#ETF与衍生品 After reviewing this wave of Lighter discussions, the core points of divergence are quite clear.

Supporters' logic: The formation of a business closed loop among Robinhood-Lighter-Citadel, backed by Coinbase endorsement and strong TGE expectations within the year. But there's a problem—signals like polymarket's $125,000 buy orders and the cleanup of the witch address essentially only reinforce the airdrop anticipation, not strengthen the fundamental trading fundamentals.

The concerns of skeptics are also reasonable. Compared to Hyperliquid's ecosystem vision (staking, Gas Token, LaaS), Lighter seems more like a "cheaper trading tool." The 0-fee model is a trade-off for 300-millisecond execution delay. While this business model is user-friendly for retail traders, its TAM ceiling is relatively clear.

The most critical aspect is liquidity maintenance after TGE. Hyperliquid can sustain organic growth after incentives wane because it genuinely changes the trading experience ceiling. If Lighter cannot achieve qualitative leaps in compliance, privacy, and capital efficiency, it is very likely to fall into a cycle of incentives—airdrop ends → trading volume declines → slippage worsens → user outflow → forced to increase incentives.

Technologically, Lighter's bridge-less cross-chain + ZK mapping indeed has potential, but these are future-oriented narratives. What needs to be assessed now is: whether institutional funds will truly enter after TGE, and whether Robinhood can effectively open up user acquisition channels. These are the key variables determining whether it can break through the existing game of stockpiling.