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

marsbitPubblicato 2026-01-15Pubblicato ultima volta 2026-01-15

Introduzione

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?

Domande pertinenti

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.

Letture associate

From Gold to Bitcoin: Fixed Supply + Institutional Frenzy, Might It Repeat the 'Explosive' Price Trend?

"From Gold to Bitcoin: Fixed Supply and Institutional Frenzy May Lead to 'Explosive' Price Rally Analysts suggest Bitcoin's price action could mirror gold's over the past two decades, following the launch of spot Bitcoin ETFs. Gold ETFs, introduced in 2004, drove gold's price surge to a current market cap near $28 trillion. Both gold and Bitcoin are non-yielding stores of value, with prices driven purely by investor sentiment rather than cash flows or credit. Gold ETFs experienced dramatic cycles: explosive growth, painful drawdowns, and slow recoveries, with each cycle reaching higher peaks. Bitcoin ETFs, approved in early 2024, saw rapid institutional adoption but are now facing similar volatility. Recent warnings highlight the risk of significant ETF outflows disrupting the current rebound. BlackRock's IBIT, a leading Bitcoin ETF, has sold nearly 100,000 BTC to meet redemptions while still holding over 733,000. The core parallel is fixed supply: when demand surges, prices explode, but demand is often volatile and wave-like, not steady. Institutional interest, through ETFs and corporate adoption, remains a key support pillar, helping to cushion sell-offs. If Bitcoin captures even a fraction of gold's role as a store of value, its upside potential is immense, though the path will be marked by high volatility. For investors, focusing on long-term trends and managing risk is crucial as this 'price explosion' narrative unfolds."

Foresight News12 min fa

From Gold to Bitcoin: Fixed Supply + Institutional Frenzy, Might It Repeat the 'Explosive' Price Trend?

Foresight News12 min fa

Why Is AI Agent Shopping Hard to Popularize?

The article argues that the popular narrative of "AI agent shopping" – equipping AI with a wallet to autonomously handle purchases – is fundamentally flawed and oversimplifies the complexity of shopping. It deconstructs shopping into two core actions: **information retrieval** (standardized, easily automated) and **value judgment** (deeply subjective and human-centric). The narrative mistakenly assumes AI can fully handle both. Value judgment itself has two layers: **evaluation** (assessing options against criteria) and **demand definition** (setting the criteria, weights, and values). The latter is inherently human and dynamic, as preferences are not fixed but constructed during the decision-making process ("constructive preferences"). The real dividing line for automation is not product standardization, but whether the **act of choosing** itself holds experiential value. For mundane purchases (e.g., printer paper), full AI delegation works. For experiential goods (e.g., wine, furniture), the joy of selection is core to consumption, so AI should act as an assistant that narrows options, leaving the final choice to humans. The "AI wallet" concept confuses three separate elements: decision-making, execution, and fund custody. Current payment industry solutions (e.g., from Stripe, Mastercard, Google, Visa) show that limited, scoped payment authorization tokens are sufficient for most consumer scenarios, not full fund custody. The true use case for autonomous AI wallets is in **B2B procurement** and **machine-to-machine (M2M) settlements** for standardized, high-frequency, low-value transactions. The real bottlenecks for AI shopping are not payment technology, but **1) the lack of trusted data sources** (e.g., fake reviews, counterfeit goods) and **2) the impossibility of automating human demand definition**. The conclusion is that the focus should be on safely automating the assessment and filtering process while reserving for humans the rights to define their criteria and enjoy the final act of choice. For experiential goods, the platform's competitive advantage shifts to providing a superior selection experience.

Foresight News1 h fa

Why Is AI Agent Shopping Hard to Popularize?

Foresight News1 h fa

After Nine Months of Shorting, a Full Turn to Long: Renowned Trader Opens Bitcoin Positions Around 64K, Crypto Market Long-Short Divergence Intensifies

After nine months of being short, prominent crypto trader Doctor Profit has closed all his bearish positions and started buying Bitcoin near $64,000, signaling a complete bullish reversal. He argues that structural market changes—such as impending U.S. regulation (CLARITY Act) and institutional adoption via securities tokenization—are rewriting the traditional four-year cycle script, potentially bringing the market bottom forward from the widely expected September/October timeframe. This view finds some technical support from on-chain analyst gumsays, who notes a bullish divergence on Bitcoin's weekly chart has persisted for 147 days, nearing the 161-day duration seen before the 2022 cycle low. However, cycle researcher Jake Pahor presents a counter-argument based on historical data. Analyzing patterns since 2014, he identifies three common features of past bear market bottoms: a ~12-month duration from peak to trough, a sustained period of extreme fear (with a proprietary risk score below 20), and the price falling below Bitcoin's realized price (~$53,000 currently). The current cycle, only nine months from its October 2025 peak, meets none of these conditions. The debate highlights a market torn between "front-running" a potential early bottom driven by new fundamentals and waiting for confirmation through traditional on-chain and sentiment metrics. While Doctor Profit opts for aggressive buying, Pahor maintains a disciplined, tiered accumulation strategy, continuing weekly buys at current risk levels but reserving larger orders for if more extreme fear emerges.

marsbit1 h fa

After Nine Months of Shorting, a Full Turn to Long: Renowned Trader Opens Bitcoin Positions Around 64K, Crypto Market Long-Short Divergence Intensifies

marsbit1 h fa

Senior Trader's Confession: How to Trade Market's False Expectations?

Veteran trader's case study: trading the market's "wrong expectations". This trade centered on a textbook "expectation error" after a weak CPI report. While the market initially priced in broad monetary easing (sending Nasdaq to 30,060), the crucial 30-year real yield hit a 20-year high. This signaled a fractured transmission mechanism: short-term rates eased, but long-term funding costs (vital for tech valuations) refused to fall. The trader executed five short positions on the Nasdaq (NQ) as it fell from 30,060 to 28,768. The core methodology: don't just trade the data, but analyze the market's implied causal chain and identify where it breaks. In this case, the chain was: Weak CPI → Policy Easing → Lower Long-Term Funding Costs → NQ Valuation Expansion. The break occurred between policy easing and long-term rates. The "veto variable" – long-term real yields – refused to confirm the bullish narrative. Trades were structured around "fast variables" (price) temporarily repairing while "slow variables" (funding conditions) remained broken. The article outlines a repeatable framework: 1) Map the market's implied causal chain. 2) Identify the veto variable. 3) Observe if it rejects the narrative. 4) Enter when price still follows the old script. 5) Choose the cleanest asset expression (e.g., short NQ, not broad S&P). 6) Define both invalidation and fulfillment exit conditions. The key insight: Alpha often comes not from an information edge, but from a "reaction function edge" – recognizing when the market is applying an outdated causal logic to new data. The critical question: What causal chain is the market's first reaction relying on, and is that chain still valid today?

marsbit2 h fa

Senior Trader's Confession: How to Trade Market's False Expectations?

marsbit2 h fa

Trading

Spot
活动图片