#ETF与衍生品 Seeing Hyperliquid drop from 80% to 20%, my first reaction isn't surprise, but a familiar déjà vu. It's like I've seen too many projects—at their peak, they choose seemingly grand strategic transformations, only to give away short-term competitiveness to their rivals.

Looking closely, where's the problem? Hyperliquid shifted directly from B2C to B2B, handing over product deployment rights to third-party developers, and as a result, liquidity was immediately taken by competitors like Lighter that maintain vertical integration. Even more painfully, Hyperliquid abandoned incentives for over a year, while competitors are still aggressively siphoning liquidity during the seasonal points. In the world of DeFi—"hiring liquidity"—this is suicide.

But there's a warning here—don't be fooled by the long-term narratives of HIP-3 and Builder Codes. The story of this "liquidity AWS" is indeed attractive, but only if developers really come, and users truly stay. Right now? It's still in the theoretical stage. History has shown me that too many projects die in the gap between "great vision" and "market reality."

My advice is straightforward: if you're still trading on Hyperliquid, short-term, beware of further liquidity dispersion risks. If you're involved in derivatives, remember one ironclad rule—always choose the platform you can use now, don't bet on infrastructure that hasn't been implemented yet. Wait until HIP-3 actually generates significant trading volume; no matter how loud the hype now, it's all talk.