As a new wave of perpetual contract DEXs emerges, the fortunes of a well-known project are becoming increasingly difficult. The latest data shows its weekly profit is only 12 million, down 50% week-on-week, which was still double that amount a month ago. Against the backdrop of declining market enthusiasm and shrinking trading volume, new entrants eating into market share has become a natural occurrence.

This is the fate of the decentralized track in the crypto world—when one catches fire, a bunch of followers appear. Remember the wave of Uniswap and Aave? Now Hype and Aster are reenacting the same script. VC funding, community operations, token incentives—all seem vibrant, but in the end, it’s just a pile of broken eggs. Businesses lacking a moat are truly fragile; when the big wave recedes, projects without core competitiveness are the first to surface.

To be honest, DEXs still look too immature compared to centralized exchanges. Not to mention top-tier platforms, even third- and fourth-tier CEXs may not be able to match their scale. Why? Because CEXs control industry traffic and assets, enjoying the dividends of overall ecosystem growth.

Ultimately, the key question is: what is true demand? The story of Bitcoin withstands scrutiny; its attributes as digital gold indeed surpass physical gold in many dimensions—this is the industry’s foundation. But what about homogeneous trading, gaming, and lending projects? Every year, traditional banks and gaming companies go bankrupt, so why can crypto projects turn the tide against the wind? This logic has never made sense.

The perpetual contract track actually has some room for differentiation, but honestly, it’s too easy to copy. In the end, those who can survive are probably the leading players that can capture 80% of the market share. Only then can we wait for the true spring of investor confidence.