Let me be more direct.
Binance is the best entry point for project teams to exit liquidity after token issuance, bar none. $MON's debut on Coinbase turned into a disaster, which should completely打消 other project teams' attempts to bypass Binance.
And when market consensus forms that projects on BNB Chain will receive某种 priority attention for listing on Alpha. BNB Chain projects will naturally scale.
There's no way around it: liquidity is the absolute lifeline of an asset. Binance is the center of liquidity, thus determining and holding the 'life' of the vast majority of projects.
Next, there might be only one area left to focus on—edge innovation. So-called edge innovation means that what replaced Kodak wasn't a better Kodak, but the smartphone. From the 'Qin, Jin, and Chu' to the US and Japan, they all emerged from边缘 cultural groups, continuously absorbing external cultural innovations.
When large companies encounter such potential 'edge innovation,' acquisition is the best defense. If that's not possible, create something similar, or run multiple internal horse races.
After FTX collapsed, the MEME trend on Solana from late last year to early this year was an attempt to allow project teams to exit liquidity directly through on-chain transactions, bypassing exchanges. In fact, even now, Solana's ICM (Internet capital markets)路线 is still trying to do this. The name pretty much spells it out.
And most importantly, through the MEME experience, Solana developers have clearly come to understand the importance of 'transaction ordering.' You can see various ordering method attempts on Solana now, with the finalized direction being ACE (Application-Controlled Execution).
They probably just didn't expect that ahead, Binance Alpha would recapture pricing power for new assets, and behind, Hyperliquid would do what they wanted to do.
Hyperliquid—perhaps never in history has a project made Binance take it so seriously, even more than Uniswap back in the day. Hence, reviving APX as Aster, and不惜重金 subsidizing trading.
As I wrote before, Hyperliquid redesigned the microstructure of the order book, directly incorporating the identification of transaction types into the consensus mechanism.
This seemingly simple yet fundamentally disruptive design means that at the consensus layer, Hyperliquid mandates that nodes must process Cancel and post-only orders first, before processing GTC and IOC orders.
This gives market makers a very favorable environment on-chain. However, currently, Hyperliquid's liquidity is still concentrated in BTC. Their previous attempt at new asset issuance ended in failure, and now they are mainly focused on using Builders Coding for liquidity distribution to further capture liquidity and revenue.
So, now I really feel直观 that blockchain competition has escalated into a competition over 'ordering' methods. And ordering directly determines whether market making is possible and whether各方 liquidity can be effectively withdrawn.
