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takes effect, high-frequency order takers (HFT) have already placed their orders, precisely targeting these "outdated quotes".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

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.
Share Insights

You May Also Like

Franklin Templeton updates XRP ETF filing for imminent launch

Franklin Templeton updates XRP ETF filing for imminent launch

Franklin Templeton, one of the world’s largest asset management firms, has taken a significant step in introducing the Spot XRP Exchange-Traded Fund (ETF). The company submitted an updated S-1 registration statement to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) last week, removing language that likely stood in the way of approval. The change is indicative of a strong commitment to completing the fund sale in short order — as soon as this month. The amendment is primarily designed to eliminate the “8(a)” delay clause, a technological artifact of ETF filings under which the SEC can prevent the effectiveness of a registration statement from taking effect automatically until it affirmatively approves it. By deleting this provision, Franklin Templeton secures the right to render effective the filing of the Registration Statement automatically upon fulfillment of all other conditions. This development positions Franklin Templeton as one of the most ambitious asset managers to file for a crypto ETF amid the current market flow. It replicates an approach that Bitcoin and Ethereum ETF issuers previously adopted, expediting approvals and listings when the 8(a) clause was removed. The timing of this change is crucial. Analysts say it betrays a confidence that the SEC will not register additional complaints against XRP-related products — especially as the market continues to mature and regulatory infrastructures around crypto ETFs take clearer shape. For Franklin Templeton, which manages assets worth more than $1 trillion globally, an XRP ETF would be a significant addition to its cryptocurrency investment offerings. The firm already offers exposure to Bitcoin and Ethereum through similar products, indicating an increasing confidence in digital assets as an emerging investment asset class. Other asset managers race to launch XRP ETFs Franklin Templeton isn’t the only one seeking to launch an XRP ETF. Other asset managers, such as Canary Funds and Bitwise, have also revised their S-1 filings in recent weeks. Canary Funds has withdrawn its operating company’s delaying amendment and is seeking to go live in mid-November, subject to exchange approval. Bitwise, another major player in digital asset management, announced that it would list an XRP ETF on a prominent U.S. exchange. The company has already made public fees and custodial arrangements — the last steps generally completed when an ETF is on the verge of a launch. The surge in amended filings indicates growing industry optimism that the SEC may approve several XRP ETFs for marketing around the same time. For investors, this would provide new, regulated access to one of the world’s most widely traded cryptocurrencies, without the need to hold a token directly. Investors prepare for ripple effect on markets The competition to offer an XRP ETF demonstrates the next step toward institutional involvement in digital assets. If approved, these funds would provide investors with a straightforward, regulated way to gain token access to XRP price movements through traditional brokerages. An XRP ETF could also onboard new retail investors and boost the liquidity and trust of the asset, similarly to what spot Bitcoin ETFs achieved earlier this year. Those funds attracted billions of dollars in inflows within a matter of weeks, a subtle indication of the pent-up demand among institutional and retail investors. The SEC, which has become more receptive to digital-asset ETFs after approving products including Bitcoin and Ethereum, is still carefully weighing every filing. Final approval will be based on full disclosure, custody, and transparency of how pricing is happening through the base market. Still, market participants view the update in Franklin Templeton’s filing as their strongest sign yet that they are poised. With a swift response from the firm and news of other competing funds, this should mean that we don’t have long to wait for the first XRP ETF — marking another key turning point in crypto’s journey into traditional finance. If you're reading this, you’re already ahead. Stay there with our newsletter.
Share
Coinstats2025/11/05 09:16