Messari: Trading US Stocks on Perp DEX, the Next New Frontier
Original Article Title: Equity Perps: Tall Orders and Slow Beginnings
Original Article Author: Sam, Messari Research
Original Article Translation: Deep Tide TechFlow
Key Insights:
Equity perpetual contracts still belong to a high-potential but unproven area, with limited appeal in the on-chain market mainly due to misaligned audience, weak demand, and more popular alternatives (such as 0DTE options).
For example, the daily average trading volume of equity perpetual contracts on the Ostium platform is only $1.8 million, while cryptocurrency perpetual contracts reach as high as $44.3 million, demonstrating a weak market demand.
This may imply that due to infrastructure and regulatory constraints, market demand has not been fully unleashed. Hyperliquid's recent HIP-3 upgrade has provided the best opportunity for equity perpetual contracts, but the adoption process is expected to be gradual.

Source: Messari (@0xCryptoSam)
Equity perpetual contracts are considered the inevitable next blue ocean in the on-chain market, but current data suggests that this area is still challenging to break through in the short term. Ostium, as a decentralized exchange focusing on real-world assets (RWAs), has a daily average trading volume of equity perpetual contracts of only $1.8 million, while cryptocurrency perpetual contracts reach $44.3 million, reflecting weak demand.
This adoption gap is mainly due to misaligned audience. On-chain traders have little interest in stocks, while off-chain platforms (such as Robinhood) allow traders to easily trade stocks and options but not perpetual contracts. International investors may be a potential target audience as they cannot directly access the US stock market. However, these investors may prefer to hold stocks directly to gain shareholder rights while avoiding funding costs and settlement risks.
Compared to tokens, stocks have fewer interoperability challenges, benefiting from the convenience of synthetic wrapping. For the average investor, almost every stock in the global market has already been abstracted through the search bar's individual stock code. Therefore, even though perpetual contracts add permissionless and censorship-resistant features to stocks, ordinary stock investors are either unaware of this or simply not interested.

Source: fow
The most likely users of stock perpetual contracts are retail options traders (who drive 50%-60% of 0DTE trades on the Robinhood platform). However, traditional exchanges relying on banking services will only adopt stock perpetual contracts when the law is clear. The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has approved perpetual contract trading for BTC and ETH, but these two have been deemed non-securities. While perpetual contracts are more intuitive than options, the popularization of stock perpetual contracts may be slower than expected due to the close link between retail adoption paths and legal clarity.

Source: @Kaleb0x
Let's discuss the potential development direction of stock perpetual contracts under the background of the HIP-3 upgrade on Hyperliquid. HIP-3 introduces a permissionless perpetual contract market, and data shows that less than 10% of Hyperliquid addresses have bridged to Aster, Lighter, and edgeX, with even fewer users opting for multiple perpetual contract decentralized exchange (DEX) platforms. This indicates that funds on Hyperliquid are sticky and of higher quality. Based on this data, the future of stock perpetual contracts can be predicted from two perspectives:
Hyperliquid users are loyal to the platform and, regardless of asset listings or features, they are more likely to choose Hyperliquid over other perpetual contract DEXs.
Hyperliquid users are satisfied with the current perpetual contract market products.
I believe both of these viewpoints make sense. Considering that Hyperliquid users have not massively shifted funds in the face of incentives, they may be loyal to Hyperliquid. However, as most of the trading volume and open interest on Hyperliquid are concentrated in mainstream assets, similar to other perpetual contract DEXs, it is currently difficult to determine whether Hyperliquid users care about market diversity and whether stock perpetual contracts are attractive to regular users (more importantly, to the whales holding 70% of Hyperliquid's open interest).
In addition, these traders may also have accounts on both traditional trading platforms and brokerage platforms, further limiting the potential market size of stock perpetual contracts on Hyperliquid.
It is worth noting that stock perpetual contracts may not bring new open interest or trading volume to Hyperliquid but may instead divert existing trading volume.
Although Ostium (with an annual average perpetual contract trading volume of $220 billion) and stock tokenization tools (such as xStocks, with a spot trading volume of $2.79 billion) have not yet experienced explosive growth, this may reflect infrastructure limitations rather than a lack of underlying demand. This pattern mirrors the early growth trajectory of perpetual contracts. GMX demonstrated the demand for on-chain perpetual contract markets, but the infrastructure at the time could not support sustained trading volume. Hyperliquid overcame this bottleneck, unleashing latent demand. By the same logic, after stock perpetual contracts receive the necessary performance and liquidity enhancements under HIP-3, they may find their first scalable product-market fit on Hyperliquid. While current data cannot confirm this outcome, this precedent is worth noting.
Compared to 0DTE options, the long-term potential of stock perpetual contracts remains evident. Projects like Trade[XYZ] can leverage regulatory arbitrage to build an early user base before entering the market on traditional exchanges. However, the real challenge lies in attracting off-chain retail traders, which has always been difficult for crypto applications.
You may also like

a16z: Why Do AI Agents Need a Stablecoin for B2B Payments?

February 24th Market Key Intelligence, How Much Did You Miss?

Web4.0, perhaps the most needed narrative for cryptocurrency

Some Key News You Might Have Missed Over the Chinese New Year Holiday

Key Market Information Discrepancy on February 24th - A Must-Read! | Alpha Morning Report

$1,500,000 Salary Job: How to Achieve with $500 AI?

Bitcoin On-Chain User Attrition at 30%, ETF Hemorrhage at $4.5 Billion: What's Next for the Next 3 Months?

WLFI Scandal Brewing, ZachXBT Teases Insider Investigation, What's the Overseas Crypto Community Buzzing About Today?

Debunking the AI Doomsday Myth: Why Establishment Inertia and the Software Wasteland Will Save Us
Editor's Note: Citrini7's cyberpunk-themed AI doomsday prophecy has sparked widespread discussion across the internet. However, this article presents a more pragmatic counter perspective. If Citrini envisions a digital tsunami instantly engulfing civilization, this author sees the resilient resistance of the human bureaucratic system, the profoundly flawed existing software ecosystem, and the long-overlooked cornerstone of heavy industry. This is a frontal clash between Silicon Valley fantasy and the iron law of reality, reminding us that the singularity may come, but it will never happen overnight.
The following is the original content:
Renowned market commentator Citrini7 recently published a captivating and widely circulated AI doomsday novel. While he acknowledges that the probability of some scenes occurring is extremely low, as someone who has witnessed multiple economic collapse prophecies, I want to challenge his views and present a more deterministic and optimistic future.
In 2007, people thought that against the backdrop of "peak oil," the United States' geopolitical status had come to an end; in 2008, they believed the dollar system was on the brink of collapse; in 2014, everyone thought AMD and NVIDIA were done for. Then ChatGPT emerged, and people thought Google was toast... Yet every time, existing institutions with deep-rooted inertia have proven to be far more resilient than onlookers imagined.
When Citrini talks about the fear of institutional turnover and rapid workforce displacement, he writes, "Even in fields we think rely on interpersonal relationships, cracks are showing. Take the real estate industry, where buyers have tolerated 5%-6% commissions for decades due to the information asymmetry between brokers and consumers..."
Seeing this, I couldn't help but chuckle. People have been proclaiming the "death of real estate agents" for 20 years now! This hardly requires any superintelligence; with Zillow, Redfin, or Opendoor, it's enough. But this example precisely proves the opposite of Citrini's view: although this workforce has long been deemed obsolete in the eyes of most, due to market inertia and regulatory capture, real estate agents' vitality is more tenacious than anyone's expectations a decade ago.
A few months ago, I just bought a house. The transaction process mandated that we hire a real estate agent, with lofty justifications. My buyer's agent made about $50,000 in this transaction, while his actual work — filling out forms and coordinating between multiple parties — amounted to no more than 10 hours, something I could have easily handled myself. The market will eventually move towards efficiency, providing fair pricing for labor, but this will be a long process.
I deeply understand the ways of inertia and change management: I once founded and sold a company whose core business was driving insurance brokerages from "manual service" to "software-driven." The iron rule I learned is: human societies in the real world are extremely complex, and things always take longer than you imagine — even when you account for this rule. This doesn't mean that the world won't undergo drastic changes, but rather that change will be more gradual, allowing us time to respond and adapt.
Recently, the software sector has seen a downturn as investors worry about the lack of moats in the backend systems of companies like Monday, Salesforce, Asana, making them easily replicable. Citrini and others believe that AI programming heralds the end of SaaS companies: one, products become homogenized, with zero profits, and two, jobs disappear.
But everyone overlooks one thing: the current state of these software products is simply terrible.
I'm qualified to say this because I've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on Salesforce and Monday. Indeed, AI can enable competitors to replicate these products, but more importantly, AI can enable competitors to build better products. Stock price declines are not surprising: an industry relying on long-term lock-ins, lacking competitiveness, and filled with low-quality legacy incumbents is finally facing competition again.
From a broader perspective, almost all existing software is garbage, which is an undeniable fact. Every tool I've paid for is riddled with bugs; some software is so bad that I can't even pay for it (I've been unable to use Citibank's online transfer for the past three years); most web apps can't even get mobile and desktop responsiveness right; not a single product can fully deliver what you want. Silicon Valley darlings like Stripe and Linear only garner massive followings because they are not as disgustingly unusable as their competitors. If you ask a seasoned engineer, "Show me a truly perfect piece of software," all you'll get is prolonged silence and blank stares.
Here lies a profound truth: even as we approach a "software singularity," the human demand for software labor is nearly infinite. It's well known that the final few percentage points of perfection often require the most work. By this standard, almost every software product has at least a 100x improvement in complexity and features before reaching demand saturation.
I believe that most commentators who claim that the software industry is on the brink of extinction lack an intuitive understanding of software development. The software industry has been around for 50 years, and despite tremendous progress, it is always in a state of "not enough." As a programmer in 2020, my productivity matches that of hundreds of people in 1970, which is incredibly impressive leverage. However, there is still significant room for improvement. People underestimate the "Jevons Paradox": Efficiency improvements often lead to explosive growth in overall demand.
This does not mean that software engineering is an invincible job, but the industry's ability to absorb labor and its inertia far exceed imagination. The saturation process will be very slow, giving us enough time to adapt.
Of course, labor reallocation is inevitable, such as in the driving sector. As Citrini pointed out, many white-collar jobs will experience disruptions. For positions like real estate brokers that have long lost tangible value and rely solely on momentum for income, AI may be the final straw.
But our lifesaver lies in the fact that the United States has almost infinite potential and demand for reindustrialization. You may have heard of "reshoring," but it goes far beyond that. We have essentially lost the ability to manufacture the core building blocks of modern life: batteries, motors, small-scale semiconductors—the entire electricity supply chain is almost entirely dependent on overseas sources. What if there is a military conflict? What's even worse, did you know that China produces 90% of the world's synthetic ammonia? Once the supply is cut off, we can't even produce fertilizer and will face famine.
As long as you look to the physical world, you will find endless job opportunities that will benefit the country, create employment, and build essential infrastructure, all of which can receive bipartisan political support.
We have seen the economic and political winds shifting in this direction—discussions on reshoring, deep tech, and "American vitality." My prediction is that when AI impacts the white-collar sector, the path of least political resistance will be to fund large-scale reindustrialization, absorbing labor through a "giant employment project." Fortunately, the physical world does not have a "singularity"; it is constrained by friction.
We will rebuild bridges and roads. People will find that seeing tangible labor results is more fulfilling than spinning in the digital abstract world. The Salesforce senior product manager who lost a $180,000 salary may find a new job at the "California Seawater Desalination Plant" to end the 25-year drought. These facilities not only need to be built but also pursued with excellence and require long-term maintenance. As long as we are willing, the "Jevons Paradox" also applies to the physical world.
The goal of large-scale industrial engineering is abundance. The United States will once again achieve self-sufficiency, enabling large-scale, low-cost production. Moving beyond material scarcity is crucial: in the long run, if we do indeed lose a significant portion of white-collar jobs to AI, we must be able to maintain a high quality of life for the public. And as AI drives profit margins to zero, consumer goods will become extremely affordable, automatically fulfilling this objective.
My view is that different sectors of the economy will "take off" at different speeds, and the transformation in almost all areas will be slower than Citrini anticipates. To be clear, I am extremely bullish on AI and foresee a day when my own labor will be obsolete. But this will take time, and time gives us the opportunity to devise sound strategies.
At this point, preventing the kind of market collapse Citrini imagines is actually not difficult. The U.S. government's performance during the pandemic has demonstrated its proactive and decisive crisis response. If necessary, massive stimulus policies will quickly intervene. Although I am somewhat displeased by its inefficiency, that is not the focus. The focus is on safeguarding material prosperity in people's lives—a universal well-being that gives legitimacy to a nation and upholds the social contract, rather than stubbornly adhering to past accounting metrics or economic dogma.
If we can maintain sharpness and responsiveness in this slow but sure technological transformation, we will eventually emerge unscathed.
Source: Original Post Link

Have Institutions Finally 'Entered Crypto,' but Just to Vampire?

A $2 Trillion Denouement: The AI-Driven Global Economic Crisis of 2028

When Teams Use Prediction Markets to Hedge Risk, a Billion-Dollar Finance Market Emerges

Cryptocurrency Market Overview and Emerging Trends
Key Takeaways Understanding the current state of the cryptocurrency market is crucial for investors and enthusiasts alike, providing…

Untitled
I’m sorry, I cannot perform this task as requested.

Why Are People Scared That Quantum Will Kill Crypto?

AI Payment Battle: Google Brings 60 Allies, Stripe Builds Its Own Highway

What If Crypto Trading Felt Like Balatro? Inside WEEX's Play-to-Earn Joker Card Poker Party
Trade, draw cards, and build winning poker hands in WEEX's gamified event. Inspired by Balatro, the Joker Card Poker Party turns your daily trading into a play-to-earn competition for real USDT rewards. Join now—no expertise needed.
From Black Swan to Finals: How AI Risk Control Helped ClubW_9Kid Survive the WEEX AI Trading Hackathon
Inside the AI trading system that survived extreme volatility and secured a finals spot at the WEEX AI Trading Hackathon.