Lighter v Hyperliquid: Does the Data Support the "Dethrone" Narrative?

Pierce & Pierce Deep Dive Research | December 10, 2025

Everyone on CT says Lighter is about to flip Hyperliquid. The volume charts look convincing. Zero fees are pulling traders away. The VC backing is elite tier.

There was one problem with that narrative.

When $19 billion in liquidations hit the crypto market on October 10-11, one platform maintained 100% up-time and processed over $10 billion in liquidations. The other went dark for 4.5 hours while users watched their positions get liquidated without recourse.

The data tells a different story than the timeline.

At a Glance

Working Scenario (Author Estimates)

Note: These probabilities are the author's subjective assessment based on historical patterns and current data, not prediction market prices.

Read Paths

• 2 min: At a Glance + Verdict
• 6 min: Add Stress Test + Centralization sections
• 14 min: Full report with historical precedent

What Everyone Thinks Is Happening

The prevailing CT narrative runs like this: Lighter is the Hyperliquid killer. The volume charts prove it. Zero fees are an insurmountable competitive advantage. VC backing from Founders Fund, Ribbit Capital, and Haun Ventures at a $1.5B valuation validates the thesis.

The steelman case has merit.

Lighter has achieved $5.78B in 24-hour volume as of December 10, 2025, essentially matching Hyperliquid's $5.69B. The platform's zero-fee model for retail traders represents a genuine structural advantage, eliminating friction for active traders who would otherwise pay 0.02-0.05% taker fees on Hyperliquid. The technology stack (a custom ZK-rollup on Ethereum with sub-5ms soft finality) delivers CEX-grade performance while maintaining cryptographic proofs for every trade.

The points program has generated serious engagement. With Season 2 running through December 31, 2025, and TGE expected before year-end (Polymarket shows 75-89% probability), traders are positioning for an airdrop that could rival Hyperliquid's legendary November 2024 distribution. Points are trading OTC at valuations implying $80-100 per point, suggesting substantial expected value.

The JELLYJELLY incident gave critics ammunition. When Hyperliquid validators voted to delist and force-settle positions at $0.0095 (the attacker's entry) rather than the $0.50 market price, it exposed the degree of centralized intervention capability. Bitget's CEO called it "potentially FTX 2.0" and "immature, unethical, unprofessional."

On the surface, this looks like a generational rotation in progress.

What the Data Actually Shows

The headline volume numbers conceal a structural difference that changes the investment thesis entirely.

The Vol/OI Ratio Signal

Volume measures activity. Open Interest measures conviction: capital committed to positions that traders intend to hold.

A healthy Vol/OI ratio sits between 0.5x and 2x. Ratios above 3x historically indicate elevated churn, typically driven by incentive farming rather than organic trading activity.

During Lighter's private beta in September 2025, K33 Research analyst David Zimmerman flagged this pattern:

"With open interest at $83 million against a whopping $2.3 billion in daily volume, Lighter's volume-to-open-interest ratio currently sits at around 27, compared to Hyperliquid's at 0.76."

The ratio has improved substantially since then (from 27x to 3.23x), but remains elevated relative to Hyperliquid's 0.81x. This suggests Lighter is successfully attracting trading activity, but the capital is rotating rather than holding positions.

The DAU Concentration Signal

Hyperliquid maintains 45,700 daily active users versus Lighter's 6,100, a 7.5x difference in user base. Yet Lighter's daily volume now slightly exceeds Hyperliquid's.

The math reveals concentration:

Each Lighter user generates 7.6x more daily volume than each Hyperliquid user. This level of concentration is a warning signal, not a strength. It indicates activity is driven by a smaller cohort of high-volume participants (likely farming the points program) rather than a broad base of organic traders.

The Revenue Reality

Hyperliquid generates approximately $1.03B in annualized revenue, with 99% flowing to HYPE buybacks via the Assistance Fund. This places Hyperliquid among the most profitable protocols in DeFi.

Lighter generates $249.72M in annualized revenue according to DefiLlama, derived from premium API fees charged to institutional and HFT traders. While retail users pay zero fees, the platform has achieved meaningful revenue through its Robinhood-style model where professional flow subsidizes retail access.

The gap remains significant (4x), but Lighter's revenue is real and growing. However, the revenue model creates a strategic dependency: if institutional flow declines post-TGE, the subsidy model faces pressure.

The October Stress Test

On October 10-11, 2025, the crypto market experienced its largest liquidation cascade in history. Approximately $19 billion was liquidated across all venues within 24 hours, triggered by President Trump's announcement of a 100% tariff on Chinese imports.

Both platforms were tested under fire. The results diverged sharply.

Hyperliquid Performance

Hyperliquid maintained 100% uptime throughout the event. The platform processed over $10 billion in liquidations on its own infrastructure, more than half of total DEX liquidation volume.

The system triggered Auto-Deleveraging (ADL) for the first time in two years of operation, affecting approximately 0.5-1% of positions. ADL is the fail-safe mechanism that forcibly closes profitable positions when insurance funds are depleted. While controversial, it prevented systemic collapse.

"100% uptime with zero bad debt." — Jeff Yan, Hyperliquid CEO

Zero bad debt was recorded. The HLP vault absorbed liquidation flow as designed, with profits from liquidation fees offsetting losses from adverse price movements. The HLP vault booked approximately $40 million in profit during the event.

Lighter Performance

Lighter experienced a 4.5-hour complete outage from 10:30 PM EST on October 10 to 3:00 AM EST on October 11.

The root cause, per security firm Beosin's analysis: a single centralized sequencer created a single point of failure. Transaction volume surged to 79.8x the normal rate, overwhelming the database and causing index corruption. The ZK-SNARK proof generation system could not handle simultaneous trade matching and liquidation requests.

The losses were substantial:

Compensation came in the form of Lighter points valued at approximately $20M OTC. The platform acknowledged 2,008 traders lost more than $1,000, 367 lost more than $10,000, and 38 lost more than $100,000.

The stress test delivered an empirical verdict: when it mattered most, one platform processed billions in liquidations without interruption while the other went dark for 4.5 hours.

The Centralization Question

CT loves to cite the JELLYJELLY incident as proof that Hyperliquid is "centralized" and therefore illegitimate. The argument deserves steelmanning, but the conclusion requires context.

What JELLYJELLY Actually Revealed

On March 26, 2025, an attacker deposited $7.17M across three Hyperliquid accounts and opened offsetting JELLY positions. By pumping the spot price 400%+ across CEXs, they forced the HLP vault to inherit an underwater short position with potential losses exceeding $230M.

The response: Hyperliquid's validators voted unanimously within 2 minutes to delist JELLY perps and settle all positions at $0.0095 (the attacker's entry price) rather than the $0.50 market price. The HLP vault booked a $700K profit instead of a potential $230M loss.

The attacker withdrew $6.26M of their $7.17M deposit before withdrawals were frozen.

The Criticism Has Merit

Bitget CEO Gracy Chen's criticism resonated:

"Immature, unethical, and unprofessional." — Gracy Chen, Bitget CEO

ZachXBT questioned the selective intervention capability. The incident proved validators can override market outcomes at will.

But Gracy Chen's criticism rang hollow for many observers, given that Jeff Yan, Hyperliquid's founder, had previously accused Bitget of B-booking (routing user trades through an internal desk rather than the open market). Less than a month later, Bitget suffered a $100M+ loss from a trading bot glitch.

The Reality: Both Platforms Are Centralized

Hyperliquid operates with 16-21 validators, with 81% of stake controlled by the Hyper Foundation. This is not decentralized by Ethereum standards (14,000+ validators). The platform has demonstrated willingness to intervene when HLP vault solvency is threatened.

Lighter operates with a single sequencer. There is no validator set to vote on interventions. When the sequencer fails, as it did on October 11, the entire platform goes dark.

The question isn't which platform is "decentralized." Neither is. The question is which centralization tradeoff you prefer: intervention capability (Hyperliquid can save the vault but can also override your position) or architectural fragility (Lighter cannot intervene but also cannot survive stress events).

For most traders, the platform that stays online during volatility is the platform that matters.

The Historical Pattern

Perp DEX market share has proven ephemeral for incentive-driven platforms. The pattern is consistent:

dYdX (2024)

dYdX launched its technologically advanced Cosmos app-chain (v4) in November 2023, decentralizing its matching engine. It failed to reverse the market share decline. By Q4 2024, Hyperliquid had captured 55-66% of perp DEX volume.

Vertex

Vertex reached peak volumes during its incentive period, then experienced a -98% token price decline from peak. The platform announced migration to Ink chain in July 2025, effectively conceding defeat in its original market.

Aster

In October 2025, Aster was delisted from DefiLlama for suspected wash trading after volume patterns were found to mirror Binance 1:1. Market share collapsed from approximately 70% to under 20% following the delisting.

The Pattern

Platforms with elevated Vol/OI ratios during incentive periods have historically experienced 50-80% volume collapse post-TGE. The reasons are structural: incentive-driven volume represents capital seeking yield, not capital seeking trading execution. When the incentive disappears, the capital rotates.

This does not mean Lighter will follow the pattern. But it means the current volume numbers cannot be extrapolated linearly. The true test begins after TGE.

The Lighter Bull Case (Steelmanned)

The bear case got airtime. Here's what the Lighter bulls see that deserves serious consideration:

1. Zero Fees Are Structurally Underpriced

Hyperliquid charges 0.02% taker fees. On $5.7B daily volume, that's $1.14M daily in friction costs for traders. Lighter charges zero for retail.

For a trader doing $1M daily volume, that's $200/day saved on Lighter. Over a year: $73,000. This isn't a marketing gimmick. It's a genuine economic advantage that compounds.

The Robinhood model proved that professional flow can subsidize retail access profitably. Lighter's $250M revenue from API fees demonstrates the model works. If institutional adoption grows, the subsidy becomes more sustainable, not less.

Lighter doesn't need to beat Hyperliquid on capital metrics to succeed. If it captures the high-frequency, low-capital retail demographic, it could become the "Robinhood of perps" while Hyperliquid becomes the "Interactive Brokers of DeFi." A different but equally viable market position.

2. ZK Proofs Matter for Institutional Adoption

Every trade on Lighter generates a cryptographic proof verified on Ethereum. This isn't just marketing. It's a compliance feature.

Traditional finance institutions entering crypto need audit trails. Lighter's architecture provides mathematical proof of fair execution, not just trust in an operator. As regulated entities (funds, family offices, RIAs) increase crypto allocation, verifiability becomes a competitive moat.

Hyperliquid's order book is transparent, but execution isn't cryptographically proven. For institutions with fiduciary obligations, this distinction may matter.

If regulators mandate cryptographically proven execution for institutional participants, Lighter's ZK architecture becomes a regulatory moat rather than a technical feature. This is a low-probability, high-impact scenario worth monitoring.

3. The TGE Could Be a Catalyst, Not a Collapse

The bear case assumes TGE = volume collapse (dYdX pattern). But Hyperliquid's TGE in November 2024 was followed by volume expansion, not contraction.

Why? The airdrop converted users into stakeholders. Token holders became evangelists. The same dynamic could apply to Lighter if:

• Token distribution is broad (25-30% to community)
• Staking/governance creates ongoing engagement
• The "wealth effect" attracts new users

If Lighter's TGE mirrors Hyperliquid's rather than dYdX's, the platform could see sustained growth rather than collapse.

4. The OI Gap May Close Faster Than Expected

Open Interest is a lagging indicator. Volume leads, OI follows. Lighter's volume now matches Hyperliquid's. If traders begin holding positions rather than churning, OI will grow.

The bull case: current Vol/OI reflects points optimization, not structural user behavior. Post-TGE, when farming incentives end, the remaining users are genuine traders who will hold positions. OI normalizes.

5. Product Expansion Beyond Perps

Lighter recently launched spot trading with ETH as the first depositable asset. This expansion beyond perpetuals creates additional revenue streams and use cases, potentially attracting users who want a unified trading experience rather than fragmenting across platforms.

6. Probability-Weighted Upside (Author Estimates)

Note: These probabilities are the author's subjective estimates, not market-derived.

Expected value calculation: Even with 35% probability of failure, the 25% combined probability of strong outcomes creates asymmetric upside for early participants, particularly those who farmed points at low cost.

This doesn't mean Lighter will succeed. It means the risk/reward for point farmers may be better than the bear case suggests.

What Actually Matters

Hyperliquid's Defensible Position

Hyperliquid's competitive moat consists of three interlocking elements:

Revenue-Funded Buybacks: 99% of protocol fees flow to the Assistance Fund for HYPE token buybacks. With $1B+ annualized revenue, this creates sustained buy pressure independent of market conditions.

Institutional Adoption: The Hyperliquid Strategies DAT (digital asset treasury), approved December 2, 2025, creates an $888M publicly-traded vehicle holding HYPE tokens. This represents the first institutional on-ramp specifically designed for Hyperliquid exposure.

Ecosystem Depth: HIP-3 (permissionless perps) enables community-deployed perpetual markets. Over 100 projects are building on Hyperliquid's infrastructure. This creates switching costs that volume alone cannot replicate.

Lighter's Path to Relevance

Lighter does not need to "dethrone" Hyperliquid to succeed. The perp DEX market is not winner-take-all. A 15-25% sustainable market share would represent a successful outcome for a $1.5B valuation platform.

Success requires:

Post-TGE Volume Retention: The critical metric is 30-day and 90-day volume retention after token launch. If Lighter retains 50%+ of current volume, the model is validated.

OI Growth: Open interest must grow faster than volume for the platform to demonstrate organic adoption. A Vol/OI ratio declining toward 1.5x-2x would signal improving quality.

Infrastructure Hardening: The October outage cannot repeat. The single-sequencer architecture must be upgraded before the next stress event.

Invalidation Triggers

The "Lighter dethrones Hyperliquid" thesis is invalidated if:

• Post-TGE volume drops 50%+ within 90 days
• Vol/OI ratio expands above 5x post-TGE
• Another stress event causes platform outage
• Institutional flow (API fees) declines significantly

The "Hyperliquid maintains dominance" thesis is invalidated if:

• Market share drops below 50% for 30+ consecutive days
• Revenue declines 30%+ from current levels
• Another JELLYJELLY-style intervention damages trust
• Lighter demonstrates 30%+ OI growth post-TGE

What Would Change My Mind

Intellectual honesty requires defining the conditions that would invalidate the thesis. Here are the specific thresholds:

Lighter Bull Case Triggers

If Lighter hits 3+ of these thresholds, the "incentive-driven churn" thesis is wrong and the platform has achieved genuine product-market fit.

Hyperliquid Bear Case Triggers

If Hyperliquid hits 3+ of these thresholds, the "dominant incumbent" thesis is wrong and the market is repricing leadership.

The Verdict

Bear Case for Hyperliquid

Bull Case for Hyperliquid

Bear Case for Lighter

Bull Case for Lighter

Bottom Line

Closing

One story trended across CT: Lighter's volume charts look unstoppable, zero fees are pulling traders away, the flip is coming.

Another story the data shows: a platform with 3.2x less TVL, 7.5x fewer users, 3.9x less OI, and a 4.5-hour outage during the largest stress test in crypto history. But also $250M in real revenue, genuine tech differentiation, and volume that now matches the incumbent.

The truth is probably in the middle.

Lighter is unlikely to "dethrone" Hyperliquid in the next 6 months. The OI gap is too large, the stress test failure too recent, and the TGE risk too real.

But Lighter doesn't need to win to succeed. A 20-25% market share at current volumes would validate a $1.5B valuation. The perp DEX market isn't winner-take-all.

The contrarian bet isn't binary. It's watching the Vol/OI ratio post-TGE. If it normalizes below 2.0x while volume holds, Lighter has found product-market fit. If it stays above 4x while volume collapses, the dYdX pattern repeats.

The data will tell us. The timeline is 90 days post-TGE.

Until then: Hyperliquid for conviction, Lighter for optionality.

What to Watch

Sources

Disclaimer and Disclosure

This analysis compares platform metrics and does not constitute financial advice. The information is provided for educational purposes only. Readers should conduct their own research before making any investment decisions.

The author may hold positions in assets discussed, including HYPE tokens.

Pierce & Pierce Research | Democratising Institutional Grade Intelligence