Despite the aggressive moves and massive investments from Perps like Aster and Lightner, and even endorsements from CZ, Hyperliquid is truly difficult to replace. Hyperliquid is a customized L1, and it is currently the most market maker-friendly Perp and L1 in the crypto world, bar none. Hyperliquid's real innovation lies in its redesign of the order book's microstructure, directly incorporating transaction identification into the consensus mechanism. This seemingly simple yet revolutionary design forces Hyperliquid to mandate that nodes must process Cancel and post-only orders before processing GTC and IOC orders at the consensus layer. Cancel: Cancels the pending order; Post-only orders - Only Maker orders are processed; GTC (Good-Til-Canceled) - Valid until cancelled; IOC (Immediate-Or-Cancel) - Complete the transaction immediately or cancel it. For market makers, being able to exit the market is paramount. During periods of sharp price fluctuations, order cancellation requests are always executed before other people's buy/sell requests. Market makers fear being targeted by attackers. Hyperliquid ensures that order cancellations always take priority. When prices fall, market makers cancel their orders, and the system forces these cancellations to be processed first, allowing market makers to successfully hedge their risks. On October 11, the day of the crash, Hyperliquid market makers remained online, with price spreads of 0.01-0.05%, because the market makers knew they could exit the market. For other on-chain order books or AMMs, there is usually a fatal problem. Market makers post quotes, market prices fluctuate, and they immediately issue order cancellation requests. However, in the milliseconds before the cancellation takes effect, high-frequency order takers (HFT) have already placed their orders, precisely targeting these "outdated quotes". The result is that market makers are forced to offer wider spreads to protect themselves, meaning you can't get much of a bargain from them. But with wider spreads, retail investors have to pay an extra 0.1% for each transaction. This is the "toxic order flow." While the trading volume appears large, it is actually a game between HFTs that harms the overall liquidity quality of the market. This is the problem that Solana is currently trying to solve by building ACE application control execution. It's also a problem that other blockchains struggle to solve, let alone MEV attacks. In other words, Hyperliquid defines "what constitutes a good trade" at the consensus level. Market makers can confidently quote tighter spreads because they know that order cancellation requests will be prioritized. Order takers can no longer rely on a few milliseconds of speed advantage to get ahead. This is why Hyperliquid actually has better liquidity during periods of volatility, and retail investors experience lower slippage. Hyperliquid protects those willing to provide liquidity, ensures retail investors who want to trade get the best prices, and makes it unprofitable for bots that only want to profit from arbitrage. Hyperliquid has already defined what kind of transactions are worth having their consensus confirmed, directly raising the level of competition to a whole new level.Despite the aggressive moves and massive investments from Perps like Aster and Lightner, and even endorsements from CZ, Hyperliquid is truly difficult to replace. Hyperliquid is a customized L1, and it is currently the most market maker-friendly Perp and L1 in the crypto world, bar none. Hyperliquid's real innovation lies in its redesign of the order book's microstructure, directly incorporating transaction identification into the consensus mechanism. This seemingly simple yet revolutionary design forces Hyperliquid to mandate that nodes must process Cancel and post-only orders before processing GTC and IOC orders at the consensus layer. Cancel: Cancels the pending order; Post-only orders - Only Maker orders are processed; GTC (Good-Til-Canceled) - Valid until cancelled; IOC (Immediate-Or-Cancel) - Complete the transaction immediately or cancel it. For market makers, being able to exit the market is paramount. During periods of sharp price fluctuations, order cancellation requests are always executed before other people's buy/sell requests. Market makers fear being targeted by attackers. Hyperliquid ensures that order cancellations always take priority. When prices fall, market makers cancel their orders, and the system forces these cancellations to be processed first, allowing market makers to successfully hedge their risks. On October 11, the day of the crash, Hyperliquid market makers remained online, with price spreads of 0.01-0.05%, because the market makers knew they could exit the market. For other on-chain order books or AMMs, there is usually a fatal problem. Market makers post quotes, market prices fluctuate, and they immediately issue order cancellation requests. However, in the milliseconds before the cancellation takes effect, high-frequency order takers (HFT) have already placed their orders, precisely targeting these "outdated quotes". The result is that market makers are forced to offer wider spreads to protect themselves, meaning you can't get much of a bargain from them. But with wider spreads, retail investors have to pay an extra 0.1% for each transaction. This is the "toxic order flow." While the trading volume appears large, it is actually a game between HFTs that harms the overall liquidity quality of the market. This is the problem that Solana is currently trying to solve by building ACE application control execution. It's also a problem that other blockchains struggle to solve, let alone MEV attacks. In other words, Hyperliquid defines "what constitutes a good trade" at the consensus level. Market makers can confidently quote tighter spreads because they know that order cancellation requests will be prioritized. Order takers can no longer rely on a few milliseconds of speed advantage to get ahead. This is why Hyperliquid actually has better liquidity during periods of volatility, and retail investors experience lower slippage. Hyperliquid protects those willing to provide liquidity, ensures retail investors who want to trade get the best prices, and makes it unprofitable for bots that only want to profit from arbitrage. Hyperliquid has already defined what kind of transactions are worth having their consensus confirmed, directly raising the level of competition to a whole new level.

Aster is coming on strong, but why is Hyperliquid so hard to replace?

2025/11/04 18:00

Despite the aggressive moves and massive investments from Perps like Aster and Lightner, and even endorsements from CZ, Hyperliquid is truly difficult to replace.

Hyperliquid is a customized L1, and it is currently the most market maker-friendly Perp and L1 in the crypto world, bar none.

Hyperliquid's real innovation lies in its redesign of the order book's microstructure, directly incorporating transaction identification into the consensus mechanism.

This seemingly simple yet revolutionary design forces Hyperliquid to mandate that nodes must process Cancel and post-only orders before processing GTC and IOC orders at the consensus layer.

  • Cancel: Cancels the pending order;
  • Post-only orders - Only Maker orders are processed;
  • GTC (Good-Til-Canceled) - Valid until cancelled;
  • IOC (Immediate-Or-Cancel) - Complete the transaction immediately or cancel it.
  • For market makers, being able to exit the market is paramount. During periods of sharp price fluctuations, order cancellation requests are always executed before other people's buy/sell requests.

Market makers fear being targeted by attackers. Hyperliquid ensures that order cancellations always take priority. When prices fall, market makers cancel their orders, and the system forces these cancellations to be processed first, allowing market makers to successfully hedge their risks.

On October 11, the day of the crash, Hyperliquid market makers remained online, with price spreads of 0.01-0.05%, because the market makers knew they could exit the market.

For other on-chain order books or AMMs, there is usually a fatal problem. Market makers post quotes, market prices fluctuate, and they immediately issue order cancellation requests.

However, in the milliseconds before the cancellation takes effect, high-frequency order takers (HFT) have already placed their orders, precisely targeting these "outdated quotes".

The result is that market makers are forced to offer wider spreads to protect themselves, meaning you can't get much of a bargain from them. But with wider spreads, retail investors have to pay an extra 0.1% for each transaction. This is the "toxic order flow."

While the trading volume appears large, it is actually a game between HFTs that harms the overall liquidity quality of the market.

This is the problem that Solana is currently trying to solve by building ACE application control execution. It's also a problem that other blockchains struggle to solve, let alone MEV attacks.

In other words, Hyperliquid defines "what constitutes a good trade" at the consensus level. Market makers can confidently quote tighter spreads because they know that order cancellation requests will be prioritized.

Order takers can no longer rely on a few milliseconds of speed advantage to get ahead. This is why Hyperliquid actually has better liquidity during periods of volatility, and retail investors experience lower slippage.

Hyperliquid protects those willing to provide liquidity, ensures retail investors who want to trade get the best prices, and makes it unprofitable for bots that only want to profit from arbitrage.

Hyperliquid has already defined what kind of transactions are worth having their consensus confirmed, directly raising the level of competition to a whole new level.

Market Opportunity
Aster Logo
Aster Price(ASTER)
$0.724
$0.724$0.724
+1.23%
USD
Aster (ASTER) Live Price Chart
Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

Whales keep selling XRP despite ETF success — Data signals deeper weakness

Whales keep selling XRP despite ETF success — Data signals deeper weakness

The post Whales keep selling XRP despite ETF success — Data signals deeper weakness appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. XRP ETFs have crossed $1 billion in assets
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/12/20 02:55
Foreigner’s Lou Gramm Revisits The Band’s Classic ‘4’ Album, Now Reissued

Foreigner’s Lou Gramm Revisits The Band’s Classic ‘4’ Album, Now Reissued

The post Foreigner’s Lou Gramm Revisits The Band’s Classic ‘4’ Album, Now Reissued appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. American-based rock band Foreigner performs onstage at the Rosemont Horizon, Rosemont, Illinois, November 8, 1981. Pictured are, from left, Mick Jones, on guitar, and vocalist Lou Gramm. (Photo by Paul Natkin/Getty Images) Getty Images Singer Lou Gramm has a vivid memory of recording the ballad “Waiting for a Girl Like You” at New York City’s Electric Lady Studio for his band Foreigner more than 40 years ago. Gramm was adding his vocals for the track in the control room on the other side of the glass when he noticed a beautiful woman walking through the door. “She sits on the sofa in front of the board,” he says. “She looked at me while I was singing. And every now and then, she had a little smile on her face. I’m not sure what that was, but it was driving me crazy. “And at the end of the song, when I’m singing the ad-libs and stuff like that, she gets up,” he continues. “She gives me a little smile and walks out of the room. And when the song ended, I would look up every now and then to see where Mick [Jones] and Mutt [Lange] were, and they were pushing buttons and turning knobs. They were not aware that she was even in the room. So when the song ended, I said, ‘Guys, who was that woman who walked in? She was beautiful.’ And they looked at each other, and they went, ‘What are you talking about? We didn’t see anything.’ But you know what? I think they put her up to it. Doesn’t that sound more like them?” “Waiting for a Girl Like You” became a massive hit in 1981 for Foreigner off their album 4, which peaked at number one on the Billboard chart for 10 weeks and…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 01:26
Hedera Price Analysis Shows Persistent Bearish Pressure Near $0.112

Hedera Price Analysis Shows Persistent Bearish Pressure Near $0.112

Hedera continues to be on the wrong side of the market with price having trouble stabilizing below major resistance zones with deteriorating momentum and participation
Share
Brave Newcoin2025/12/20 03:37