institutional over-the-counter derivatives trading.

The most significant difference from Hyperliquid lies in order matching and liquidity mechanisms. Hyperliquid relies on its self-built L1 chain and a public central limit order book (CLOB), with market makers or the HLP treasury within the protocol competing to provide quotes, and traders paying maker/taker fees. In contrast, Variational uses an RFQ (Request for Quote) model, with a single liquidity provider as the counterparty. It does not rely on on-chain internal market making but instead aggregates external liquidity in real-time from sources like CEXs, DEXs, OTC channels, and traditional financial market makers, managing risk through hedging.

The rationale for choosing this differentiated path, according to Variational CEO Lucas, is that on-chain liquidity still lags far behind traditional trading venues like the CME, and order book models face a "cold start" problem. Aggregating liquidity from external sources avoids the need to rebuild liquidity from scratch on-chain.

What is the current stage? What participation opportunities are available?

Variational is currently still in the Pre-TGE stage; the $VAR token has not been issued. The project initially planned a TGE in Q1 2025, which has since been postponed. No new definitive TGE date has been officially announced.

In December 2025, Variational launched the Omni Points points system. The official statement indicates that 50% of the $VAR supply will be allocated for community incentives, distributed gradually through mechanisms like Points rather than a one-time airdrop.

Regarding points, 3 million points have been retroactively distributed to early users. Subsequently, points are distributed every Friday based on the previous week's trading snapshot. The points program is scheduled to conclude by Q3 2026 at the latest.

The main current participation opportunity is to engage in perpetual contracts trading on the Omni platform. Trading volume is the core factor for earning points, with additional point bonuses available for holding positions over time and referring others.

Preguntas relacionadas

QWhat is the total funding amount raised by the decentralized derivatives platform Variational, and who led its Series A round?

AVariational has raised a total of $61.8 million. Its Series A round of $50 million was led by Dragonfly.

QWhat are the key differences between Variational and its competitor Hyperliquid in terms of their operational models?

AThe key difference lies in their order matching and liquidity mechanisms. Hyperliquid relies on its own L1 blockchain with a public Central Limit Order Book (CLOB). Variational uses an RFQ (Request for Quote) model, acting as a single liquidity provider counterparty that aggregates external liquidity from CEXs, DEXs, OTC channels, and TradFi market makers, then manages risk through hedging.

QWhat is the professional background of Variational's founding team prior to starting the protocol?

ACo-founders Lucas Schuermann and Edward Yu met at Columbia University. They co-founded the quantitative hedge fund Qu Capital in 2017, which was later acquired by Digital Currency Group. They then joined Genesis Trading, where Lucas served as VP of Engineering and Edward Yu as VP of Quantitative Trading, before leaving in 2021 to found Variational.

QWhat is the current stage of Variational's token ($VAR) launch, and how is the project engaging its community?

AVariational is currently in the Pre-TGE stage, and the $VAR token has not been launched yet. The previously planned TGE for Q1 2025 has been postponed with no new official date announced. The project is engaging its community through an 'Omni Points' loyalty program launched in December 2025, with 50% of the $VAR supply designated for community incentives distributed via points and other mechanisms over time.

QOn which blockchain does Variational primarily operate, and what are its two main product lines?

AVariational primarily operates on the Arbitrum blockchain. It follows a dual-product line model: the 'Omni' version targets retail users as a perpetual contracts trading product aggregating liquidity from multiple sources, while the 'Pro' version is designed for institutional over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives trading.

Lecturas Relacionadas

As Consensus Accelerates, What Are Young Investors Betting On?

Title: As Consensus Forms Faster, What Are Young Investors Betting On? In the rapid evolution of tech investment, a new generation of young investors is navigating a landscape where AI, robotics, commercial aerospace, and quantum computing are advancing simultaneously. Traditional investment logic based on financial models is giving way to a need for deep technical understanding and the ability to act before industry consensus forms. An analysis of trends from the "WAIC FUTURE TECH" list of young investment leaders reveals key shifts in focus. The first major trend is the movement of AI from the digital screen into the physical world. Investment is shifting from large language models and chatbots towards embodied AI, robotics, AI hardware, and edge computing. While demonstrations generate excitement, the real challenge lies in achieving scalable, reliable, and cost-effective delivery in complex real-world environments like factories and logistics. Success depends not just on algorithms but on the integration of sensors, actuators, and control systems. Second, the competitive focus for large models is moving beyond raw capability toward building an "intelligence flywheel." The goal is to create self-reinforcing systems where user interaction generates data, improving the model, which in turn enhances the user experience and attracts more engagement. Companies that successfully embed AI into workflows to create these closed-loop systems can build lasting value that isn't easily erased by the next model upgrade. Third, facing a potential bottleneck in high-quality human-generated data, investors are looking at new underlying technologies. Reinforcement learning and self-play, as demonstrated by AlphaGo Zero, offer paths for AI to generate its own experience. Scientific foundation models, which aim to build general AI capabilities for fields like life sciences and materials discovery, represent a non-consensus direction that could unlock new frontiers of knowledge and data. Finally, in deep-tech areas like quantum computing, commercial aerospace, and space-based infrastructure, patient capital is essential. These fields have long, uncertain development and validation cycles involving complex engineering, supply chains, and regulations. Investment here requires a long-term view, focusing on foundational team capabilities and the eventual emergence of market demand, even if commercial returns are distant. Collectively, these trends illustrate how young investors are adapting to a new era. They are learning to make earlier, technically-informed judgments, balance hype with real-world viability, and provide the patient capital needed to build the deep-tech foundations of the future.

marsbitHace 26 min(s)

As Consensus Accelerates, What Are Young Investors Betting On?

marsbitHace 26 min(s)

Unlocking $100 Million in Liquidity? Pump.fun's New Policy Tests the 5-Minute Pump Technique

Foresight News, July 21 – Pump.fun has launched its new "BOOST" mode as the standard launch mechanism for new tokens. The core of BOOST is to address the issue of "dead liquidity." Historically, when a token migrates from its bonding curve to a liquidity pool, roughly 20% of its liquidity becomes permanently locked and unusable, a problem the platform estimates costs over $100 million annually. The new mechanism redirects this 20% of funds, which would have been locked, to instead be used for a 5-minute Time-Weighted Average Price (TWAP) buyback of the token immediately after migration. The purchased tokens are then permanently burned. For example, this means reserving 17.6 SOL for SOL pairs or about $2516 for USDC pairs at migration. This creates a short-term buying pressure and reduces the token's supply. The goal is to improve the immediate post-launch performance of memecoins, potentially increasing trader retention and transaction volume on the platform. However, critics warn this could lower the bar for token launches, encouraging low-quality projects, and that the brief 5-minute buy pressure might lead to sharper price crashes once it ends if followed by large sell-offs.

Foresight NewsHace 35 min(s)

Unlocking $100 Million in Liquidity? Pump.fun's New Policy Tests the 5-Minute Pump Technique

Foresight NewsHace 35 min(s)

What Signals Can Be Read from the Trading Data of India's Largest Asset Manager SBI's IPO?

India's largest asset manager, SBI Funds Management, successfully listed on July 21 with a nearly $10 billion IPO, attracting approximately 42 times subscription. However, the first-day closing price rose only about 6.3%, falling short of the 16% premium anticipated in the grey market. This signals robust demand for core Indian financial assets but also disciplined pricing, indicating the IPO market is selectively open for strong brands with clear growth narratives. The low reported underwriting fees, which led some global banks to reduce participation, highlight a shift in pricing power towards powerful issuers like SBI. Its strong brand, banking parent, and stable cash flows reduced reliance on traditional investment banking sales channels, with local brokers playing a larger role. This fee dynamic may not be replicable for weaker issuers. SBI's performance is seen as a key test for India's IPO pipeline, including potential future large listings like Reliance Jio and NSE. Its success with tempered gains sets a new price anchor: high-quality assets can launch, but excessive valuation premiums are constrained. The true measure of a sustained market reopening will be whether subsequent major offerings can proceed smoothly at reasonable valuations.

marsbitHace 54 min(s)

What Signals Can Be Read from the Trading Data of India's Largest Asset Manager SBI's IPO?

marsbitHace 54 min(s)

Can Japan Buy Growth with AI? Will the Bond Market Believe It?

Japan's cabinet has introduced the 2026 Basic Policy on Economic and Fiscal Management and Reform, shifting its primary fiscal target. The new framework moves away from the traditional annual primary balance goal and instead prioritizes a stable reduction of the debt-to-GDP ratio. This change is tied to a strategy of increased "responsible proactive fiscal" spending, aiming to boost long-term growth through investments in strategic sectors like AI, semiconductors, energy, and robotics. The government estimates total public and private investment in 62 key technologies could exceed 370 trillion yen by 2040. The market reaction has been mixed and cautious. While equity markets may respond to policy signals, bond markets are focused on fiscal credibility. Concerns center on whether the weakening of the clear primary balance anchor could lead to looser fiscal discipline. If investors doubt that these strategic investments will generate sufficient productivity gains, tax revenue, and nominal growth to outpace rising interest costs, they may demand higher yields on Japanese Government Bonds (JGBs). Recent volatility in the yen and JGB yields, with the 10-year yield briefly reaching 2.9%, reflects this skepticism. The success of this new framework hinges on two factors: whether Japan can achieve a nominal growth rate consistently higher than its long-term interest rates, and whether future budgets demonstrate disciplined control over bond issuance. The government's narrative is that strategic investment is essential to break Japan's cycle of low growth, aging, and labor shortages. However, the bond market will continuously assess the credibility of this plan, pricing the risk that it may represent fiscal expansion rather than a viable growth strategy.

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

Can Japan Buy Growth with AI? Will the Bond Market Believe It?

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

Misjudged A-Shares: Resilience, Expectations, and Confidence

China's A-share market recently faced selling pressure, especially in tech sectors, initially triggered by a global tech sell-off that began in South Korea. However, the article argues this is a case of "mistaken injury" and highlights the market's underlying resilience. This resilience stems from three main pillars: **1) Tech Sector Fundamentals:** Unlike Korea's market dominated by a few memory chip stocks, China's tech sector is diversified across computing, communications, electronics, and semiconductors, supported by dual narratives of global AI supply chains and domestic substitution. Core areas like optical modules and fiber optics continue to show strong earnings growth. **2) "National Team" Support:** State-backed institutions and large corporations have made significant market purchases and announced buybacks, providing liquidity and signaling confidence. This is seen as a stabilizing policy signal, often associated with market bottoms. **3) Broader Market Pillars:** Other major sectors are showing endogenous recovery momentum. Consumer stocks benefit from stabilizing CPI and signs of sector recovery (e.g., liquor price hikes). Cyclical sectors like aluminum have high earnings, potential price increases due to tight supply, and low valuations. The financial sector offers stable dividends and low valuations. The conclusion is that the sell-off was driven by external contagion, not a collapse in fundamentals. With strong policy support and recovering momentum across key sectors, the A-share market possesses the toughness to regain stability.

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

Misjudged A-Shares: Resilience, Expectations, and Confidence

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

Trading

Spot