Can Lighter surpass Hyperliquid

 

Lately, Lighter's gone into centralizationIt's a contract for eternityThe volume of transactions in the DEX market has risen rapidly, and the cumulative volume of transactions in the day, week and month has surpassed Hyperliquid and has become the fastest-growing decentrization contract in the phase. However, in terms of the financial structure, the size of Lighter ' s TVL and unsatisfied contracts did not expand in step with the volume of transactions, indicating a clear deviation between the activity of the transaction and the deposit of the funds, and also reflecting its current user structure and the milestones of transaction behaviour. At the same time, Lighter completed $68 million in financing in November, with support from such institutions as Founders Fund, Ribbit Capital and Robinhood. With the combined effect of capital entry and proximity to TGE, its credit mechanisms and airdrop expectations are becoming the main catalyst for Lighter user activity. In this contextCoinW InstituteA systematic analysis of the current stage of Lighter's development will be carried out on the dimensions of transaction performance, institutional design and potential risks。

According to DefiLlama data, Lighter is currently at the top of the Decentralised Sustainable Contract DEX in terms of both daily and weekly transactions. Its daily turnover was approximately $11.9 billion and its weekly turnover exceeded $64.3 billion. In the past 30 days, Lighter has been ahead of Hyperliquid's $251.1 billion in long-term contract transactions of approximately $297.7 billion, leading to steady track number one。

Despite the recent rapid increase in the volume of transactions carried out by Lighter, the magnitude of its financial deposition remains relatively limited. The data show that Lighter's total TVL was $122 billion, significantly lower than the $4.28 billion of Hyperliquid and $1.4 billion of Aster. This relatively low TVL, compared to the high volume of transactions, characterizes Lighter as having a larger deal but insufficient deposit. Its TVL is closely related to the volume deviation or to the current incentive structure of Lighter. Lighter uses a zero-pay model and has not yet done so TGE, driven by points and potential air drop expectations, some users and strategic traders tend to increase participation weights through high-frequency transactions. This makes the platform ' s trading activity largely dependent on high-speed liquidity, rather than being underpinned by long-term liquidity。

The ratio of Lighter transactions to unsettled contracts (OI) also shows a marked difference with the competition, in the context of a substantial increase in the volume of transactions and the low structure of TVL. OI is usually used to measure the true size of the platform for a lasting contract, reflecting the sedentaryity of funds and the continuity of transactions. Therefore, the trade volume / OI margin can objectively measure the platform ' s transactional structure. The current value of Lighter's OI is about US$ 16.83 billion, with a turnover of about US$ 11.9 billion, and its turnover/OI margin is about 7.07, significantly higher than that of Hyperliquid, 1.72 (OI 59.92 billion, $10.2 billion) and Aster, 3.02 (OI 26.2 billion, $7.92 billion). This deviating margin means that the Platform ' s trading behaviour favours short-term, high-exchange-rate high-frequency trading patterns. As TGE approaches, subsequent incentive structural changes will have a direct impact on the match between transaction volume and OI, while transaction volume/OI margin returns to a healthier range (generally under 5) will be an important indicator of Lighter ' s true user retention, transaction quality and long-term sustainability。

In the cost model, Lighter took a different approach from the mainstream decentrization of the permanent contract platform, which is one of its innovative points. Lighter has a zero-fee policy for ordinary users, with no transaction fees charged, either on a bill or on a bill, which significantly reduces the entry threshold and overall transaction costs. At the same time, Lighter does not give up income entirely, but instead focuses on professional needs. For ordinary users, the system defaults on the use of a list with a delay of approximately 200 milliseconds, with a delay of about 300 milliseconds for the execution of the bill, and the cost of both the billing and the billing is zero; while professional traders and marketers who are sensitive to the speed of implementation can choose an advanced account and access the low delay link by paying API. The API-accessed advanced account is more efficient in performance, with the suspension and withdrawal delay being reduced to 0 milliseconds, with a delay of approximately 150 milliseconds, while bearing 0.002 per cent of the billing fees, 0.02 per cent of the billing fee and the amount quota to be traded。

 

The zero-cost strategy had been effective in promoting user growth at an early stage, but had also raised concerns about the sustainability of their business models. The thinking is somewhat similar to that of the traditional zero coupons, where front-end lowering thresholds attract users, and back-stage liquidity through high-level service or order flows. For example, Robinhod ' s main income is not from commissioning the bulker, but from the fees paid by the merchants to obtain the flow of orders and the priority of the deal. In this model, while the bulker does not appear to have a handling fee on the surface, the marketer usually covers costs by slightly widening the gap between the purchase price and the offer price (i.e., the difference in points), resulting in a slight difference in the actual transaction price of the bulker, which is a hidden difference in cost. However, unlike traditional securities markets, the transactions of users of a contract that continues with encryption are more strategic and are significantly more sensitive to poor points, slip points and speed of implementation. The retention of professional users may be undermined once the Platform weighs the alignment of resource allocation to maintain zero fees, leading to poor expansion or less than competitive implementation. At the same time, while API is considered to be an important future source of income for Lighter, its API documentation, access processes and open rhythm still need to be improved from the current community feedback, and it remains to be seen whether a fee system can be successfully established and generate stable income。

 

In the technical route selection, Lighter did not use the generic Layer 2 but built the zk-rollup architecture that optimized the trading scene. It binds the core logic of consolidation, liquidation and equality into a self-study “Lighter Core” and produces zk-SNARK certification by means of a proof engine customised for trade loads, and then forwards a compressed chain state to the ETA host network. This structure is at the expense of some interoperability compared to generic zkVM, but is more targeted in demonstrating the speed of generation, delayed stability and efficiency of implementation of high-frequency order books. The design goal is to achieve a processing speed close to the centralized exchange, with a view to ensuring probability, i.e. completing the consolidation of orders at the millisecond level to give identifiable performance results。

 

This dedicated programme provides a technical basis for the validation and fair implementation proposed by Lighter, but also increases the complexity of the system and the potential risks. In the case of the Lighter public main network, which came online on 2 October, there was a severe failure during the sharp market fluctuations on 10 October, a succession of core components, such as databases, and some users were unable to submit orders or adjust holdouts in extreme situations, resulting in approximately tens of millions of dollars in class transactions and LP losses. After that, Lighter published technical repairs, points compensation, etc., but the market remained very concerned about its stability under extreme TPS and the sustainability of the self-study rollup architecture。

Source: Lighter,https://docs.lighter.xyz/

 

In terms of liquidity design, Lighter uses a LLP public pool model similar to HLP HLP in Hyperliquid. Users who deposit assets in LLP will receive LP shares and participate proportionately in the platform ' s marketing proceeds, fees and fee allocations. For ordinary users, the advantage of LLP is that they do not need to take the initiative to market, and they can share the returns from the platform ' s growth, with a certain risk of competing. It is worth noting that Lighter plans to further expand the use of the LLP in the next iterative period by including the LP share in the bond. This means that the same funds can be used in two roles, both as a contribution to the market and as a deposit at the time of the user's opening, to achieve a single, double utilization. Such designs are designed to increase the efficiency of the use of funds and to make the asset cycle within the agreement more adequate。

 

However, this dual use may also pose greater risks. In unilateral situations, LLPs may face losses as counterparties to the transaction, reducing the net value of the pool; if at this point in time some users use LLP shares as collateral for their transactions, their warehouse losses will be further deducted by the system from the LLP, thereby magnifying the decline in the pool. It can also be understood that market losses and the loss of the bond will overlap and be magnified, tend to create negative cycles and, in extreme cases, may even affect the overall solvency of the agreement. As a result, most mature and sustainable agreements separate the LP pool from the bond assets and avoid the reuse of the same funds. For Lighter, if the future plan is truly open to the dual-use of LLP, more careful and transparent rules must be established on mortgage rates, risk buffers and extreme exigency contingency mechanisms to avoid systemic risks。

At this stage, the scale of Lighter ' s transactions is largely driven by the credit mechanism and potential air drop expectations. Zero charges reduce participation costs, while TGE is expected to further enhance short-term transaction behaviour among users. A combination of the above-mentioned TVL and OI-transaction ratio analyses reveals a clear fault between the number of transactions in the Lighter day and the deposit of funds, which is now more in line with incentive-driven transactions than natural needs. This growth model, which is dominated by short-term incentives, makes it difficult for the current volume and dynamism of transactions to reflect directly the real retention of the platform. So the Lighter key observation window will appear after TGE. User behaviour may change as airdrop expectations materialize. If trade volumes and activity remain stable after the downsliding of incentives, indicating that their product experience, blending performance and cost structures are continuously attractive to users; and, conversely, if the core indicator falls significantly after TGE, it means that there is a higher incentive component for early data, and user stickiness needs to be further developed。

With the maturity of the DEX user structure of the DEC, growth based solely on points or airdrops is weakening. In the case of Aster, the market began to reassess the depth of its transactions, the quality of order execution and stability in a volatile situation, after giving incentives to retreat; and Lighter was still not in the TGE stage and still needed time to verify its performance and user retention after TGE. Also of concern is that, for larger trading funds, the control of the slide points, the delay in setting up and the availability of the system in extreme circumstances are more decisive than the incentive mechanism itself, which means that the difference between the platform ' s base capacity will be further magnified in the follow-up cycle. Against this background, the next phase of the sustainable contract DEX competition will no longer be largely determined by incentives such as airdrops, but will rely more on whether platforms can provide stable and predictable trading pathways for large and sustainable funding. For Lighter, who is still in the pre-TGE phase, its ability to effectively absorb higher-quality inflows after stimulating a gradual exit will be an important indicator of its long-term competitiveness。