Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
An analysis conducted by Coinglass to compare the data of perpetual decentralized exchanges (perp DEX) has sparked an intense debate and highlighted divisions in the cryptocurrency derivatives sector.
The study revealed clear differences in trading volumes, open interest and liquidations in hyperliquids, esters and liters. Users continue to wonder what constitutes real business activity on these platforms.
Coinglass data raises debates about real trading on DEXs forever
Coinglass is facing widespread criticism after it published a comparison of perp exchanges and DEXs, questioning whether the trading volumes reported in part of the sector really reflect real market activity.
Sponsored
Sponsored
It shows a 24-hour analysis comparing hyperliquids, esters and liters the following: :
- Hyperliquid It recorded approximately $3.76 billion in trading volume, $4.05 billion in open interest, and $122.96 million in liquidation.
- Lining Generated $2.76 billion in volume, $927 million in open interest, and $7.2 million in settlements.
- lighter It reported $1.81 billion in volume, $731 million in open interest, and $3.34 million in liquidation.
Such differences can be influential, Quinnglass said. In Perpetual contract marketsHigh trading volumes resulting from leveraged positions is often associated with the dynamics of open interest and liquidation activities during price movements.
The company suggested that the combination of high reported volume and relatively low liquidation ratios may indicate things other than organic demand for coverage.
- Incentive based trading
- Implement replication market maker, or
- Practice planting points.
Therefore, Coinglass concluded that Hyperliquid demonstrated stronger internal consistency across key metrics.
Sponsored
Sponsored
At the same time, the quality of the trading volume of some competitors required further verification with indicators such as financing rates, fees, depth of the order book and the number of active traders.
The analytics platform said the Hyperlicode inference shows much stronger consistency between volume, OI and clearance – a better indication of real activity. At the same time, the quality of trading volume of Aster / Lighter needs further verification (against fees, funding, order book depth and active traders). She pointed this out The platform.
Some criticize this, but Coinglass defends its position
Critics have argued that conclusions based on a single snapshot of one day’s data can be misleading. They specifically mentioned alternative explanations for the data, including whale positioning, algorithmic differences between platforms and differences in market structure that could affect it. Filter patterns Without meaning inflated size.
Others asked questions if only total liquidations are a reliable indicator of market health, noting that high liquidations can also reflect aggressive leverage or volatile trading conditions.
At the same time, Coinglass rejected accusations that its analysis was merely speculative or… Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD)emphasizing that their conclusions are based on publicly available data.
Sponsored
Sponsored
CoinGlass only highlighted some discrepancies based on publicly available data, the company wrote. We did not expect a neutral, data-driven observation to elicit such hostile responses, he said, adding that open debate and acceptance of criticism are essential for the sector to evolve.
In another response, Cowenglass stressed the need to address disputes with stronger evidence and not through accusations.
The company also noted that raising leverage limits on some platforms could make them structurally more vulnerable to forced liquidations. This view shifts the discussion from abstract numbers to platform design and risk management.
A Pattern of Backlash in the Decentralized Sector Perpetual Trading Platform: What Counts as “Real” Business?
The controversy comes amid a wider wave of disputes surrounding Hyperlicode and the perpetual DEX market.
Previously, Kyle Samani, co-founder of Multicoin Capital, publicly criticized the Hyperliquid platform, raising concerns about transparency, governance and its closed source elements.
Sponsored
Sponsored
His statements sparked strong reactions from traders and supporters of the platform, many of whom rejected the criticism and questioned his motives.
BitMEX co-founder Arthur Hayes added to the controversy when he offered a $100,000 charity bet, challenging Samani to pick any major altcoin with a market capitalization of more than $1 billion to compete against Hyperliquid’s performing HYPE token in several months.
The dispute highlights a deeper problem facing cryptocurrency derivatives markets: the absence of uniform metrics for evaluating activity among decentralized platforms.
Trading volume has long been a key indicator of success. However, the increase in stimulus programs, airdrop campaigns and liquidity mining strategies has complicated the interpretation of these numbers.
As new perpetual trading platforms are launched and competition intensifies, metrics such as open interest, settlement patterns, leverage levels and order book depth become central to assessing market health.
The Coinglass incident reflects how data itself has become a battleground in an industry driven by numbers and narratives. Therefore, the debate about the true meaning of these numbers is likely to grow as the perpetual contract market continues to grow.
