@CL207@smartestmoney Doesn’t look out edge disappear as the book thickens? Seems counterintuitive. As in for market makers to increase conviction by allocating more, suggest the outcome became justified by them?
@danielbkck How is it possible to make that much pnl with the size in question? Can you explain how a $104 dollar move on a 0.51156 BTC position equals $3290.98 in pnl
@0xLoris Rome wasn’t built in a day!
Very likely only thing that will be left to trade on chain in coming years - crypto perps seem to be dead in the water (hope I’m wrong).
Makes sense - I think the analytics component of hip4/pred mkts could ultimately become a biz of its own considering how valuable that data would be (alternative retail data) HFs are currently paying millions in PFOF for. Pairs make sense - could include some stat arb in addition to funding arb. Would need to include precious metals and equities to attract new inflow.
@0xLoris Makes sense and figured the vid was manly for demo purposes. More so trying to understand expected behaviour. As order book depth would also be a key factor. Nice tool. Only thing that’s left is to include some prediction market aspect and it will have ticked all the boxes.
@0xLoris@Cbb0fe Post a side it’s also worth revisiting halo effect. It’s quite often incorrect to think that someone being “smart” in a specific field or subject means they are “smart” in all disciplines. You will be less amazed when you internalise that truth.
Objectively the goal of an incentive program is to attract users. The risks however is you attract users strictly using the product for farming purposes. So framework should depend on 1) whether there is a better use of funds for long term success of protocol or 2) whether team priorities short term user adoption for the purpose of max extraction . If max extraction is the goal allocate high % to farmers. Otherwise ideally allocation should reward organic users with higher allocation or lower allocation but use funds to increase utility of product which ultimately rewards users (i.e. buyback). But focus should be on building the best product (using incentive program to gather user feedback) as without this user incentives will not be aligned.
Volume in isolation is such a flawed metric to refer to because of the wash trading occurring on many of the platforms on the list. OI is far more reliable in assessing market share
⚡️ RESEARCH: Hyperliquid still leads perp DEXs, but dominance is fading.
Its market share dropped from 70%+ to just over 30%, while newcomers like Lighter and Aster are rapidly catching up as users rotate for better fees, incentives and trading speed.
Is this fragmentation a sign of healthy competition, or the start of a liquidity war in onchain futures?
Out of interest/excuse my ignorance. But can you explain what value/problem that is being solved by (4). As in what is the need of having decentralised broker recreating the underlying market to bring order book on chain (at the cost of a fraction of the underlying liquidity migrating on chain). I get what Unit/HL have done as that is 1) 24/7 and 2) by utilising CLOB the end goal could be such platform becomes the true price discovery venue for the asset. Not to mention 3) which introduces a less complex instrument for retail to get lev exposure (vs using options for example) as this also benefits Ostium.
@DancingEddie_ Think big part of the regulation comes from the complexity of the product. Options historically are a fundamentally more complex product than perps