Artículos Relacionados con Order Book

El Centro de Noticias de HTX ofrece los artículos más recientes y un análisis profundo sobre "Order Book", cubriendo tendencias del mercado, actualizaciones de proyectos, desarrollos tecnológicos y políticas regulatorias en la industria de cripto.

Millisecond 'Pay-to-Cut': How Did Hyperliquid's Priority Fee Turn into a Multi-Million Dollar Business?

"Millisecond 'Paid Queue-Jumping': How Hyperliquid's Priority Fee Became a Multi-Million Dollar Annual Business" In traditional finance, high-frequency trading firms spend millions on infrastructure for millisecond advantages. Hyperliquid has translated this race onto the blockchain with its "Priority Fee" system, creating an open economic game for speed. This system auctions two types of priority: **Gossip Priority** for faster data feeds (via a Dutch auction every 3 minutes), and **Order Priority** for front-of-queue trade execution (users bid a fee for lower latency). This converts a hardware race into a transparent, market-priced mechanism. Since launch, this feature has generated over $5M in protocol revenue. Projected annualized buybacks from this income exceed $30M, accounting for ~7% of total protocol revenue. The demand stems from large traders and market makers on Hyperliquid, for whom milliseconds can mean the difference between profit/loss or avoiding liquidation. Market makers pay these fees as "protection" to ensure their orders execute first, which in turn improves liquidity for all users. Crucially, Hyperliquid internalizes Maximum Extractable Value (MEV) that typically leaks to external validators or searchers, creating a new revenue stream beyond trading fees. The mechanism also strengthens HYPE's tokenomics. While 97% of trading fees fund secondary market buybacks (via the Assistance Fund), Priority Fees are **directly burned**, adding a second deflationary engine. Furthermore, fees for order priority are deducted from users' undelegated HYPE balances, encouraging large traders to hold and lock up tokens, reducing circulating supply. However, a key challenge remains: balancing the speed needs of institutional players with fair market access for retail users, as those who cannot pay high fees may suffer worse slippage during volatility. In summary, Hyperliquid's Priority Fee is a novel model that monetizes latency, captures MEV for the protocol, and enhances its native token's value through burning and lock-ups.

marsbitHace 11 hora(s)

Millisecond 'Pay-to-Cut': How Did Hyperliquid's Priority Fee Turn into a Multi-Million Dollar Business?

marsbitHace 11 hora(s)

Hyperliquid's "Stock Price" for ChangXin Memory Tech Hits $8.64: How Was This Price Determined Before the IPO?

Title: Hyperliquid's "Stock Price" for CXMT Hits $8.64: How is This Pre-IPO Price Determined? Summary: On Hyperliquid, a derivative contract tracking the pre-IPO value of Chinese chipmaker Changxin Xinqiao (CXMT) has been trading, with its price reaching $8.64. This price is not a real stock price or a direct IPO valuation, but the result of a specific market mechanism. Trade.xyz deployed this "Pre-IPO Perpetual" (IPOP) contract via Hyperliquid's HIP-3 framework. It tracks the expected USD value of one Changxin A-share post-listing. The contract started with an artificial "discretionary reference price" of $5 set by Trade.xyz. Subsequent trading prices are primarily determined by supply and demand on Hyperliquid's on-chain order book. Since there's no tradable现货 before the IPO, the contract price isn't forced to align with the official IPO price of 8.66 RMB (~$1.28). Key mechanics shape the price: 1. **Order Book-Driven**: The actual成交价 comes from limit orders matched on-chain. 2. **Internal Oracle & Smoothing**: An internal oracle, run by Trade.xyz, calculates a smoothed price based on the order book's "impact price" using a 30-minute exponential moving average (EWMA). This oracle price influences funding rates. 3. **Mark Price for Risk**: A separate Mark Price, derived from the median of the internal oracle and other inputs, is used for calculating profit/loss and liquidation. 4. **Discovery Bound (Price护栏)**: A 20% "Discovery Bound" limits how far the price can move from the current reference point. However, if the price hits the bound, the reference price can be re-anchored upward (or downward) up to 7 times. This explains the阶梯状 jumps to $6, $7.2, and $8.64. 5. **Low Funding Rate**: A minimal funding rate (0.005 multiplier) allows positions to be held with low cost before the IPO, but it provides a weak anchor. Post-IPO, the contract is expected to convert to a standard stock perpetual, with its oracle switching to the actual A-share price converted to USD. This transition could cause price jumps and potential liquidations if there's a significant gap between the pre-IPO contract price and the real market price. In essence, the $8.64 price is a composite of: a人为设定的起点 + on-chain order book supply/demand +内部 oracle 平滑 + low funding rate damping + a moving price护栏. It represents a collective bet by specific market participants on the future public market valuation, not the company's current or official IPO price.

marsbit07/17 05:55

Hyperliquid's "Stock Price" for ChangXin Memory Tech Hits $8.64: How Was This Price Determined Before the IPO?

marsbit07/17 05:55

Here’s The 411 Behind The Famous $50 XRP Candle On Gemini In 2023

Amid ongoing discussions about XRP's price, crypto analyst CharuSan revisited the infamous "$50 XRP candle" that occurred on the Gemini exchange in 2023. This event, where XRP's price briefly spiked to $50, was widely speculated to be a glitch. However, CharuSan explained it was a real market event caused by catastrophic slippage. The relisting of XRP on Gemini left order books with very low liquidity. A market buy order worth approximately $37,000 consumed all available sell orders until it hit a single sell order placed at the $50 level, causing the dramatic price surge. CharuSan argues this incident mathematically demonstrates why large financial institutions cannot rely solely on on-demand liquidity, especially during high volume. To handle billion-dollar cross-border transfers without causing massive slippage and freezing the system, tier-1 banks must maintain their own deep, pre-funded, and dedicated XRP liquidity pools. The event underscores that managing large institutional volumes requires controlled, bank-held liquidity to prevent traders from losing control over market prices and transactions. At the time of the analysis, XRP was trading around $1.38.

bitcoinist05/23 00:05

Here’s The 411 Behind The Famous $50 XRP Candle On Gemini In 2023

bitcoinist05/23 00:05

Two Survival Structures of Market Makers and Arbitrageurs

Market makers and arbitrageurs represent two distinct survival structures in high-frequency trading. Market makers primarily use limit orders (makers) to profit from the bid-ask spread, enjoying high capital efficiency (nominally 100%) but bearing inventory risk. This "inventory risk" arises from passive, fragmented, and discontinuous order fills in the limit order book (LOB). This risk, while a potential cost, can also contribute to excess profit if managed within control boundaries, allowing for mean reversion. Market makers essentially sell "time" (uncertainty over execution timing) to the market for price control and low fees. In contrast, cross-exchange arbitrageurs typically use market orders (takers) to exploit price differences or funding rates, resulting in lower nominal capital efficiency (requiring capital on both exchanges) and higher transaction costs. Their risk exposure stems from asymmetries in exchange rules (e.g., minimum order sizes), execution latency, and infrastructure risks (e.g., ADL, oracle drift). These exposures are active, exogenous gaps that primarily erode profits rather than contribute to them. Arbitrageurs essentially sell "space" (capital sunk across venues) for localized, immediate certainty. Both strategies engage in a trade-off between execution friction and residual risk. Optimal systems allow for temporary, controlled risk exposure rather than enforcing zero exposure at all costs. Their evolution converges towards hybrid models: arbitrageurs may use maker orders to reduce costs, while market makers may use taker orders or hedges for risk management. Ultimately, both use different forms of risk exposure—market makers exposing inventory, arbitrageurs immobilizing capital—to extract marginal, hard-won certainty from the market.

链捕手05/16 07:09

Two Survival Structures of Market Makers and Arbitrageurs

链捕手05/16 07:09

The Midfield Battle of Perp DEX: The Declining, The Self-Rescuers, and The Latecomers

The article "Perp DEX Midfield Battle: The Declining, The Self-Rescuers, and The Newcomers" discusses the shifting landscape of decentralized perpetual exchanges (Perp DEX). Hyperliquid saw a weekly trading volume of approximately $15 billion, driven largely by commodity contracts like crude oil, gold, and silver amid geopolitical tensions and market volatility. Meanwhile, GMX Labs is hiring a CEO, moving away from its founder-driven model, and dYdX's market share dropped from 73% in early 2023 to single digits by late 2024. The decline of GMX and dYdX is attributed to several factors: reliance on token incentives that inflated trading volumes artificially, architectural limitations (e.g., GMX's liquidity pool model capping open interest, dYdX's costly migration to Cosmos), and misjudging key competitive factors like performance and market maker density. Hyperliquid, in contrast, grew slowly without VC backing or token incentives. It built its own L1 chain with a fully on-chain order book, focusing on transparency to attract market makers. It strategically expanded into traditional assets only after establishing a robust ecosystem, enabling it to capture demand during events like the Iran crisis. It now leads with ~54% of open interest among top Perp DEXs, ahead of Aster (~15%). The article concludes that the first generation of Perp DEXs is transitioning to professional management, while new opportunities lie in replacing traditional financial infrastructure, as Hyperliquid demonstrates by handling real-world demand.

marsbit03/27 09:31

The Midfield Battle of Perp DEX: The Declining, The Self-Rescuers, and The Latecomers

marsbit03/27 09:31

‘Liquidity still low’- Bitcoin’s $75K rally looks fragile, warns analysts

Despite Bitcoin's recovery to $75,000, analysts from Amberdata warn that the rally appears fragile due to structurally weak orderbook liquidity, which remains below pre-October crash levels. Current liquidity, though improved to over $30 million, is still insufficient compared to the $40 million+ considered healthy, making the market vulnerable to large downward moves if selling pressure returns. A decline below $25 million in liquidity, combined with high volume, could trigger significant liquidation cascades. Additionally, increased Bitcoin inflows and potential resistance near $75,000–$85,000 may cool the rally. For a sustained breakout, Bitcoin must firmly hold above $75,000 as support, indicating strong spot-driven demand.

ambcrypto03/19 00:01

‘Liquidity still low’- Bitcoin’s $75K rally looks fragile, warns analysts

ambcrypto03/19 00:01

How Much Money Has Kalshi Actually Made? Deconstructing the Prediction Market Business Behind 200 Million Trades

In this analysis of Kalshi, a leading prediction market platform, the author examines its business model, transaction data, and regulatory landscape. By accessing Kalshi’s public API, the study reveals that the platform has processed over 203 million transactions with a total volume exceeding $41.7 billion. More than 82% of this volume comes from sports betting, positioning Kalshi as a de facto sports gambling platform accessible to users as young as 18. The platform operates a central limit order book (CLOB) where users trade binary contracts that settle at either $1 (if the event occurs) or $0 (if it does not). Kalshi generates revenue through a variable fee structure: Takers pay a fee based on the formula 0.07 × C × P × (1-P), where C is the number of contracts and P is the price, while Makers pay a quarter of that rate. Total fee income amounts to $545.6 million. Kalshi ecosystem includes markets, events, and series, with major volumes driven by events like the 2024 U.S. presidential election and Super Bowl outcomes. The platform’s fee model is compared to traditional sportsbooks, highlighting how its variable structure adapts to implied probability. Regulatory oversight falls under the CFTC, though enforcement remains limited, creating a grey area that allows Kalshi to operate with fewer restrictions than conventional gambling platforms. The analysis also touches on market结算 practices, liquidity incentives, and the broader context of prediction markets, including competitors like Polymarket and regulatory cases such as PredictIt’s legal battle with the CFTC.

marsbit03/13 04:30

How Much Money Has Kalshi Actually Made? Deconstructing the Prediction Market Business Behind 200 Million Trades

marsbit03/13 04:30

Trading Everything, Never Closing: RWA Perpetual Contracts — The Final Piece of DeFi Devouring Wall Street (Part 2)

This article explores the emergence and implications of Real World Asset (RWA) Perpetual Contracts (Perps) in DeFi, focusing on their potential to bridge traditional and decentralized finance. It analyzes key projects, contrasting two primary architectural models: the order book-based system, exemplified by Hyperliquid's HIP-3 ecosystem (e.g., Trade.xyz), and the oracle-priced liquidity pool model used by protocols like Ostium. The former prioritizes 24/7 market-driven pricing with oracles for risk management, while the latter favors accuracy and safety by pausing trading during market closures. A significant portion is dedicated to the regulatory landscape, particularly in the US. The analysis highlights the legal barrier of the "Shad-Johnson agreement," which subjects equity-based derivatives to dual SEC and CFTC jurisdiction, effectively blocking compliant retail single-stock perps. This creates a window of opportunity for offshore markets operating under Regulation S exemptions. The article proposes a symbiotic "CFD Broker + RWA Perps Dex" model for growth, where DeFi protocols act as back-end clearing engines for traditional brokers handling front-end compliance and user acquisition. Finally, it examines the external variable of traditional exchanges like NYSE planning their own 24/7 trading platforms. While this could erode DeFi's current monopoly on continuous trading and provide better underlying price feeds, it also forces DeFi to compete on different strengths like higher leverage, permissionless access, and superior capital efficiency. The conclusion posits that RWA Perps represent a fundamental restructuring of global leverage markets, evolving into a high-speed execution layer atop regulated traditional finance.

marsbit03/12 03:41

Trading Everything, Never Closing: RWA Perpetual Contracts — The Final Piece of DeFi Devouring Wall Street (Part 2)

marsbit03/12 03:41

Xmarket Launches Beta on Bnb Chain Mainnet:The First Prediction Market That Pays Creators and Early Believers

Xmarket, a decentralized prediction market platform, has launched its Private Beta on BNB Chain Mainnet. It introduces a revenue-sharing model that pays market creators up to 50% of trading fees and rewards early investors who fund markets during a pre-sale phase. Unlike existing prediction markets, Xmarket allows creators and backers to earn ongoing income from the trading activity their markets generate. The platform also features a referral program and uses a central limit order book for better pricing and liquidity. During the beta launch, 100% of platform revenue is being returned to users. Built for the APAC region, Xmarket aims to attract creators by turning market creation into a sustainable revenue stream.

TheNewsCrypto02/27 06:43

Xmarket Launches Beta on Bnb Chain Mainnet:The First Prediction Market That Pays Creators and Early Believers

TheNewsCrypto02/27 06:43

When DeFi Enters the "Exchange Era": The Ambition and Boundaries of Hyperliquid

Hyperliquid is a specialized Layer 1 blockchain designed to bring a centralized exchange-like experience to on-chain perpetual contract trading. It places order books, matching, execution, and liquidation primarily on-chain while achieving performance and usability comparable to major CEXs. Its native token, HYPE, captures value from trading fees and embodies a hybrid narrative of both exchange and blockchain utility. Key innovations include the HLP (Hyperliquid Liquidity Provider) mechanism, which incentivizes liquidity provision and supports market-making activities. However, Hyperliquid faces challenges including decentralization trade-offs, systemic risks from derivatives, potential HLP user misunderstandings, and future regulatory pressures. It represents a significant shift in DeFi towards exchange-grade usability but remains a high-risk, complex financial experiment.

比推02/25 06:18

When DeFi Enters the "Exchange Era": The Ambition and Boundaries of Hyperliquid

比推02/25 06:18

活动图片

Ethereumright-arrow

Bitcoinright-arrow