The Perp Wars 2025: Incentives, Speculation, and the Fragility of Growth

How incentives can shift billions overnight but not necessarily build lasting dominance.

The Launchy Team
September 30, 2025

📢 Sponsor | 💡 Telegram | 📰 Past Editions

Decentralized perpetual exchanges have grown sharply since 2020. Early platforms like dYdX and GMX set the stage, but Hyperliquid captured close to seventy percent of market share by 2024 according to VanEck. Its fair launch airdrop and product performance attracted a loyal user base.

The market in 2025 is very different. DefiLlama data shows that monthly perp DEX activity now exceeds $808B. Aster and Lighter have entered with aggressive incentive campaigns, breaking Hyperliquid’s dominance. The structure of the market resembles the Uniswap and SushiSwap battle in 2020, where incentives, rather than technology, defined the competition.

At the same time, regulators are increasing scrutiny of centralized exchanges. That pressure is pushing more traders toward DEXs, but the sector is relying heavily on token campaigns that risk creating temporary bubbles.

The perpetual DEX market is no longer defined by a single leader. Hyperliquid, which became the benchmark through its record-breaking airdrop and strong execution, still controls the largest thirty-day trading volume at $292B. Yet it has lost the aura of invincibility. Aster recently overtook Hyperliquid in daily volume with $46B traded, and Lighter has already built more than $154B in thirty-day activity despite not having a token.

These shifts show how fragile dominance in this sector can be. Incentive structures, rather than product quality alone, are driving user flows. The key issue is whether any of these platforms can build a base of traders that stay once rewards and speculation fade.

This report is an examination of how Hyperliquid, Aster, and Lighter are competing for market share in the perpetual DEX sector. It reviews their incentive structures, liquidity depth, and community narratives, and assesses whether these models can create durable advantages or if the market is doomed to repeat the short-lived cycles of past DeFi battles.

Key Takeaways

Hyperliquid remains the benchmark with 274B dollars in thirty-day volume and the deepest liquidity, yet its model is vulnerable to declining trading revenue.
Aster proved incentives can disrupt incumbents by overtaking Hyperliquid in daily trading with 46B dollars of volume, though much of this activity is tied to short-term airdrop farming.
Lighter demonstrates the power of pure speculation, generating 154B dollars in thirty-day volume without a token, but everything depends on the size and fairness of a future airdrop.
History warns against overreliance on incentives. SushiSwap’s vampire attack briefly challenged Uniswap in 2020 but faded once emissions weakened. The same risk now hangs over Aster and Lighter.
The perp DEX market risks becoming a cycle of rotating casinos. Unless platforms pair incentives with deeper liquidity, stronger governance, and durable user retention, the sector may fail to evolve into lasting financial infrastructure.

Case Study: Hyperliquid

Hyperliquid built its reputation on the largest airdrop in crypto history. More than 7B dollars worth of HYPE tokens were distributed in late 2024, amounting to 28 percent of supply. Venture capital allocations were excluded, which added credibility. A buyback mechanism, funded by trading fees, created consistent demand for HYPE.

Metrics, September 2025 (DefiLlama):

Total value locked: $5.9B
Thirty-day perp volume: $274.1B
Twenty-four hour perp volume: $17.2B
Open interest: $12.7B
Annualized revenue: $1.03B
Market capitalization: $11.1B
Fully diluted valuation: $41.1B

The exchange processes up to 100,000 orders per second and offers liquidity depth that mimics centralized venues. Traders often describe the user experience as similar to Binance without KYC requirements.

The strength of Hyperliquid lies in its structural incentive model and deep liquidity. Yet weaknesses are significant. Centralization remains a critical risk, with only sixteen validators.

Reports of North Korean hacker groups probing the system highlight the security exposure. The exchange also faces an environment where competitors are proving that incentives can lure users away overnight.

Case Study: Aster

Aster is the clearest example of how incentives can disrupt incumbents. In late September it overtook Hyperliquid in daily volume, reaching 46.1B dollars compared to Hyperliquid’s 17.2B. This was not a reflection of product depth but the result of a redesigned points campaign and the promise of a second airdrop.

Metrics, September 2025 (DefiLlama):

Total value locked: $2.2B
Thirty-day perp volume: $115.8B
Twenty-four hour perp volume: $46.1B
Open interest: $1.27B
Annualized fees: $538.6M
Market capitalization: $3.1B
Fully diluted valuation: 1$4.8B

Aster is backed by YZi Labs, controlled by Changpeng Zhao and Yi He, and benefits from BNB Chain integration. The project has positioned itself as a community-driven alternative, but the strategy is essentially a modern vampire attack.

SushiSwap attempted the same against Uniswap in 2020. It succeeded briefly but could not hold long-term market share once the token incentives weakened.

The same risk applies to Aster. Its spectacular growth rests on speculative farming and token hype rather than liquidity quality. If incentives weaken or if the token falls, volume is likely to rotate out.

Case Study: Lighter

Lighter has shown how speculation alone can move billions. The platform has not launched a token. Its growth is powered entirely by a points system that traders believe will translate into a future airdrop. This approach has attracted consistent farming activity throughout 2025, with volumes accelerating sharply into late September.

Metrics, September 2025 (DefiLlama and Dune):

Thirty-day perp volume: $154.8B
Twenty-four hour perp volume: $18.9B
Token status: Not launched, points farming only

Lighter has already surpassed Aster in monthly volume and ranks above Hyperliquid in daily activity. The risk is clear. If the eventual airdrop disappoints in either size or fairness, users will likely abandon the platform. Until then, its growth highlights the speculative nature of current perp DEX competition.

Comparative Analysis

Incentive Structures

The three exchanges have taken very different approaches to incentives, and each comes with trade-offs.

Hyperliquid’s model was front-loaded with the largest airdrop in crypto history. It created legitimacy by excluding venture allocations and later reinforced demand through buybacks funded from trading fees.

This design has clear strengths. It ties token support directly to platform revenue, which is far more sustainable than the empty emissions seen elsewhere.
The weakness is just as clear: if trading revenue slows, the buyback engine weakens, and the token narrative could unravel.
Hyperliquid’s system is strong in theory but fragile if volumes ever taper.

Aster’s strategy is less about structural sustainability and more about brute-force acquisition. By layering a rebranded token, multiple airdrops, and redesigned points, Aster is manufacturing trading activity. The short-term data proves it works.

Aster eclipsed Hyperliquid in daily volume within weeks.
Yet this playbook looks very similar to past vampire attacks, most of which ended with mercenary users vanishing once the giveaways slowed.
Aster is effectively renting its market share.
It is still unproven whether this will translate into sticky liquidity or whether it will be remembered as another opportunistic yield farm that collapsed when rewards dried up.

Lighter has gone further into speculative territory by offering points without even launching a token. Its growth demonstrates how little is required to generate billions in volume when traders expect a payout.

The problem is obvious: everything rests on the scale and fairness of the eventual token distribution.
If the airdrop is smaller than expected, or skewed toward insiders, the entire growth story could evaporate overnight.
Lighter’s model is currently a house of cards supported by future promises, not present fundamentals.

Liquidity and Execution

Hyperliquid remains the benchmark for execution. The throughput of 100,000 orders per second and its order book structure allow for low slippage and an experience similar to centralized exchanges. This is the core reason it still retains institutional credibility.

Aster’s liquidity depth does not yet match its headline volume numbers. Much of the trading is driven by point farming and wash-like behavior rather than organic hedging or institutional flows. Liquidity that spikes with incentives tends to vanish when incentives fade, which makes its order book far less reliable.

Lighter is untested on execution. While it has generated $154B in thirty-day volume, much of this volume is speculative churn. Without a token or long-term liquidity providers, it is difficult to assess whether its infrastructure can handle the kind of sustained, organic trading that defines a serious exchange.

Community and Narrative

Hyperliquid has built a genuine following around fairness and performance. The absence of VC allocations gave users the sense they were part of a rare fair launch. That narrative is still powerful, though it is now being tested by competitors that are siphoning off the same traders Hyperliquid initially won over.

Aster’s narrative is built less on fairness and more on celebrity. CZ and Yi He’s backing adds credibility and visibility, but it also ties Aster’s identity to personalities rather than principles. The vampire attack framing makes sense as a short-term story, but it lacks the authenticity that gave Hyperliquid its cult-like base.

Lighter’s community is speculative by design. Its entire story is that “the airdrop will come.” That has proven enough to attract billions in trading, but there is no sign of ideological loyalty. If another exchange offers better farming terms tomorrow, there is little reason to think those traders would not leave immediately.

The Fragility of Incentive-Driven Growth

The data makes one fact unavoidable: incentives, not technology, are deciding who wins the perp wars right now. This should worry anyone who thinks of these platforms as long-term infrastructure rather than short-term trading games.

Hyperliquid showed that incentives can be sticky if they are structured carefully. Airdrops paired with ongoing buybacks are more durable than simple emissions because they tie token demand to revenue.

Yet even Hyperliquid is vulnerable. Its incentive model depends entirely on maintaining high trading activity.
A slowdown in volume would weaken buybacks and damage confidence in HYPE.
In other words, its model is more sustainable than others, but not unbreakable.

Aster’s surge demonstrates how quickly market share can rotate when new incentives appear. Its ability to overtake Hyperliquid in daily volume highlights the fragility of dominance in this space.

However, the deeper issue is that Aster has not proven it can hold this lead.
If the volume is being driven by mercenary traders chasing a second airdrop, it will likely vanish once the campaign ends.
Aster risks becoming another case study in unsustainable growth through over-engineered incentives.

Lighter proves just how speculative the perp DEX market has become. The fact that traders are churning more than $150B in a month without a token shows that expectations alone are enough to drive volume.

This is not a sign of health. It signals that the market is addicted to the next airdrop.
If Lighter’s distribution fails to meet those expectations, it will collapse under its own hype.

The strategic problem for all three platforms is that none of these incentive models guarantee durability. Incentives are effective in capturing attention, but they almost always fade faster than teams expect.

Without deeper liquidity provision, stronger governance, and strategies that keep users engaged after incentives cool, these platforms risk becoming rotating casinos. The danger is that perp DEXs will be remembered less as transformative financial infrastructure and more as perpetual farms that rise and fall with each cycle of token giveaways.

Lessons from SushiSwap Vampire Attack

The history of SushiSwap’s vampire attack on Uniswap in 2020 offers a clear precedent for what is happening now in perpetual DEXs. SushiSwap launched by promising outsized rewards to liquidity providers, essentially bribing them to pull their capital out of Uniswap and redeploy it into Sushi’s pools. For a brief moment the strategy worked. Liquidity shifted, trading activity followed, and headlines suggested Uniswap might lose its crown.

But the success proved fleeting. As soon as the initial wave of incentives weakened, most of the mercenary liquidity rotated back to Uniswap.

The underlying reason was simple. Uniswap offered a more stable product, deeper integrations, and a community that was not entirely dependent on short-term emissions. SushiSwap remained alive but never came close to replacing Uniswap as the dominant AMM.

The lesson for today’s perp DEX competition is straightforward. Incentives can manufacture spectacular bursts of activity, but unless the product itself creates stickiness, users eventually return to whichever platform offers the best execution and most resilient liquidity.

Aster’s surge looks impressive in the moment, but it risks falling into the same trap that SushiSwap did. If its trading depth and user loyalty cannot outlast the airdrop cycle, its growth will prove to be another temporary displacement rather than a true regime change.

Our Take

The data shows that incentives are dictating the balance of power in perpetual DEXs, but they are a fragile foundation. Hyperliquid tied its tokenomics to revenue and built a fair launch story that created real loyalty, yet even it is vulnerable if volumes slip. Aster’s surge exposes how quickly dominance can crumble, but also how shallow incentive-driven liquidity can be. Lighter’s rise proves traders will farm on promises alone, which is less a sign of innovation and more a sign of addiction to the next airdrop.

For this market to mature, at least one platform must break the cycle of speculative farming and build a model where liquidity, execution quality, and governance matter as much as token rewards. Until then, these platforms risk repeating SushiSwap’s fate — spectacular in the short run, forgettable in the long run.

If you enjoy reading this issue, please consider subscribing. It takes 1 minute of your time but it would mean the world to us 🙇

Disclaimer: All the information presented in this publication and its affiliates is strictly for educational purposes only. It should not be construed or taken as financial, legal, investment, or any other form of advice.