From "On-Chain Applications" to "Financial Infrastructure": The Generational Evolution and Transformation of Perp DEX

marsbitPublié le 2026-01-15Dernière mise à jour le 2026-01-15

Résumé

Title: From "On-Chain Applications" to "Financial Infrastructure": The Generational Evolution of Perp DEX The 2025 period was a "great filtering era" for the derivatives sector. Surviving Perp DEX platforms have moved beyond being mere "low-cost versions" of CEXs by solving the core cost in finance: trust. With the adoption of full-chain abstraction, users in 2026 can perform seamless cross-chain transactions while retaining asset sovereignty, as funds are secured in smart contracts rather than held by intermediaries. On-chain derivatives now consistently account for over 25% of total trading volume, marking a fundamental shift in user behavior. Over 90% of Perp DEXs failed due to product homogeneity, reliance on subsidized "rented liquidity," and soaring customer acquisition costs. Merely forking existing code or offering token incentives proved unsustainable. Four successful models have emerged: 1. **Hyperliquid**: Achieved near-CEX performance by building its own L1 blockchain optimized for low-latency order books, attracting quantitative capital. 2. **Aster**: Leveraged the Binance ecosystem to offer enhanced capital efficiency, allowing users to earn yield on collateral (e.g., staking rewards) while trading. 3. **Lighter**: Built an app-specific ZK-Rollup to provide a verifiable, mathematically-proven trading infrastructure with anti-MEV properties, appealing to institutions. 4. **Decibel**: Unified high performance and full-chain composability on Aptos, achieving...

Author: Max.s

The year 2025 is often regarded as the "Great Filter Era" for the derivatives sector. As we stand before the current power landscape of Perp DEX, it is clear: the vast majority of once-prominent forked projects have faded into obscurity, while the surviving ones are reshaping the financial order with a全新的的姿态.

The survival of Perp DEX does not stem from being faster or cheaper than centralized exchanges (CEX), but from addressing the core cost in the financial system — trust. After several crises involving opaque清算 mechanisms in second-tier exchanges (the Double-Ten crash left all market makers in agony!), the market has reached a consensus: transparency is not an option but the foundational logic of infrastructure.

Early Perp DEXs were often seen as "low-end versions" of CEXs. However, with the普及 of full-chain abstraction (Chain Abstraction) technology, users in 2026 can achieve seamless cross-chain experiences. User assets no longer need to be custodied by intermediaries but are locked in smart contracts. This return of "asset sovereignty" is the底气 for Perp DEX to claim a share of the market from CEXs.

Currently, on-chain derivatives trading volume has stably captured over 25% of the total market share. This is not merely numerical growth but a migration in user behavior patterns. When清算 logic, funding rates, and order matching are recorded on an immutable ledger, Perp DEX has evolved from experimental DApps to essential infrastructure in the crypto market.

The demise of most Perp DEXs: mediocrity is the original sin. Behind the prosperity lies an极其残酷 elimination race. Over the past two years, more than 90% of Perp DEXs have fallen into silence. The "causes of death" for these failures are highly consistent: product homogeneity, reliance on subsidies for liquidity, and lack of technical depth.

During the "Points" frenzy, numerous projects attracted users with inflated liquidity mining rewards. However, once points were redeemed and airdrops distributed, these platforms fell into a death spiral of "liquidity draining to zero." This model reliant on rented liquidity will gradually disappear from professional markets starting in 2026.

Note: Rented liquidity refers to the model where DEXs incentivize users to provide capital to support trading depth by distributing points or token subsidies. Simply put, the protocol does not truly "own" this liquidity but temporarily rents users' funds by paying high "rent" (token or point rewards).

Another reason for the downfall of DEXs is the soaring customer acquisition cost. In the absence of a unique niche, merely tweaking a UI or forking GMX's code is no longer sufficient to survive in this highly competitive market. Projects without core advantages in order matching engines or strong ecosystem backing are essentially expensive liquidity mining pools, not real exchanges.

Four existing DEX models值得后来者们借鉴学习:

Hyperliquid Model: Vertical Integration and Technological Hegemony

On the list of surviving DEXs, Hyperliquid is an unavoidable monument. It proves that if general-purpose公链 cannot support high-frequency trading, the best solution is to build your own chain.

Hyperliquid attracts substantial quantitative capital because it addresses order book latency through L1底层 optimization. It no longer寄生 on Arbitrum or other Layer 2 solutions but has built a consensus mechanism specifically designed for derivatives. This "vertical integration" grants it matching performance close to CEXs while maintaining on-chain transparency.

More importantly, Hyperliquid has successfully built a "quant-friendly" ecosystem. When third-party market makers发现这里的 API latency is extremely low and slippage is controllable, endogenous liquidity begins to grow organically. This "performance barrier" constructed through hard technological strength makes it从容 in facing competition from generic DEXs lacking distinctive features.

Aster Model: Ecosystem Premium and Asset Management Layer

If Hyperliquid relies on hardcore technology, then Aster and its backing from the Binance ecosystem represent another survival logic:极致 resource efficiency and asset appreciation — essentially, having a strong "backer."

Aster is not just a trading venue; it更像是一个 "leveraged layer for yield-bearing assets." Through deep integration with the Binance ecosystem, it introduces collateral like asBNB or USDF, allowing users to earn Staking or Re-staking yields while holding positions. This optimization of capital efficiency is难以企及 for standalone DEXs.

For large capital users, funding cost is a core consideration. When users open a position on Aster, their margin continues to generate annualized yields. This logic of "liquidity assetization" turns Aster into a highly sticky financial gateway, not merely a speculative tool.

Lighter Model: ZK-Powered Verifiable Financial Infrastructure

The Lighter model represents the pinnacle of "financial infrastructure-ization." It does not seek to become a traffic入口 but provides institutions with a交易底层 offering mathematical certainty through its self-built application-specific ZK-Rollup (App-specific ZK-rollup).

Lighter's uniqueness lies in solving the "mathematical honesty" problem. It encodes order matching and清算 logic into "ZK circuits." This means that the matching and清算 of every trade no longer rely on the "reputation" of nodes but on verifiable mathematical proofs. This is extremely attractive to institutional investors who despise "black-box清算."

Furthermore, Lighter's ZK-Orderbook design inherently possesses anti-MEV properties, protecting the strategy privacy of high-frequency traders. This combination of "verifiability + privacy protection + extremely low latency" makes it a standard interface linking real-world assets (RWA) with on-chain derivatives, building a high compliance and technological moat.

Decibel Model: Unification of Extreme Performance and Full-Chain Composability

In the 2026 market, Decibel represents the third evolutionary model for the new generation of Perp DEXs: the乐高 combination of a "high-performance engine" and "composability." As a full-chain trading engine rising within the Aptos ecosystem, Decibel彻底终结了 the fate that "speed and decentralization cannot be兼得".

Decibel's core competitiveness lies in its deeply optimized Trading VM. Leveraging Aptos's Block-STM parallel execution architecture, it is advancing towards sub-20 millisecond (sub-20 ms) block times and the ability to process over 1 million orders per second. This makes on-chain order matching no longer an "illusion" but a reality capable of competing with top-tier CEXs.

Unlike traditional isolated DEXs, Decibel provides a highly programmable financial platform. It unifies spot trading (Spot), perpetual contracts (Perps), margin trading (Margin), and vaults (Vaults). This "full-stack" design means users can use a single cross-chain margin account to collateralize various assets like APT, USDC, BTC, ETH simultaneously, greatly释放了 capital efficiency.

Decibel's "X-Chain Accounts" technology further breaks down cross-chain barriers. Users can directly fund their accounts using wallets from Ethereum or Solana (like MetaMask or Phantom) without configuring complex cross-chain bridges. This "seamless access" capability, combined with 100% on-chain matching logic, positions Decibel to potentially become the new favorite for on-chain high-frequency traders and institutions in 2026.

New Directions Post-2026: Intent, AI, and Dynamic Pricing

From an industry practitioner's perspective, the future evolution of Perp DEX will focus on the following three dimensions:

Intent-Centric Trading Experience. Future users will no longer need to manually adjust funding rates or slippage but will express an intent. The system will find the optimal execution path across chains through solvers. This model will significantly lower the barrier for retail users to access complex derivatives.

The Explosion of AI Agents. With the maturation of on-chain automation tools, DEXs will built-in AI strategy engines. A significant portion of future open interest will be driven by AI. This means DEXs need to provide more powerful computing capabilities and lower data latency to accommodate the high-frequency博弈 of robots.

Evolution of Pricing Models. Current AMMs or simple order books remain fragile during extreme market conditions. We are seeing more projects introduce complex dynamic risk engines that automatically adjust system parameters in real-time through more scientific formulas:

实时调节系统参数。This automated adjustment based on real-time volatility and position deviation will make the system robustness of Perp DEX truly surpass that of traditional centralized institutions.

The second half for Perp DEX is a survival race about "efficiency." Projects that attempted to sustain themselves through mediocre subsidies have long turned to dust. The future winners will either possess impeccable technological foundations like Hyperliquid, have irreplicable ecosystem resources like Aster, or have found the perfect balance between performance limits and full-chain composability like Decibel.

In this field, there is only one reason to survive: Do you provide an execution efficiency that capital and strategies cannot refuse?

Questions liées

QWhat is the core value proposition of Perp DEXs that allows them to compete with CEXs, according to the article?

AThe core value proposition is not being faster or cheaper than CEXs, but rather solving the most fundamental cost in the financial system: trust. Perp DEXs provide transparency, with清算 logic, funding rates, and order matching recorded on an immutable ledger, which has become a consensus requirement after crises involving opaque清算 on second-tier exchanges.

QWhat is 'Liquidity Renting' and why did it lead to the failure of many Perp DEX projects?

ALiquidity Renting refers to a model where a DEX induces users to provide capital to support trading depth by distributing points or token subsidies. The protocol doesn't truly 'own' this liquidity but temporarily rents users' funds by paying a high 'rent' (token or point rewards). This model failed because once the points were redeemed and airdrops distributed, these platforms fell into a 'liquidity to zero' death spiral, as the liquidity was not sustainable without continuous subsidies.

QHow does the Hyperliquid model achieve its competitive advantage in the Perp DEX space?

AHyperliquid achieves its advantage through vertical integration and technical hegemony. It built its own L1 blockchain specifically optimized for derivatives trading, solving the order book latency issues of general-purpose blockchains. This gives it CEX-like matching performance while maintaining on-chain transparency. It also created a 'quant-friendly' ecosystem with low API latency and controllable slippage, fostering endogenous liquidity growth and building a strong performance barrier.

QWhat unique problem does the Lighter model solve with its ZK technology, and for which user base is it particularly attractive?

AThe Lighter model solves the problem of 'mathematical-level honesty' by building an application-specific ZK-Rollup. It encodes order matching and清算 logic into ZK circuits, meaning every trade's execution and清算 relies on verifiable mathematical proofs rather than the 'reputation' of nodes. This is extremely attractive to institutional investors who are averse to 'black box清算'. Additionally, its ZK-Orderbook design is naturally resistant to MEV, protecting the strategy privacy of high-frequency traders.

QWhat are the three key future evolution directions for Perp DEXs mentioned in the article's conclusion?

AThe three key future evolution directions are: 1) Intent-centric trading体验, where users express an intent and the system finds the optimal execution path across chains. 2) The爆发 of AI Agents, where a significant portion of open interest will be driven by AI, requiring DEXs to provide greater computational power and lower data latency. 3) The evolution of pricing models, moving beyond simple AMM or order books to incorporate complex dynamic risk engines that automatically adjust system parameters based on real-time volatility and position deviation for superior robustness.

Lectures associées

De l'or au Bitcoin : Offre fixe + frénésie institutionnelle, une répétition des prix "explosifs" en vue ?

De l'or au Bitcoin : offre fixe et engouement institutionnel, prêts à rejouer une hausse explosive des prix ? L'article compare les trajectoires potentielles du Bitcoin et de l'or, en se focalisant sur l'impact des ETF. L'analyste Eric Balchunas de Bloomberg Intelligence établit un parallèle entre l'ETF Bitcoin et l'ETF or, lancé en 2004. Il note que les deux actifs, sans rendement intrinsèque, voient leur prix dicté par le sentiment des investisseurs. L'histoire de l'ETF or montre des cycles de hausses spectaculaires, de corrections douloureuses et de longues phases de reprise, chaque cycle établissant un plus haut historique. Le Bitcoin, après l'approbation des ETF spot début 2024, a connu un afflux massif de capitaux institutionnels, certains fonds devenant les ETF à la croissance la plus rapide. Cependant, cette adoption s'accompagne d'une volatilité accrue. Les flux entrants et sortants des grands ETF comme l'IBIT de BlackRock peuvent influencer significativement le marché. Malgré un repli important du prix en 2026, de nombreux observateurs restent optimistes sur le long terme. Ils voient dans le Bitcoin un "or numérique" bénéficiant d'une offre fixe (mécanisme de halving) et d'une adoption institutionnelle croissante. Les ETF facilitent l'accès pour les investisseurs traditionnels, amplifiant potentiellement la demande. En conclusion, si le Bitcoin devait capturer ne serait-ce qu'une fraction de la capitalisation boursière de l'or (près de 28 000 milliards de dollars), la perspective de hausse serait considérable. Ce parcours sera probablement semé d'une forte volatilité, mais l'arrivée continue de capitaux institutionnels pourrait poser les bases d'une nouvelle phase de croissance.

Foresight NewsIl y a 9 mins

De l'or au Bitcoin : Offre fixe + frénésie institutionnelle, une répétition des prix "explosifs" en vue ?

Foresight NewsIl y a 9 mins

Pourquoi les agents d'IA pour les achats peinent-ils à se généraliser ?

**Pourquoi les agents d'achat IA peinent à se généraliser ?** L'idée de confier à un agent IA un portefeuille pour qu'il achète de manière autonome semble être l'application ultime de l'IA. Cependant, ce récit confond les éléments simples et complexes de l'acte d'acheter, en plaçant à tort le paiement, l'étape la plus facile, au centre. L'achat se compose de deux actions fondamentales : la **recherche d'informations** (standardisable, déléguable à la machine) et le **jugement de valeur** (subjectif, lié aux préférences humaines). Si la recherche migre rapidement vers l'IA, le jugement de valeur ne peut être entièrement délégué. Il implique non seulement l'évaluation des options, mais surtout la **définition des besoins et des critères** (ce qui est important, les priorités), un processus itératif et subjectif qui reste de la souveraineté humaine. La limite décisive n'est pas entre produit standardisé et personnalisé, mais entre : **la corvée et le plaisir**. Pour les achats répétitifs et sans intérêt (papier, piles), une délégation totale à l'IA est pertinente. Pour les achats liés au plaisir ou à l'identité (vin, vêtements, livres), le choix *fait partie* de l'expérience. L'IA doit alors servir d'assistant de recherche, présentant une sélection restreinte, et laisser le choix final à l'humain. Le concept de "portefeuille IA" ne résout que le problème mineur du portage des fonds. Les solutions de paiement actuelles (Stripe, Mastercard Agent Pay, Google AP2) adoptent des approches d'autorisation limitée et contextuelle, sans nécessiter de confier un portefeuille complet à l'IA. Le véritable terrain d'application du portefeuille autonome pour l'IA est le **règlement automatisé entre machines (M2M)** ou les **achats professionnels standardisés (B2B)**, où les critères sont objectifs et les volumes élevés. Les vrais goulots d'étranglement pour les achats automatisés par IA sont ailleurs : 1. **Le manque de sources de données fiables** : avis falsifiés, contrefaçons. Une automatisation sûre nécessite des données vérifiables et une traçabilité des produits. 2. **L'impossibilité d'automatiser la définition des besoins humains** : C'est un processus intrinsèquement humain. Si l'IA définit nos critères à notre place, les préférences qui en résultent ne sont plus les nôtres. En conclusion, pour les plateformes de vente, l'avenir réside non pas dans la délégation totale du choix, mais dans l'optimisation des données pour faciliter la recherche par l'IA, tout en préservant et en enrichissant **l'expérience de choix** pour l'utilisateur humain, là où réside la valeur fondamentale des achats liés au plaisir.

Foresight NewsIl y a 1 h

Pourquoi les agents d'IA pour les achats peinent-ils à se généraliser ?

Foresight NewsIl y a 1 h

Après neuf mois de vente à découvert, un retournement complet, un trader célèbre prend position sur le Bitcoin autour de 64 000 dollars, la divergence haussière/baissière s'accélère sur le marché des crypto

Après neuf mois de baisse, le Bitcoin a perdu plus de 50% depuis son pic d'octobre 2025 et évolue désormais autour de 60 000 $. Cette phase baissière divise les analystes sur la question de savoir si le fond du marché a été atteint. Le trader renommé Doctor Profit, qui avait vendu à découvert avec succès cette descente, a annoncé le 19 juillet avoir clôturé toutes ses positions vendeuses. Il a initié un achat progressif de Bitcoin à partir de 64 000 $, estimant que le creux du cycle quadriennal pourrait arriver plus tôt que prévu. Son raisonnement repose sur des changements structurels : l'avancée de la régulation (CLARITY Act), la tokenisation d'actifs par des géants comme BlackRock, et l'attente de capitaux institutionnels massifs. À l'appui, l'analyste on-chain gumsays note une divergence haussière sur les graphiques hebdomadaires, persistante depuis 147 jours, une durée proche des 161 jours observés avant le creux de 2022. Cependant, le chercheur de cycles Jake Pahor oppose un argumentaire fondé sur l'histoire. En analysant les données depuis 2012, il identifie trois conditions communes à tous les fonds de marché depuis 2014 : une durée d'environ 12 mois, une peur extrême prolongée (score de risque <20), et un prix sous le "prix réalisé" (actuellement ~53 000$). Aucune de ces conditions n'est remplie dans le cycle actuel. Le marché est donc tiraillé entre ceux qui anticipent un rebond précoce, motivés par les nouvelles fondamentales, et ceux qui attendent des signaux de capitulation plus classiques avant de s'engager pleinement. La stratégie de Jake Pahor reflète cette prudence : il continue ses achats réguliers au niveau actuel mais réserve le gros de son capital pour des niveaux de panique plus extrêmes.

marsbitIl y a 1 h

Après neuf mois de vente à découvert, un retournement complet, un trader célèbre prend position sur le Bitcoin autour de 64 000 dollars, la divergence haussière/baissière s'accélère sur le marché des crypto

marsbitIl y a 1 h

Trading

Spot
活动图片