Aster - Binance's New "Crown Prince"
This generation of Perp DEX has fundamentally differentiated itself from the previous generation represented by "GMX, DYDX." Since it is still a Perp DEX, the discussion will continue under the Perp DEX title.
Aster has achieved a victory in the first phase (TGE), a stunning success. The airdrop-pump-wealth effect has once again proven to be the best marketing strategy, allowing Aster to gain significant exposure and users while draining Hyperliquid, perfectly showcasing the violent aesthetics of "cash capability."
Next, the community is more focused on the second growth curve after Aster's TGE, namely the growth and retention of real trading users and the situation regarding fee income. After all, the pump driven by non-real fee income is short-term and unsustainable.
Comparison of Aster and Hyperliquid Products/Technologies
Hyperliquid = A full-chain CLOB exchange on self-developed L1.
Aster = Dual form, catering to both novices and professional users (Pro = order book, 1001x Simple = one-click/AMM style) + multi-chain entry, and on the path to self-developed L1 (Aster Chain). The 1001x Simple mode targets newcomers and light users, providing a foolproof one-click trading experience that is more suitable for novice users, making it a great product for attracting new users.
Hyperliquid features on-chain matching and is quant-friendly, with performance and liquidity both stronger than Aster; Aster's Pro mode includes hidden orders/anti-MEV, suitable for funds that do not want to expose their orders and direction.
The basic fee rate ranges for both are similar, with Aster's base rate slightly lower (Aster maker 0.01% / taker 0.035%, Hyperliquid maker 0.01% / taker 0.045%). Hyperliquid allows HYPE staking to reduce fees (up to 40%), while Aster offers VIP level discounts.
Hyperliquid uses its own bridge for deposits and withdrawals, supporting Arbitrum USDC deposits with a fixed withdrawal of 1 USDC; Aster has a strong "no mental bridging" multi-chain entry, supporting user access from multiple chains such as BNB Chain, Ethereum, Arbitrum, and Solana, which is more than Hyperliquid.
In terms of product extension, Hyperliquid has spot trading, user/protocol treasury (HLP), and has initiated a "bidding system" for USDH stablecoin issuance (Native Markets winning USDH code positions). Aster has spot trading, extends to stock/index perp, yield collateral (asBNB/USDF), and privacy execution.
Technically, Aster focuses on "dark pools" to protect privacy. The Hidden Orders feature has been launched, proposed by "product manager" CZ. This feature allows users' limit orders to be completely hidden from the order book (both quantity and direction are not disclosed), using privacy technology to prevent large orders from being tracked.
I have also discussed the "Hidden Orders" feature with a friend from an exchange product team; it has its pros and cons. Perhaps some institutions and large holders have a need to "hide themselves," but it reduces the possibility of being "watched," lacking the hype and exposure effect, and sacrifices some principles of "openness and transparency," which may lead to incomplete on-chain information, making it difficult for ecosystem partners to conduct comprehensive data analysis. Jeff and CZ hold completely different views on this. In short, Aster positions "privacy first" as a selling point, and whether the market will accept it remains to be seen.
Compared to Hyperliquid, Aster has slightly less depth in mid to long-tail assets, but this is not a problem for Binance, as liquidity is Binance's strong suit, and Binance will certainly continue to inject liquidity into Aster.
Other features such as grid trading are available in Aster but not in Hyperliquid. Hedging mode is available in Aster but not in Hyperliquid. Neither has a "unified account," but as a powerful tool to enhance capital utilization, Aster is more likely to achieve this with Binance's support in the future, which is a weakness for Hyperliquid. Overall, the functional differences are not significant.
In terms of margin, Aster uses USDT (more commonly used in Chinese-speaking regions), while Hyperliquid uses USDC (more commonly used in compliant regions in Europe and America), aligning with Hyperliquid's strong community in Europe and America and Aster's strong community in Asia. Perhaps Aster should consider using USDC to expand into the compliant markets in Europe and America.
Comparison of Aster and Hyperliquid Token Economics
Distribution and Dilution Pathways
ASTER allocates 53.5% (fully structured, 20% more than HYPE) directly to airdrops and the community, with the team receiving only 5% and a 1-year cliff + 40 months of linear release; the total supply is fixed at 8B, with APX→ASTER migration at a 1:1 ratio into the ecosystem pool, with more unlocks in the early stages but more controllable long-term dilution.
HYPE has an initial cap of 1B (current proposals suggest removing the cap and significantly reducing supply), with a high community-oriented proportion (31% genesis airdrop + 38.888% FECR pending issuance), and 23.8% for core contributors will unlock linearly over 24 months starting from 2025-11-29, leading to significant short- to mid-term unlocking pressure.
Value Reflow Mechanism
HYPE has a strong buyback/repurchase-burn flywheel: a large proportion of protocol fees flow to the Assistance Fund (AF) for repurchasing HYPE in the secondary market; multiple studies indicate that 92–97% of fees are used for buybacks or related mechanisms, but the official stance is not fixed, and there are significant time differences, which need to be verified on-chain. It expands in bull markets and contracts in bear markets.
ASTER explicitly states that "a portion of protocol revenue is used for ASTER buybacks + governance reward distribution," with a rhythm more inclined towards policy and governance adjustments, running parallel to APX migration and airdrop releases.
Recent Changes and Their Impact on Price Structure
HYPE: Arthur Hayes reminds that approximately $11.9 billion worth of assets will be unlocked over the next 24 months (core contributors will unlock linearly over 24 months starting from 2025-11-29), raising concerns about whales moving tokens early.
In the community, Jon initiated a proposal Proposal to Reduce HYPE Total Supply by 45%>: to revoke the authorization for all unminted HYPE currently allocated to FECR, burn all HYPE currently held in the AF, and remove the 1 billion cap—if passed, the nominal total supply would decrease by >45%, but it would change to continuous issuance; the net effect depends on specific details and the probability of passing.
Summary of Proposal Content:
“We propose the following changes to Hyperliquid’s economic model:
- Future Emissions & Community Rewards (FECR) - Revoke authorization for all unminted HYPE currently allocated to FECR.
- Assistance Fund (AF) - Burn all HYPE currently held in the AF. Burn all HYPE acquired by the AF on an ongoing basis.
- Max Supply - Remove the max supply cap of 1bn HYPE. Ongoing token issuance (e.g., for staking emissions or community rewards) would now increase the total supply.
The result is an immediate >45% reduction in HYPE's total supply.”
This is a very bold and innovative proposal. The huge reserve pool selling pressure is a common issue in all token models.
- In the HYPE token model, future community rewards account for about 38.89% of the initial allocation, which is the potential dilution source most concerning to the market. The proposal directly eliminates the long-term unlocking supply ceiling.
- The AF (Assistance/Boost Fund) is changed to "buyback and burn": the AF previously used income to repurchase HYPE in the secondary market and hold it; according to the proposal, all HYPE held and subsequently acquired by the AF will be burned, transforming from "inventory/treasury" to permanent destruction, continuously creating buy pressure without accumulating tokens.
- The removal of the 1 billion cap + continuous issuance: future staking rewards, community incentives, etc., will rely on continuous issuance according to rules (inflationary trajectory), rather than utilizing a huge reserve pool.
Next, we will see how the team and Jeff respond; at least the second point is relatively easy to implement. If there is a substantial response to hedge against the "negative" of the massive unlocking on 2025-11-29, HYPE's price is expected to stabilize and rise.
ASTER: Driven by APX↔ASTER migration + multi-chain narrative post-TGE, and endorsements from celebrities (Mr. Beast - CZ the Big Boss), the short-term flow is fast and volatile; however, the team's share is low, with the majority given to the community and ecosystem, making the long-term dilution path more transparent. However, the buyback pressure from real fee income still has a significant gap compared to Hyperliquid.
Comparison of Aster and Hyperliquid Distribution Channels
In terms of distribution channels, Aster and Hyperliquid have a "paradigmatic" difference, representing two different tracks.
Aster: More inclined towards "people grouping together," with user-to-user invitation rewards. When you bring in new users, the platform returns a certain percentage of the invited person's trading fees to you, with relationships bound by accounts, having a validity period, and often tied to points/team bonuses. This is an extension of the invitation system from CEX exchanges to DEX, essentially a channel reward for attracting new users, overly reliant on KOLs, needing to "compete" with different CEXs.
Hyperliquid: More inclined towards "products based on usage," with front-end to user infrastructure-level fees. You create a front-end/interface, placing orders under your Builder Codes, with each order able to accumulate Builder Fees (settled on-chain, with user pre-authorized limits that can be revoked at any time), 100% going to the builder, with the platform not needing to redistribute. This is not "new user commission," but a model where you directly price as "infrastructure/application." It transforms DeFi developers into distribution partners, forming a B2B2C distribution network. (Some data on Builder Codes can be found in the first article.)
For this order, as a builder of Builder Codes, I earned 0.15 USDC. (The commission I set is 6 bps, plus an additional 1.5 bps, and I can flexibly adjust it up or down, but the maximum increase is 10 bps.)
Additionally, Staking Referral should also be able to be combined with the builder, as the fee discount I receive from staking HYPE can be passed on to users as a builder benefit, but I need to confirm the details here.
Although Hyperliquid also has invitation commissions, the "dual-layer distribution" of Builder Codes + Referral has a maximum of only 10% and is limited, which is not the focus. This was detailed in the first article.
As mentioned earlier, the 1001x Simple mode is a great product for attracting new users. If Aster can develop this product to connect with more DeFi distribution front-ends, we would be very willing to participate in distribution and earn together.
Finally, let’s brainstorm a bit
Aster has officially upgraded from "favorite son" to "crown prince." The crown prince is destined to inherit the throne, potentially forming a dual-core engine of BNB and Aster in the future. Aster Chain may even integrate with BNBChain, representing the ultimate form of Aster L1.
Hyperliquid L1 = Hyperliquid core + Hyperliquid EVM
Aster L1 = Aster Chain + BNBChain
Final Summary
In summary, Hyperliquid L1 has already taken shape, while Aster Chain has yet to launch. Hyperliquid's real trading volume and open interest currently far exceed Aster's, and the community and ecosystem are temporarily ahead. Moreover, Hyperliquid truly excels in the community and ecosystem partner co-building of HIP (the potential for HIP-3 and HIP-4 is enormous), and we look forward to Aster L1 taking shape soon, bringing AIP-1, AIP-2, AIP-3, etc.
In simple terms, currently, Hyperliquid is ahead of Aster by a generation, like the lead of the fifth-generation fighter over the fourth generation. However, in a comprehensive and systematic battle, the fourth generation may not necessarily lose; ultimately, it’s about ecological collaborative combat. Who can secure the ultimate "AWS of Liquidity" is still an unknown.
As the gods battle, what is the way out for other Perp DEXs? The next article will cover Lighter.
See the next article: "In-depth Analysis of Perp DEX: Hyperliquid, Aster, Lighter, edgeX (3)"
_ (The above is just a personal opinion and not investment advice. Please feel free to point out any errors.) _
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
