Coincatch App
Trade smarter
Crypto Market
Beyond the Hype of Hyperliquid: The Challenges of Perp DEXs
Intermediate
2025-09-11 | 5m
The rise of
Perpetual Decentralized Exchanges (Perp DEX)
has been one of the most significant developments in the cryptocurrency derivatives market. With platforms like
Hyperliquid
achieving record-breaking token prices and capturing a notable share of trading volume from centralized exchanges, the ecosystem is buzzing with activity. However, this rapid growth masks critical challenges that could undermine the sustainability and reliability of these platforms. This article examines the five major pitfalls facing Perp DEXs, explores current market trends, and considers the enduring advantages of centralized exchanges.
The Allure of Perp DEX and Its Leading Players
Perp DEXs facilitate the trading of perpetual contracts—derivatives without an expiry date—on decentralized infrastructure. They leverage smart contracts and blockchain technology to enable non-custodial, permissionless trading, often with deep leverage.
The sector has witnessed intense competition, with several platforms emerging as key players:
Hyperliquid: A leading Perp DEX on its own dedicated Layer 1 blockchain, known for its high-performance order book and recent surge in popularity. Its HYPE token reached an all-time high of $55 in September 2025, fueled by institutional interest and anticipation of its USDH stablecoin launch.
edgeX: Incubated by Amber Group, it boasts high throughput and low latency but currently supports a limited range of trading pairs.
Aster: Formed from the merger of Astherus and APX Finance, it offers both Simple and Pro trading modes and is tightly integrated with the BNB Chain ecosystem.
Ethereal: Built natively on the Ethena network and backed by USDe, it aims to be a vertically integrated DeFi platform but is not yet fully operational for trading.
Paradex: Developed by Paradigm and built on StarkNet, it focuses on on-chain self-custody and risk management, offering innovative products like perpetual options.
The market response to these platforms has been largely bullish, driven by
airdrops,
points programs, and the allure of high leverage. However, recent incidents have exposed vulnerabilities in their economic and operational models.
The Five Pitfalls of Perp DEX
The Liquidity Mirage: Volume ≠ Liquidity
A common misconception is that high trading volume equates to good
liquidity. However, volume can be artificially inflated through token incentives, creating a misleading metric of platform health.
True liquidity is better measured by
tight bid-ask spreads,
low slippage for large orders, and
deep order books. For instance, while Hyperliquid handles large positions well, other platforms like edgeX (better for retail-sized orders) and Backpack (struggles with large orders due to fragmented order books) show significant variation in liquidity quality. The ratio of
Open Interest (OI) to Trading Volume is a more reliable indicator of genuine trading activity; a ratio of 1:2 or 1:3 is common for reputable CEXs, while some DEXs exhibit lower ratios due to incentivized wash trading.
Hidden Costs and Economic Challenges
Providing liquidity is a classic "cold start" problem.
Order book models require significant upfront capital to subsidize market makers. One Perp DEX team noted that after paying maker rebates and user rebates, they retain a meager 0.015% in fees, necessitating massive daily volume just to break even.
Automated Market Maker (AMM) models lower the capital barrier by using liquidity pools (LPs) but struggle to support large trades efficiently due to their inherent "house advantage." While projects like GMX and Jupiter have used this model, Hyperliquid's transition from an AMM to an order book highlights the search for a more sustainable path.
Opaque Liquidation and Price Manipulation Risks
Decentralized liquidation mechanisms can be vulnerable. A stark example occurred on Hyperliquid in August 2025, when a large trader manipulated the price of XPL from $0.60 to $1.80 in minutes, leading to $2 million in losses as positions were liquidated based on the manipulated price. This incident underscores the danger of relying on a single price source, particularly for pre-launch tokens where reliable external pricing data is scarce.
Furthermore, the lack of
transparency and verifiability in liquidation processes is a concern. Even centralized exchanges like Binance have been questioned for unexplained liquidation prices that fell outside visible market ranges. While DEXs like Hyperliquid have improved by putting oracle prices on-chain, their internal matching engines and CEX API connections remain unverified black boxes.
The Trade-Off in Transaction Ordering
This pitfall involves a fundamental design choice: prioritizing
fairness for retail traders or
efficiency for high-frequency trading (HFT).
Hyperliquid has chosen to prioritize fairness by implementing a "speed bump" (a 3-block mempool buffer) and giving cancellation requests lower priority. This protects smaller traders from being front-run by sophisticated HFT bots. However, this design limits the platform's ability to foster the intense market-maker competition that drives deeper liquidity and tighter spreads on CEXs. This represents a conscious trade-off where inclusivity is chosen over maximum liquidity growth.
Capital Inefficiency in Margin Systems
A significant advantage of Centralized Exchanges (CEXs) is their highly efficient and flexible margin systems. Because user funds are held custodially, CEXs can offer cross-margin support and flexible terms without moving assets on-chain.
Perp DEXs face a steeper challenge. To compete, they are exploring advanced margin mechanisms:
Interest-Bearing Collateral: Using assets like yield-generating stablecoins or treasury bills as margin. However, products like BlackRock's BUIDL require KYC, while others lack liquidity.
Lending Integration: Allowing users to post native assets (e.g., BTC) as collateral to borrow trading assets (e.g., USDC). Drift Protocol employs this model. However, this merges two distinct risk systems (lending and perpetuals), potentially creating bad debt if liquidations fail in the lending pool.
Hedge Recognition: Smart margin systems could recognize naturally hedged positions (e.g., long ETH collateral and short ETH perpetuals) and lower their margin requirements accordingly.
Advantages of Centralized Exchanges (CEXs)
In light of these Perp DEX challenges, Centralized Exchanges like
CoinCatch retain several key advantages:
Proven Liquidity and Depth: CoinCatch consistently offers deeper order books and higher liquidity, enabling large trades with minimal slippage.
Economic Efficiency: Their custodial model allows for highly flexible
cross-margin systems and negates the need for on-chain gas fees for every trade adjustment.
Robust Risk Management: With established operations, CoinCatch can implement circuit breakers, manage pre-launch token listings more cautiously, and use their profits as a buffer to cover occasional liquidation losses, a model difficult to replicate in
DeFi.
User Experience: CoinCatch provides a familiar, intuitive interface and seamless bridges between cryptos, which remains a hurdle for most DEXs.
Performance: Free from blockchain latency, CoinCatch offers sub-millisecond trade execution and instant cancellation, a level of speed that on-chain systems are still striving to achieve.
Conclusion
The innovation brought by Perp DEXs is undeniable, pushing the boundaries of self-custody and open access in derivatives trading. However, as the Hyperliquid frenzy continues, users, liquidity providers, and developers must look beyond volume metrics and token prices to understand the underlying mechanics and risks.
The path forward for Perp DEXs involves building more resilient economic models, ensuring verifiable and manipulation-resistant liquidation, and creating more capital-efficient margin systems. The "decentralization" often ends in custody, with significant centralization risks lingering in execution and liquidation processes.
The future will likely see a hybrid ecosystem where CEXs and DEXs coexist, catering to different user needs. CEXs will continue to serve those seeking maximum liquidity, advanced tools, and fiat integration, while Perp DEXs will attract users who prioritize self-custody, permissionless access, and financial sovereignty—provided they can navigate the current pitfalls. The competition between these models will ultimately drive innovation and benefit all traders.
CoinCatch Team
Disclaimer:
Digital asset prices carry high market risk and price volatility. You should carefully consider your investment experience, financial situation, investment objectives, and risk tolerance. CoinCatch is not responsible for any losses that may occur. This article should not be considered financial advice.
Share
