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takes effect, high-frequency order takers (HFT) have already placed their orders, precisely targeting these "outdated quotes".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
3 min read
For feedback or concerns regarding this content, please contact us at [email protected]

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 [email protected] 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.

You May Also Like

Oil steadies as possible U.S. move on Kharg Island weighed

Oil steadies as possible U.S. move on Kharg Island weighed

The post Oil steadies as possible U.S. move on Kharg Island weighed appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Kharg Island seizure and Trump ground troops in Iran: confirmed
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2026/03/16 11:46
What Crypto to Buy in 2026? Analysts Compare 3 Cheap Cryptocurrencies

What Crypto to Buy in 2026? Analysts Compare 3 Cheap Cryptocurrencies

As investors evaluate potential opportunities for 2026, analysts are comparing several low-priced cryptocurrencies that continue to attract market attention. Popular
Share
Techbullion2026/03/16 11:51
US-UK Forge New Crypto Pact, Aim To Harmonize Global Stablecoin Rules

US-UK Forge New Crypto Pact, Aim To Harmonize Global Stablecoin Rules

The post US-UK Forge New Crypto Pact, Aim To Harmonize Global Stablecoin Rules appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. The United States and the United Kingdom have announced a comprehensive new cooperation agreement aimed at unifying regulatory oversight for the cryptocurrency sector. This deal, a product of high-level talks between UK Chancellor Rachel Reeves and U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, marks a significant step toward creating a more harmonized and predictable environment for crypto businesses on both sides of the Atlantic. The agreement for two  The core of the agreement is to address systemic risks and combat illicit financial flows, particularly concerning stablecoins. It is a direct response to a rapidly expanding global market and aims to foster greater regulatory clarity. While the agreement does not include plans for a joint central bank digital currency (CBDC), it is designed to give British firms better access to U.S. capital markets and attract more American investment. For the U.S., the deal provides an important partner in shaping global crypto standards. A deal that paves way for clearer crypto regulations The inclusion of major banks and crypto organizations in the policy discussions leading to this agreement underscores the broad industry support for clearer rules. As reported the representatives from Coinbase, Circle, Ripple and Barclays took part in negotiations. Experts believe this deal will accelerate innovation and potentially boost cross-border investment, mitigating the risk of regulatory arbitrage. The move follows months of lobbying from industry groups and reflects a growing consensus that international collaboration is essential to manage the risks and unlock the full potential of blockchain technology. Source: https://coinidol.com/us-uk-new-crypto-pact/
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/19 00:06