#ETF与衍生品 Seeing the debate between Lighter and Hyperliquid, I was reminded of the exchange wars of 2017. Back then, it was the same—every new project claimed to be the "next generation," but after the waves of淘沙, only a few remain today.

This time is different because we see two completely different roadmaps. Hyperliquid chose the "fiefdom split" model of single-chain applications—HIP-3 ecosystem prosperity but fragmented liquidity. I’ve seen through this trade-off long ago. Lighter, on the other hand, adopts a "unified" L2 approach, using ZK technology to directly map the liquidity of the Ethereum mainnet. This design logic reminds me of the common traits of true winners in history: not necessarily the most technically advanced, but those who know how to leverage the trend.

But I have to be honest—Lighter’s zero-fee model is essentially "using money to buy time." I’ve seen this playbook too many times. Robinhood did the same back then, and now it’s turned into an order flow business. As long as there’s a speed advantage, someone will be willing to pay for it. Retail investors are always the ones getting cut. I acknowledge the advantages of privacy and compliance, but the real question is—once the TGE ends and airdrop incentives fade, can user stickiness hold up? That’s the key to life or death.

Hyperliquid breaks the "mining,提, selling" curse, not by technical prowess but by establishing real trading demand. For Lighter to take this step, the difficulty is even higher—because it must convince retail, institutions, and market makers to believe in a model that has never been tested over time. From a cyclical perspective, this is precisely the watershed where the derivatives market transitions from wild growth to regulation. Whoever survives this will see the next wave of prosperity.