I saw an interesting statement (from @ enzo'gte) that his argument is that HL can never defeat BN Simply put, there is a speed bump mechanism in the hyperliquid architecture, which is manifested in order priority adjustment and a three block mempool buffer This allows less professional market makers to quote with peace of mind and avoid being eaten up by high-frequency trading. But the problem is that mainstream exchanges do not adopt this maker friendly design. Binance's daily trading volume is 20 billion, while the best time for hyperliquid is only 2 billion. What's the difference? The core of price discovery is a game between market makers, not a battle between makers and retailers. Allowing weak market makers to cancel orders at any time is equivalent to castrating the alpha capture ability of the dominant party. NASDAQ and CME also do not engage in speed bumps. Because real big capital requires real liquidity, not greenhouse like protection. The design decision of Hyperliquid has destined its ceiling - to go from 2 billion to 20 billion, the first thing to dismantle is this speed bump. The Hyperliquid team is very smart, they know this but still chose this path. Why? Because there are certain benefits of decentralization that cannot be explained but are understood by everyone (what exactly are they?), don't be fooled by marketing rhetoric. This is not for better liquidity, but for other purposes as a trade-off. Ultimately, exchange wars are not about having as many features as possible, but about who can capture the core trading group. I don't know if HL will replace BN in the future, but I am looking forward to the cake being divided again