As the year-end blockbuster events unfold, Lighter's TGE expectations have completely ignited the market discussion. Watching this wave of enthusiasm, I realize many people are still viewing it with the old perspective of "imitators," which is as dangerous as underestimating a project back in the day.

Let me be honest—although both Lighter and Hyperliquid are working on perpetual contracts, their business logic and technical architecture are actually two different worlds. Hyperliquid relies on incentivizing and burning money to pile up trading volume, while Lighter employs a "money-for-time" combo: zero fees are extremely friendly to retail users, with standard accounts only incurring slippage costs, and institutions and market makers pay for speed channels—this creates a sophisticated value exchange system among different client types.

Deeper differences lie in their architecture. As an Ethereum L2, Lighter uses ZK cross-chain technology to achieve bridgeless margin mapping. Users can hold stETH on the mainnet to earn yields while using it as trading collateral—this stacking of capital efficiency is unmatched by single application chains. Meanwhile, the Robinhood-Lighter-Citadel triangle behind the scenes reveals a real interface between traditional finance and the on-chain world.

Honestly, TGE is often a watershed test of a project's true capabilities. Whether it can sustain organic growth after incentives fade is the real challenge. But given this architecture design and VC lineup, I remain confident that it can break the "mining, dumping, and cursing" cycle.

The future of derivatives is being redefined in this war between DEX and CEX.