#去中心化衍生品交易 Seeing the comparison discussion between Lighter and Hyperliquid, my mind once again recalls the project divergences I’ve seen over the years. The choice between these two paths essentially represents a new interpretation of the old crypto dilemma — whether to integrate into the existing system or to overthrow it.

Lighter follows an investment bank mindset: collaborating with traditional giants like Coinbase and Robinhood. It appears to leverage their strength, but fundamentally it’s about securing a "buyout" position. Its token utility is limited, serving more as a fundraising tool rather than an ecological foundation. I’ve seen too many projects like this, which ultimately get either integrated and absorbed or become trading targets.

Hyperliquid is doing something different — it aims to build a parallel financial system. The launch of Portfolio Margin, along with the synergy of lending protocols on the EVM-compatible layer, all point toward a complete, self-consistent ecosystem. The HYPE token is deeply tied to the system, meaning its value isn’t derived from hype or speculation but from actual liquidity and usage.

This reminds me of the 2017 cycle. Back then, everyone was focused on the birth of ERC-20 tokens, but few truly understood what role protocol tokens should play. Ten years later, we finally see two clear paths — one tool-based and passive, the other protocol-based and active.

The $13 million liquidation event on Tradexyz is also quite ironic. Assets that aren’t traded 24/7 are used to run perpetual contracts, which is risk for liquidity. These lessons are written into history; every new cycle just brings new people who need to learn them all over again.

The controversy over Lighter’s token issuance essentially reflects the market’s valuation split between these two paths. The future depends on whether you believe decentralization can truly replace traditional finance.