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takes effect, high-frequency order takers (HFT) have already placed their orders, precisely targeting these "outdated quotes".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.

Piyasa Fırsatı
Aster Logosu
Aster Fiyatı(ASTER)
$0.806
$0.806$0.806
-0.86%
USD
Aster (ASTER) Canlı Fiyat Grafiği
Sorumluluk Reddi: Bu sitede yeniden yayınlanan makaleler, halka açık platformlardan alınmıştır ve yalnızca bilgilendirme amaçlıdır. MEXC'nin görüşlerini yansıtmayabilir. Tüm hakları telif sahiplerine aittir. Herhangi bir içeriğin üçüncü taraf haklarını ihlal ettiğini düşünüyorsanız, kaldırılması için lütfen service@support.mexc.com ile iletişime geçin. MEXC, içeriğin doğruluğu, eksiksizliği veya güncelliği konusunda hiçbir garanti vermez ve sağlanan bilgilere dayalı olarak alınan herhangi bir eylemden sorumlu değildir. İçerik, finansal, yasal veya diğer profesyonel tavsiye niteliğinde değildir ve MEXC tarafından bir tavsiye veya onay olarak değerlendirilmemelidir.

Ayrıca Şunları da Beğenebilirsiniz

The Channel Factories We’ve Been Waiting For

The Channel Factories We’ve Been Waiting For

The post The Channel Factories We’ve Been Waiting For appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Visions of future technology are often prescient about the broad strokes while flubbing the details. The tablets in “2001: A Space Odyssey” do indeed look like iPads, but you never see the astronauts paying for subscriptions or wasting hours on Candy Crush.  Channel factories are one vision that arose early in the history of the Lightning Network to address some challenges that Lightning has faced from the beginning. Despite having grown to become Bitcoin’s most successful layer-2 scaling solution, with instant and low-fee payments, Lightning’s scale is limited by its reliance on payment channels. Although Lightning shifts most transactions off-chain, each payment channel still requires an on-chain transaction to open and (usually) another to close. As adoption grows, pressure on the blockchain grows with it. The need for a more scalable approach to managing channels is clear. Channel factories were supposed to meet this need, but where are they? In 2025, subnetworks are emerging that revive the impetus of channel factories with some new details that vastly increase their potential. They are natively interoperable with Lightning and achieve greater scale by allowing a group of participants to open a shared multisig UTXO and create multiple bilateral channels, which reduces the number of on-chain transactions and improves capital efficiency. Achieving greater scale by reducing complexity, Ark and Spark perform the same function as traditional channel factories with new designs and additional capabilities based on shared UTXOs.  Channel Factories 101 Channel factories have been around since the inception of Lightning. A factory is a multiparty contract where multiple users (not just two, as in a Dryja-Poon channel) cooperatively lock funds in a single multisig UTXO. They can open, close and update channels off-chain without updating the blockchain for each operation. Only when participants leave or the factory dissolves is an on-chain transaction…
Paylaş
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 00:09
Wyoming-based crypto bank Custodia files rehearing petition against Fed

Wyoming-based crypto bank Custodia files rehearing petition against Fed

The post Wyoming-based crypto bank Custodia files rehearing petition against Fed appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. A Wyoming-based crypto bank has filed another
Paylaş
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/12/16 22:06
US economy adds 64,000 jobs in November but unemployment rate climbs to 4.6%

US economy adds 64,000 jobs in November but unemployment rate climbs to 4.6%

The post US economy adds 64,000 jobs in November but unemployment rate climbs to 4.6% appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. The economy moved in two directions at
Paylaş
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/12/16 22:18