The real difference in the perpetual futures DEX is not in whose volume numbers are more impressive.



Platforms like StandX are pondering an age-old question: why does capital flee during a bear market?

Many protocols experienced explosive data in the early stages, but when the market calms down, it immediately becomes sluggish—volume plummets, liquidity dries up. It looks like operational failure, but the root cause lies in the incentive mechanism. When market volatility decreases, the model that originally attracted traders becomes ineffective. This is not a temporary symptom, but a structural issue at the design level. From another perspective, it's that capital efficiency and incentive structure are not truly aligned. Being able to retain funds in various market environments is what perpetual futures should be competing on.
View Original
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
  • Reward
  • 2
  • Repost
  • Share
Comment
0/400
SigmaValidatorvip
· 21h ago
The arrival of the Bear Market reveals that the incentive mechanism was not designed well at all. What’s the use of good-looking data if it can't hold onto money, that's the real problem.
View OriginalReply0
Ramen_Until_Richvip
· 12-23 14:33
When a Bear Market comes, the protocol that falls apart is, to put it bluntly, a false prosperity built on incentives that can hardly withstand scrutiny. The real difference lies in the underlying design, not those flashy volume rankings.
View OriginalReply0
  • Pin

Trade Crypto Anywhere Anytime
qrCode
Scan to download Gate App
Community
  • 简体中文
  • English
  • Tiếng Việt
  • 繁體中文
  • Español
  • Русский
  • Français (Afrique)
  • Português (Portugal)
  • Bahasa Indonesia
  • 日本語
  • بالعربية
  • Українська
  • Português (Brasil)