Hyperliquid In-Depth Report –– The Rise of a Next-Generation "Liquidity Base" for On-Chain Derivatives

I. Team Background and Organizational Structure

The rise of Hyperliquid can be attributed in large part to its unique team composition and organizational culture. Unlike many crypto projects that rely on large teams and massive funding, Hyperliquid has followed a "lean, efficient, and technology-driven" path since its inception. Its core competitiveness lies in the small team's strong ability to execute, engineering DNA, and unwavering commitment to community ownership.

Founder Jeff Yan has a distinct background in quantitative trading and systems engineering. He graduated from Harvard University with a degree in Mathematics and Computer Science and previously worked as a quantitative trader at Hudson River Trading (HRT), one of the world's most renowned high-frequency trading firms. HRT is a representative institution of high-frequency trading on Wall Street, with the most demanding requirements for low latency and system performance. In that environment, Jeff gained a profound understanding of ultra-low-latency matching systems, quantitative model development, and market microstructure. In 2018, he entered the crypto space, initially exploring how to transplant his expertise in traditional high-frequency trading into decentralized environments. In 2022, he formally founded Hyperliquid with a clear mission: to build a high-performance trading platform that integrates high-frequency trading and on-chain mechanisms. Unlike many crypto entrepreneurs, Jeff has shown little interest in business development or capital maneuvers. Instead, he firmly believes that channeling all resources into product R&D and system iteration is the only way to stand out in such a fiercely competitive market. This technology-centered entrepreneurial philosophy has set the tone for Hyperliquid's growth and determined the team's overall DNA –– quantitative thinking, systems engineering, and relentless pursuit of optimal performance.

Hyperliquid's team is extraordinarily lean. According to public reports and community estimates, the core team consists of just about 11 members, yet they support a platform with daily trading volumes reaching tens of billions of dollars. Compared with traditional fintech companies, which typically employ hundreds of researchers, developers, and operations staff, this size is almost unimaginable. This "small team, massive output" model is also reflected in its financial metrics. According to community statistics and third-party research in August 2025, Hyperliquid's annual revenue per employee exceeds $100 million, with total revenue reaching the billion-dollar range. The company is thus considered "one of the most labor-efficient companies globally". Such extraordinary labor efficiency not only showcases the team's execution capabilities but also demonstrates the high degree of automation and stability in its underlying systems. Order matching, risk management, and clearing mechanisms are almost entirely automated so that team members can focus primarily on protocol iteration and feature expansion rather than day-to-day maintenance or manual intervention. This model drives down marginal labor costs, allowing the smallest possible team to cover the widest possible market. More importantly, this efficiency has not come at the expense of security. Hyperliquid's matching engine and on-chain mechanisms have withstood tests in extreme market conditions, maintaining stable system operations and protecting user assets without major security incidents. This has further convinced the market that, with superior engineering capabilities and sound mechanism design, even a small team can build trading infrastructure on par with the traditional giants.

Aside from the founder's background and team size, Hyperliquid's organizational culture is also one of its unique advantages. First of all, the team follows a strict "quality over quantity" principle in recruitment. Most members come from top academic and financial institutions, like MIT, Caltech, and Citadel, and possess highly specialized expertise. Rather than rapidly scaling its workforce, Hyperliquid prefers deep engagement from its core members to maintain efficient execution. Second, the team demonstrates strong values in its selection of capital. It has explicitly rejected external VC investment and adheres to a "no VC" policy. In the crypto industry, this choice is highly distinctive. Many projects secure resources through large-scale financing early on, but this often results in governance rights and value capture being tilted toward investors. By contrast, Hyperliquid has driven its development through self-funding and protocol-driven organic growth, ensuring that value capture belongs to the community rather than to capital providers. This not only strengthens users' sense of belonging to the platform but also establishes a differentiated position through its narrative.

Hyperliquid continues this logic in terms of governance path. Platform fees and revenues are returned to the HLP protocol vault and ecosystem fund, without any profits extracted by the team. This arrangement allows users to recognize the transparency and fairness of platform operations, alleviating their concerns about "centralized arbitrage". As the community gains greater influence over governance and ecosystem development, Hyperliquid has gradually cultivated a culture where "users are owners". This culture has been crucial in quickly winning over user trust and has built a community moat for the platform's long-term development.

In sum, Hyperliquid's team and organizational design exhibit three distinctive features: DNA Determined by the Founder's Background: With expertise in quantitative trading and high-frequency trading, the founder has embedded engineering and performance advantages into the platform. High Labor Efficiency of a Small Team: A team of just over ten people supports tens of billions of dollars in daily trading volume, creating exceptional capital and labor efficiency. Organizational Power that Emphasizes Community Ownership: By rejecting VC investment and emphasizing transparent value distribution, Hyperliquid has continuously enhanced user trust and engagement. This organizational model challenges the conventional belief that "scale equals success" and proves that in the DeFi sector, a lean, specialized, and user-centric team can also evolve into an industry leader. Hyperliquid's team story is not only a critical footnote to its success but also a paradigm worth pondering for latecomers: in the world of open finance, the most scarce resource is not capital or labor, but remarkable engineering capabilities, a clear set of values, and institutional designs that remain consistent over the long term.

II. Product Features and Trading Models

Hyperliquid's rapid rise is not only attributable to its engineering prowess and organizational culture; its product architecture and trading model have also been decisive in building market barriers. In the decentralized derivatives sector, most protocols struggle with a tradeoff between insufficient performance and concerns over security and trust. Hyperliquid has successfully struck a balance between performance and decentralization through its self-developed dual-engine architecture, fully on-chain order book, innovative HLP protocol vault, and rigorous leverage risk control system. This enables the platform to deliver a trading experience comparable to centralized exchanges (CEXs) while still preserving DeFi's institutional transparency and openness, making it one of the few platforms to truly combine CEX's speed with DeFi's security.

Hyperliquid's underlying technical architecture is powered by two engines: HyperCore and HyperEVM, corresponding to performance and openness, respectively. HyperCore is the platform's core matching and trading system, responsible for matching and executing spot and perpetual futures. Its performance metrics are close to traditional CEXs, with median matching latency at around 200 milliseconds and throughput reaching hundreds of thousands of TPS. This means that high-frequency traders and institutional investors can run complex strategies on-chain without losing their competitive advantages due to latency or slippage. Meanwhile, HyperEVM is an EVM-compatible environment that supports on-chain contracts and ecosystem expansion. It ensures that while Hyperliquid maintains high performance, it also remains composable with the Ethereum ecosystem and broader DeFi protocols. Through HyperEVM, Hyperliquid can rapidly extend into lending, liquid staking, asset issuance, and other financial applications, forming a comprehensive on-chain financial closed loop. This "dual-engine" model takes into account both balance performance and verifiability: HyperCore focuses on extreme speed and stability, while HyperEVM guarantees an open system and a diverse ecosystem. It is precisely this architectural innovation that has enabled Hyperliquid to achieve its goal of "CEX experience + DeFi security".

In its trading model, Hyperliquid has chosen a fundamentally different path from the mainstream AMM model —– a fully on-chain order book (CLOB). Most decentralized exchanges rely on AMMs (automated market makers), which allow for permissionless liquidity but suffer from inherent limitations in depth, slippage, and high-frequency strategies. In contrast, Hyperliquid has brought the order book and matching logic entirely on-chain, making users' order placement, cancellation, matching, and settlement fully verifiable. This design offers two advantages: On the one hand, it significantly enhances fairness and transparency. All orders and matching results are recorded on-chain, eliminating backroom deals and market maker manipulation. On the other hand, it opens the door to institutional users and high-frequency traders. These users are familiar with order book-based trading and rely on complex order-placement and cancellation strategies to manage risks and capture arbitrage. Hyperliquid's on-chain order book environment meets their dual demands for depth, speed, and programmability, allowing them to execute sophisticated strategies just as they would on a CEX, but without custodial risk.

In DeFi derivatives trading, providing stable liquidity and clearing capacity has long been the crux. Hyperliquid addresses this pain point with its innovative HLP (vault) mechanism. HLP plays three roles: Liquidity Provider: HLP acts as the platform's primary market maker, ensuring stable depth for both buyers and sellers. Risk Buffer: When users suffer from losses or the market fluctuates violently, HLP absorbs liquidation losses as a systemic risk-hedging pool, thereby avoiding the ADL (auto-deleveraging) commonly seen in traditional exchanges. In this way, profitable users will not be forcibly liquidated due to systemic risk. Revenue-sharing Mechanism: All users who deposit into HLP share in the platform's fee income and funding-rate revenues.

The greatest significance of this design lies in its democratization. In CEXs, market making and clearing are typically controlled by a handful of privileged market makers, and ordinary users are unable to participate directly. Hyperliquid, however, allows every depositor to become part of the market-making process and jointly benefit from market growth. Over the long term, this not only strengthens user stickiness but also makes the platform's risk management more resilient.

Leverage and risk control are the heart of the derivatives market. While offering high leverage, Hyperliquid has also established a dynamic risk-control mechanism. The platform supports leverage of up to 40-50x, meeting the demands of professional traders. However, for small-cap cryptos or large positions, the system proactively lowers upper leverage limits to prevent systemic risks from extreme outlier positions. The way funding rates are calculated also reflects the platform's prudence. Unlike some platforms that calculate rates based on internal prices or fund pool conditions, Hyperliquid's funding rates are based on external oracle prices, anchoring them to real market conditions and preventing internal manipulation. The mechanism of frequent fee rate settlement (typically every eight hours) further maintains dynamic balance in the market. Through these mechanisms, Hyperliquid preserves the appeal of high-leverage trading while keeping systemic risk under control and user experience predictable. This forges a strong trust bridge between whales and retail traders.

Overall, Hyperliquid's products and trading model reflect a distinctly systems-engineering mindset: Through the HyperCore + HyperEVM dual engine, it strikes a balance between performance and openness; with its fully on-chain order book, it delivers institutional-grade fairness and depth; through the HLP protocol vault, it democratizes market-making and clearing functions; and with its leverage and risk-control systems, it draws in high-frequency and professional traders while safeguarding platform security and stability. This complete product system not only resolves the long-standing pain points of decentralized derivatives but also establishes Hyperliquid's unique competitive edge. It allows users to shift almost seamlessly between the experience of a CEX and DeFi, while building lasting trust and stickiness through transparent institutions and value-distribution mechanisms. It is precisely for these reasons that Hyperliquid has quickly stood out in a fiercely competitive sector, emerging as one of the most representative "liquidity foundations" of today.

III. Governance and Institutional Design: The Cornerstone of User Trust

Hyperliquid's another core competitive advantage lies in its openness, scalability, and rapid iteration achieved through governance and institutional innovation. Since its inception, the project has adopted a mechanism similar to Ethereum's EIP, i.e., the Hyper Improvement Proposal (HIP), as the foundational framework for community consensus and product iteration. Through HIP, Hyperliquid has not only solved the liquidity cold-start and token listing challenges but has also created an institutionalized pathway for expanding the derivatives market, significantly enhancing the platform's ecosystem diversity.

HIP-1's launch marked an important first step for Hyperliquid in governance and institutional design. With this mechanism, any project can list its own token and quickly launch a spot market on the platform by simply paying a certain number of HYPE tokens. This mechanism breaks the "CEX monopoly over token listings" and sidesteps the bottleneck facing traditional decentralized exchanges (DEXs): their reliance on external liquidity bootstrapping. In other words, HIP-1 has made the "token listing" process more standardized and rule-based, enabling projects to enter the market in a fully permissionless environment while dramatically reducing cold-start costs. If HIP-1 solved the question of "how to list tokens", then HIP-2 goes a step further to address the challenge of "how to maintain market depth in the early stages". In traditional markets, newly listed assets often struggle with limited active liquidity from both buyers and sellers, leading to high slippage and unstable trading. By introducing an AMM service (Hyperliquidity) through HIP-2, Hyperliquid provides baseline buying and selling depth for new projects. This not only improves the user experience but also helps new assets gain market recognition more quickly. It is important to note that this automation is not simply about liquidity incentives. Instead, it is backed by systemic algorithms and rational allocation of liquidity pools, thus ensuring market making remains sustainable.

HIP-3 is rightly the landmark innovation in Hyperliquid's governance and institutional design. According to this proposal, any builder who stakes 1 million HYPE tokens and participates in a Dutch auction earns the right to deploy a perpetual market. More importantly, builders enjoy up to 50% of the fee revenue from their new markets and can customize the trading parameters and fee rates. This mechanism unlocks tremendous community creativity, transferring the right to supply the perpetual futures markets from the official team to ecosystem participants. The potential impact of HIP-3 is far-reaching: It enables Hyperliquid to rapidly expand into long-tail assets such as RWAs (real-world assets), indices, commodities, foreign exchange, and even pre-IPO stocks, creating a product offering different from that of CEXs. Through high-staking thresholds and auction mechanisms, it screens builders with long-term investment commitment and adequate funds, thus preventing the proliferation of low-quality markets. Furthermore, by tying fee revenue to governance, it ensures that the community offers clear economic incentives when expanding into new markets.

Overall, the HIP series of proposals demonstrates the logic behind Hyperliquid's institutional design: first lowering entry barriers through open listings and automated market-making, and then achieving decentralized supply and large-scale expansion through the Builder mechanism. This governance framework not only resolves the growth bottlenecks constraining traditional DEXs but also lays the institutional foundation for Hyperliquid's long-term evolution.

In decentralized finance, user trust is the cornerstone for platforms' sustainable development. Although Hyperliquid's core matching logic and fund flow mechanisms may seem somewhat "centralized" to outsiders, it has nonetheless managed to establish strong user trust in a short period of time. This trust is built on performance, institutional design, and narrative. First of all, performance and user experience are the most powerful appeal. Hyperliquid offers trading speed and depth on par with CEXs, with matching latency as low as 200 milliseconds, fast enough to support the needs of high-frequency traders and institutional users. While enjoying an on-chain experience almost identical to that offered by CEXs, users are free from the risks of centralized custody. Second, the transparency and non-custodial design give users a greater sense of security. The platform does not have a profit-extraction mechanism, and all fee revenues are returned to the HLP protocol vault and ecosystem fund. Users always retain control over their assets, with all transaction records verifiable on-chain. This stands in stark contrast to the "black box" operations of traditional exchanges. Third, community ownership forms the foundation of trust on a values level. Hyperliquid has consistently rejected VC funding and refused to transfer benefits to external capital. Instead, it upholds the principle that "users are owners". This narrative not only dispels the concern over a "capital vs. users" pattern but also allows users to see themselves as co-builders and long-term beneficiaries of the platform.

In addition, the whale effect has further amplified the transmission of trust. Famous whale James Wynn has traded on the platform with positions of hundreds of millions of dollars and high leverage, generating extraordinary returns. Successful cases like this one are visible to all, significantly bolstering the confidence of ordinary users and driving further inflows of capital. Finally, deflationary and incentive mechanisms have reinforced expectations around the token value. Not simply a tool for governance and staking, the HYPE token offers trading fee discounts, while a portion of platform revenues is allocated to token buybacks and burns. This design convinces users that platform growth is directly tied to token value, so that they are more willing to hold the token and participate for the long term.

In sum, Hyperliquid's trust flywheel is driven by technical performance, transparent systems, community ownership, demonstration effects, and deflationary mechanisms. This multifaceted trust structure has allowed it to quickly move past skepticism that "it requires trust just like a CEX" and instead develop a unique competitive edge.

IV. Market Performance and Competitive Landscape

In 2025, Hyperliquid has become the undisputed leader in the DeFi perpetual market, with a stable market share of 70-80%. With a daily trading volume of the tens of billions of dollars, it now dwarfs other decentralized derivatives platforms and rivals that of mid-sized CEXs. According to DefiLlama, the Hyperliquid protocol generated $1.345 billion in annualized fees, including $110.26 million in the past 30 days, with cumulative fees totaling $660.98 million. At the same time, its annualized revenue reached $1.251 billion, with $102.55 million in the past 30 days, and cumulative revenue stood at $636.46 million. This scale makes Hyperliquid a true "on-chain liquidity base". In terms of capital, Hyperliquid's TVL has surpassed $2 billion, which demonstrates both the scale of user deposits and the protocol's security. Its token, HYPE, once reached a market cap of $16 billion, with a fully diluted valuation (FDV) exceeding $46 billion. Such high valuations highlight not only market recognition of its business model but also investors' strong confidence in its long-term growth potential. Hyperliquid can already wrestle with centralized giants like Binance in speed and user experience. Meanwhile, its non-custodial design and community ownership model shield it from the trust and regulatory crises inherent to the CeFi model. At a time when global users' trust in CEXs is waning, this differentiation has become a core strategic advantage for Hyperliquid. However, as regulation tightens in the future, how Hyperliquid can reconcile "no KYC, cross-chain freedom" with "compliance requirements" will be a key challenge for its continued expansion.

Hyperliquid also enjoys distinct advantages in the DEX sector: Compared with AMM-based DEXs (such as Uniswap), it offers a more professional order book trading experience and deeper liquidity, making it appealing to institutions and high-frequency traders. Compared with order book-based DEXs like dYdX V4, Hyperliquid's self-developed high-performance L1 and HLP model are efficient and resilient, avoiding the performance bottlenecks that come with relying on external chains. Overall, Hyperliquid has established a de facto monopoly in the DeFi perpetual market. It is both a challenger to CEXs and a surpasser of other DEXs. Through the HIP proposals, Hyperliquid's governance and institutional design have enabled full openness for everything from token listing, market making, and derivatives expansion. Its user trust is built upon a flywheel of performance, transparency, and values, while its market performance validates the success of this model. In 2025, it is not only the leader in DeFi perpetuals but also the early prototype of "on-chain liquidity infrastructure". However, regulation and governance remain critical challenges ahead. For other DEXs, Hyperliquid's experience shows that only by combining technical performance, institutional innovation, and value-driven narratives can a lasting moat be built amid such fierce competition.

V. Risks and Challenges

Although Hyperliquid has rapidly leapt from a small team to a market leader, any fast-growing financial infrastructure inevitably faces a series of risks and challenges. For Hyperliquid, these challenges will not only determine whether it can maintain its lead but will also shape the landscape of the entire DeFi derivatives sector.

The foremost challenge lies in the uncertain global regulatory climate. Hyperliquid's model emphasizes no KYC and the free cross-chain movement of funds, which are advantages for user experience and market expansion, but potential compliance liabilities. Regulators worldwide are increasingly scrutinizing leverage risks in crypto derivatives, anti-money laundering requirements, and cross-border capital flows, and may introduce mandatory registration or identity verification requirements in the future. Once Hyperliquid faces regional restrictions, its user growth and liquidity could be impaired. Unlike CeFi platforms, DeFi protocols cannot easily resolve compliance issues through traditional licensing. How to strike a balance between regulatory compliance and the ethos of decentralization will remain a long-term challenge for Hyperliquid.

Although Hyperliquid champions "users are owners" and seeks to democratize governance through HIP proposals and the HLP vault, there are still practical risks of governance centralization. For instance, in the JELLYJELLY manipulation incident, the Hyper Foundation had to step in market governance and intervention, revealing that the ecosystem still relies on the core team's final decisions. This exposes a paradox: when faced with complex governance dilemmas or malicious attacks, decentralized institutional design often depends on the assistance of centralized forces. How Hyperliquid will further refine its validator governance mechanisms to ensure a fair balance of interests between builders and users will directly affect its long-term sustainability. Hyperliquid's high-performance matching engine and cross-chain bridge design are its core competitive advantages as well as its potential sources of systemic risk. In the event of extreme market volatility or mass liquidations, cross-chain deposits, liquidations, and settlements could come under immense pressure. Any delays or failures could erode user trust. In addition, although the HLP vault bears most of the risk, its capacity to withstand extreme losses is limited. Hyperliquid must work consistently on enhancing system resilience without compromising user experience.

Hyperliquid's revenues are highly dependent on market activity, particularly demand for leveraged derivatives trading. In bull markets, trading volumes and fee income can soar, but in bear markets, diminished trading activity could result in substantial reductions in protocol revenues. If the platform cannot maintain sufficient returns for distribution during downturns, it may weaken the incentives for HLP depositors, thereby impacting market depth and overall ecosystem stability. The cyclical risks of this business model must be partially offset through diversified products (such as RWAs and lending). Moreover, Hyperliquid's brand narrative is built on "rejecting VC investment and embracing community ownership", a key asset that differentiates it from other platforms. However, if the team is ever suspected of hidden profiteering or if the governance structure comes under fire for black box practices, user trust in this narrative could weaken quickly. At the same time, as the whale effect intensifies, some users worry that Hyperliquid's over-reliance on large holders' funds could cause market volatility and inequitable distribution of benefits. If not properly managed, such perception risks could fracture the community.

In summary, regulation, governance, system stability, market cycles, and brand perception are the five major sources of risk for Hyperliquid in the future. These challenges do not undermine its current leadership, but they will determine whether it can truly evolve into a "cross-chain liquidity infrastructure".

VI. Implications for DEX Marketing

Hyperliquid's success lies not only at the product level but also in the way it has developed a highly instructive model of narrative and institutional design. For newcomers aspiring to rise in the decentralized trading sector, Hyperliquid's playbook offers clear a blueprint, including: 1. Narrative-driven: User ownership and value returns. Hyperliquid has consistently emphasized "rejecting VC investment and users are owners" and has put this into practice through fee sharing and HLP yield distribution. This narrative not only strengthens users' sense of belonging but also reinforces community stickiness. For any DEX, narrative is not merely promotional but a unification of institutional design and practice: Only when users can truly benefit from the dividends of platform growth can a narrative endure. 2. Product-driven: Balancing performance and experience. Hyperliquid's core competitiveness stems from its "dual-engine architecture and fully on-chain order book". This shows that in the DEX arena, users will not lower their expectations for experience just because a product is decentralized. On the contrary, only when performance approaches that of a CEX will users be willing to use it over the long term. Therefore, for latecomers, marketing cannot focus on decentralization alone; it must integrate "high performance, low latency, and transparent verifiability" to tell users that the product is "fast and secure". 3. Community-driven: Whale effect and retail adoption. Hyperliquid's growth path began with whales driving trading volume and liquidity, followed by retail adoption through partnerships with wallets like Phantom. This "top-down + bottom-up" dual-engine approach provides a reusable framework. DEXs can build market trust in the early stages by highlighting the success of large holders. In the medium to long term, they should deeply integrate with gateway applications (wallets, aggregators) to onboard retail users into the ecosystem. 4. Mechanism-driven: Open growth and profit-sharing logic. The success of HIP-3 demonstrates that making the builder ecosystem open to all is an effective way to expand markets. Through high-barrier staking and fee revenue sharing, Hyperliquid has delegated market creation rights to the community for large-scale expansion on the supply side. For marketing, this logic shows that institutional design itself should be part of the growth narrative, stressing that the platform belongs to everyone, rather than a privileged few. 5. Brand-driven: From DEX to "liquidity base layer".Hyperliquid no longer defines itself as a simple exchange, but as "cross-chain liquidity infrastructure". This positioning gives it a far broader strategic horizon. For any DEX, brand marketing hinges on breaking free from the limitations of being a "single-point application" to build a broader narrative, such as an "on-chain settlement layer" or a "cross-chain asset gateway". This allows it to achieve a strategic premium beyond that of a standalone product.

The takeaway from Hyperliquid is: Narrative, product, community, mechanism, and brand must all advance in tandem. Marketing is not a one-off action but the unified output of institutional design, product, and strategy.

VII. Conclusion

The story of Hyperliquid is a significant footnote in DeFi's evolution into a new stage. From a team of fewer than twenty people to now commanding 70-80% of the decentralized perpetuals market, its rise has been powered by three core elements: an engineering culture, institutional design, and narrative values.

On the engineering front, Hyperliquid has leveraged a lean team to develop a proprietary high-performance chain and a fully on-chain order book, proving that even a small team can outperform traditional giants in system engineering. At the institutional level, through the HIP series proposals and the HLP protocol vault, it has simultaneously achieved market expansion, risk management, and revenue sharing. In terms of narratives, by rejecting VC investment and stressing community ownership, it has fostered users' sense of belonging and value alignment. These three elements form Hyperliquid's "trust flywheel", making it not only the dominant player in DeFi derivatives but also the prototype of a new generation of on-chain financial infrastructure. The challenges that lie ahead for Hyperliquid are also clear: tightening regulatory environments, centralization risks of governance structure, system resilience under extreme market conditions, and the impact of market cycles on its revenue model. However, the paradigm it has pioneered already serves as a valuable reference for the industry. For latecomers, Hyperliquid's experience shows that only by combining performance advantages, institutional innovation, and value-driven narratives can a lasting moat be built in the fiercely competitive arena of decentralized trading.

In a sense, Hyperliquid is more than just a DEX; it has already taken a critical step toward becoming the "cross-chain liquidity base". Its emergence signals that the future of DeFi will not be a mere collection of standalone applications, but will gradually evolve into a global financial network, one that can rival CEXs in performance while maintaining institutional transparency and community co-governance.