From Meme Generator to True Winner: The Truth About the "Non-Zero-Sum Game" in the Perpetual DEX Market

The perpetual contract market is undergoing a “soul-searching” moment: who are the true winners? The answer to this question is far more complex than most traders imagine. Amid the noisy chatter on crypto social media, each platform’s followers claim to support “the next big event,” while critics are eager to curse their competitors—this irrational opposition is the first misconception we need to break.

In reality, the perpetual contract DEX market has never been a zero-sum game of “winner takes all.” Multiple platforms can coexist and thrive through differentiated positioning. The real divide isn’t about which platform you choose, but whether you craft your trading strategies with “outcome optimization” as the core goal.

The Market’s “Meme Generator”: Why Most Latecomers Are Destined to Fail

When the perpetual contract DEX craze kicked off, a predictable phenomenon emerged—dozens of teams flooded in, launching low-cost forks and point-driven clone projects. What’s the biggest trait of these projects? They aren’t created to optimize trader experience; rather, they aim to extract fees from users chasing the “next big DEX” before the opportunity window closes.

This late-cycle behavior has appeared in every successful industry boom—NFTs, yield-stablecoins, ICO waves, and then GMX forks. The pattern is consistent. These “meme generators” share some common features:

Same architecture, but no differentiated value: Using identical order book models, promising future token value without any accumulation before token issuance; same point-based incentive mechanisms, with the only selling point being “I am a new project.”

Liquidity illusion: These projects often rely on aggressive liquidity mining to attract funds, but once subsidies end, liquidity dries up instantly. Traders quickly realize that trading a $500,000 BTC position on these platforms results in spreads so wide that they destroy any profit potential.

Market signal failure: When a niche becomes crowded, users tend to spread funds across redundant liquidity mining projects rather than focusing on platforms with genuine differentiation. At this point, preserving capital is usually wiser than chasing new concepts.

Where Is True Differentiation in Competition?

Unlike meme generators, what features do truly standout perpetual DEXs have? Let’s look at four market-validated examples.

Hyperliquid: A New Paradigm for Deep Liquidity

Hyperliquid has disrupted traditional DEX architecture with its self-developed Layer 1 network, HyperEVM. It adopts a “full-chain order book model,” solving the inherent limitations of AMMs and off-chain matching engines.

Its core innovation is the HyperBFT consensus mechanism—a custom algorithm based on HotStuff derivatives, capable of processing up to 200,000 orders per second with only 0.2 seconds latency. This isn’t just a numerical advantage; it directly impacts the cost and experience of executing large trades.

Hyperliquid’s success stems from building an infrastructure with “the deepest market liquidity.” What does this mean? Traders managing diversified portfolios or executing large positions no longer need to split funds across multiple platforms. On a single platform, you can trade dozens of perpetual markets, each with deep order books.

Founders Jeff Yan and ilensinc are Harvard alumni, and the team includes top-tier talent from Caltech, MIT, and other leading institutions. More importantly, Hyperliquid Labs operates on a “bootstrapped” model—no external funding. This independence allows the team to focus solely on product development rather than storytelling.

In its HYPE token design, Hyperliquid demonstrates a clear understanding of ecosystem needs. Out of a total supply of 1 billion tokens, 31% are distributed via airdrop to 94,000 users—this isn’t a pie chart game but genuine community allocation. The launch of HIP-3 is a milestone—allowing any user staking 1 million HYPE to create new perpetual markets on Hyperliquid’s blockchain, enabling “permissionless developer deployment.”

Lighter: Cost-Effective Zero-Fee Trading

Lighter offers a different approach. Built on Ethereum with a custom ZK-Rollup, it generates cryptographic proofs for all operations—order matching, clearing, etc.—which are settled on Ethereum mainnet.

What’s Lighter’s killer feature? Zero fees. This isn’t a short-term subsidy; it’s a structural cost advantage enabled by a multi-layer aggregation architecture.

Its workflow resembles a “data compression pipeline”: proof generators produce proofs for thousands of small trades in parallel, then the system compresses hundreds of thousands of proofs into a single batch proof, which is verified on Ethereum via smart contracts. The economics are simple—marginal cost for network validation approaches zero.

What does this mean? For example, with $10 million monthly trading volume, compared to platforms charging 0.03%-0.05% taker fees, Lighter can save traders thousands of dollars monthly, amounting to tens of thousands annually. For high-volume institutions and professional traders, this difference can significantly impact profitability.

Founder Vladimir Novakovski has a background in Citadel’s quant trading, was head of machine learning at Quora, and holds a Harvard degree. The team includes top quant and tech talent from leading firms.

Lighter closed a $68 million funding round in late 2025, with a valuation reportedly at $1.5 billion. Leading investors include Ribbit Capital and Founders Fund, with participation from Robinhood, a16z, and others. The logic is clear—cost advantages attract institutional capital.

The LIT token has a total supply of 1 billion, with an even split: 50% to internal stakeholders and external community—26% to the team, 25% via airdrop, 25% for ecosystem development, and 24% to investors.

Extended: The Ambition for a Global Unified Margin

Extended, developed by the former Revolut team, centers on the concept of a “global unified margin.” Its vision is to integrate perpetual contracts, spot trading, and lending markets into a single margin system—allowing all applications within the network to access user’s available margin and share liquidity.

This means users no longer need to manage different accounts across multiple apps; all trading activities are consolidated into a “single global margin account.” Capital efficiency is greatly improved.

Technically, Extended employs a “hybrid CLOB” architecture: order processing, matching, and risk assessment happen off-chain, while verification and settlement are done on-chain via Starknet. This combines the throughput of centralized systems with the transparency of decentralized ones.

The team includes a former Revolut crypto operations lead (CEO, ex-McKinsey), architects from four crypto exchanges (CTO), and a former Revolut chief engineer (CBO, main contributor to Corda blockchain). This blend of backgrounds—neither pure crypto natives nor traditional finance—creates a unique perspective.

Extended’s fee structure is straightforward: taker fee 0.025%, maker fee 0% (completely free). Market orders are low-cost, while limit orders may incur no direct fee.

Its treasury system is also innovative—depositors can earn about 15% annualized yield (APR), with additional rewards based on trading activity. Even more impressive, XVS (treasury share tokens) can be used as collateral, with up to 90% leverage—funds can generate yield and be used for leveraged trading simultaneously.

Variational: A New RFQ Aggregator Model

Variational adopts a completely different trading paradigm—an RFQ (Request for Quote) based aggregator protocol, rather than a traditional order book.

Its first application, Omni, allows users to trade over 500 markets with tight spreads and zero fees. How? Through OLP (Omni Liquidity Provider)—a vertically integrated market maker that is the sole counterparty for all user trades.

OLP sources liquidity from CEXs, DEXs, DeFi protocols, and OTC markets. Its engine analyzes real-time data to determine fair prices. OLP profits from the typical 4-6 basis point spreads, without charging traders any fees.

More interestingly, it features a loss rebate mechanism—when traders close positions at a loss, they can receive an immediate full refund of the loss, with a probability ranging from 0% to 5% (depending on reward tier). This isn’t a subsidy; it redistributes 10% of the OLP’s spread profits back to users—essentially sharing market-making profits.

Variational completed a $11.8 million funding round in mid-2025, with investors including Bain Capital Crypto, Peak XV (formerly Sequoia India/Southeast Asia), and Coinbase Ventures.

Founders Lucas Schuermann and Edward Yu share a common background—Columbia University alumni, they founded hedge fund Qu Capital in 2017, which was later acquired by DCG. They then held roles as VP of Engineering and VP of Quantitative Trading at Genesis Trading (a DCG subsidiary). After handling billions in trading volume, they left to start their own trading firm, Variational, ultimately developing an open protocol to share trading profits.

Liquidity Is the Key to Survival: Four Platforms’ Specialized Roles

The perpetual market isn’t a “battle of competitors” but a “division of labor.” Understanding this helps explain why multiple platforms can coexist.

Hyperliquid’s role: A comprehensive, deep-liquidity “one-stop shop” for all asset classes. Users can trade multiple tokens and assets on a single platform, enjoying deep order books and performance comparable to centralized exchanges.

Lighter’s role: A cost-optimized “value engine.” Designed for high-volume traders, leveraging zero-fee structure to fundamentally change profitability dynamics.

Extended’s role: A “cross-application connector” for capital efficiency. By sharing a global margin, it maximizes capital utilization across multiple apps.

Variational’s role: A “market breadth and revenue-sharing aggregator.” Covering over 500 markets, with loss refunds and trading rebates, catering to traders seeking downside risk protection and market diversity.

None of these platforms are redundant—they each address specific needs of different trader segments and scenarios.

Spotting Genuine Innovation: Technical Architecture as the Bottom Line

How to distinguish “meme generators” from true innovators? The answer lies in their technical architecture.

True innovation features:

• Solves problems existing solutions can’t (Hyperliquid’s liquidity depth, Lighter’s zero-cost structure, Variational’s aggregation)
• Has defensible moats (self-developed Layer 1, custom ZK circuits, RFQ engines)
• The team possesses enough engineering depth to maintain complex systems

Meme generator traits:

• Copy existing architectures without real improvements
• Rely on aggressive subsidies to sustain liquidity, rather than structural advantages
• Lack technological innovation; their main selling points are “new project” hype and token promises
• The team’s primary goal is fundraising, with product iteration secondary

When you see a perpetual DEX that closely resembles top-tier platforms—same order book design, similar point-based incentives, only promising airdrops without real product advantages—you’re likely too late to the game.

The Trader’s Ultimate Choice: Preserve Capital or Chase the Trend

The development pattern of crypto is eerily consistent—each wave follows the same stages:

Stage 1: Paradigm shift and huge success. Leading innovators reshape industry expectations. Hyperliquid sets a new benchmark with deep on-chain liquidity and unique architecture.

Stage 2: Differentiated followers emerge. Lighter’s structural zero-fee advantage and Variational’s RFQ model carve out niche advantages.

Stage 3: Market saturation and low-quality imitators. After the hype, many copycats and forks flood in, mostly offering speculative gains with little real differentiation—these are the “meme generators.”

The logical chain is clear: early movers gain outsized opportunities because they establish new paradigms that most traders haven’t priced in yet. Early followers with clear differentiation can still capture market share. But latecomers face two harsh realities—they may never gain genuine liquidity or are ruthlessly phased out by market logic.

Ultimate advice for traders: Focus on platforms’ core competitive advantages, not token hype. If a perpetual DEX genuinely offers unique tech, cost, or market coverage, it’s worth watching. But if it’s just another “meme generator” claiming “the next big thing” without real differentiation, preserving your capital is the most rational choice.

In this “non-zero-sum game” of perpetual contracts, winners aren’t determined solely by choosing the “right platform.” Instead, they succeed through outcome optimization, careful discernment, and precise timing—surviving the market shakeout. The real “meme generators” are those irrationally chasing quick riches. Rational traders should stay away from these illusions and invest in truly competitive platforms and strategies.