#ETF与衍生品 The Lighter that will finally launch at the end of the year is here, but the market is divided into two camps—some see its potential to compete with Hyperliquid, while others worry about liquidity traps after TGE. Recently, I carefully analyzed the differences between these two projects and realized that it’s somewhat unfair to compare them directly, as it overlooks why many people equate them.

What moved me the most is its business logic. Lighter offers zero fees, which sounds like a free lunch, but behind it is a clever design—charging professional market makers and institutions to compensate, while retail investors only experience minimal execution delays. Compared to Hyperliquid’s tiered fee structure based on trading volume, for retail users with a principal of $1,000 to $100,000, Lighter’s total costs are indeed lower. This is not a subsidy but a sustainable business model.

More importantly, it’s about architectural choice. Lighter opts to become an Ethereum Layer 2 rather than launching a separate application chain. What does this mean? Users can hold stETH on the mainnet to earn yields while using it as trading collateral—maximizing capital efficiency. The trust assumptions are also clearer, avoiding the risks associated with third-party cross-chain bridges.

Of course, there are also some valid skeptical voices. Post-TGE incentive waning, liquidity shrinking, and the cycle of having to start new subsidies—these are the unavoidable curses for Perp DEXs. Hyperliquid can break this curse through organic growth and ecosystem prosperity, but whether Lighter can replicate this miracle depends on product experience and whether institutional funds will truly flow in.

But looking on a longer time horizon, Lighter and Hyperliquid are actually allies. Together, they are launching a real challenge to CEXs, proving that on-chain derivatives are not a future fantasy but a present reality. This war has just begun, and we are all witnesses.