An evaluation by Coinglass evaluating perpetual decentralized change (perp DEX) information has sparked fierce debate and, within the course of, highlighted rifts throughout the crypto derivatives sector.
The examine uncovered marked discrepancies in buying and selling volumes, open curiosity, and liquidations throughout Hyperliquid, Aster, and Lighter. Customers are left asking what qualifies as real buying and selling exercise on these platforms.
Coinglass Knowledge Sparks Debate Over Genuine Buying and selling on Perpetual DEXs
Coinglass is going through backlash after publishing a comparability of perp DEXs, questioning whether or not reported buying and selling volumes throughout components of the sector replicate real market exercise.
Sponsored
Sponsored
A 24-hour snapshot evaluating Hyperliquid, Aster, and Lighter exhibits that:
- Hyperliquid recorded roughly $3.76 billion in buying and selling quantity, $4.05 billion in open curiosity, and $122.96 million in liquidations.
- Aster posted $2.76 billion in quantity, $927 million in open curiosity, and $7.2 million in liquidations
- Lighter reported $1.81 billion in quantity, $731 million in open curiosity, and $3.34 million in liquidations.
High crypto decentralized derivatives exchanges ranked. Supply: Coinglass on X
In response to Coinglass, such discrepancies can matter. In perpetual futures markets, excessive buying and selling quantity pushed by leveraged positions usually correlates with open-interest dynamics and liquidation exercise throughout worth strikes.
The agency steered that, moderately than natural hedging demand, the mixture of excessive reported quantity and comparatively low liquidations could point out:
- Incentive-driven buying and selling
- Market-maker looping, or
- Factors farming.
Based mostly on this, Coinglass concludes that Hyperliquid confirmed stronger inside consistency throughout key metrics.
Sponsored
Sponsored
In the meantime, the quantity high quality of some rivals warrants additional validation utilizing indicators similar to funding charges, charges, order-book depth, and lively dealer counts.
“Conclusion…Hyperliquid shows much stronger consistency between volume, OI, and liquidations — a better signal of real activity. Meanwhile, Aster/Lighter’s volume quality needs further validation (vs fees, funding, orderbook depth, and active traders),” the analytics platform indicated.
Critics Push Again, however Coinglass Defends Its Place
Nonetheless, critics argue that conclusions drawn from a single-day snapshot might be deceptive. Particularly, they recommend different explanations for the information, together with whale positioning, algorithmic variations between platforms, and variations in market construction that would affect liquidation patterns with out implying inflated quantity.
“More likely explanation?”
So, you are simply speculating? You write an article criticizing Aster and Lighter based mostly solely on hypothesis, with none certainty?
Wow, I assumed Coinglass was a good firm. If we’ll speculate, possibly Hype has extra liquidations…
— D C CRYPT (@DC__CRYPT) February 9, 2026
Others questioned whether or not liquidation totals alone are a dependable indicator of market well being, noting that larger liquidations can even replicate aggressive leverage or risky buying and selling situations.
In the meantime, Coinglass rejects accusations that its evaluation amounted to hypothesis or worry, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD), emphasizing that its conclusions have been based mostly on publicly obtainable information.
Sponsored
Sponsored
“Coinglass simply highlighted a few discrepancies based on publicly available data. We didn’t expect that a neutral, data-driven observation would trigger such hostile reactions,” the agency wrote, including that open dialogue and tolerance for criticism are important for the trade to enhance.
In one other response, Coinglass pressured that disagreements needs to be addressed with stronger proof moderately than accusations.
The agency additionally argued that larger leverage ceilings on some platforms may make them structurally extra susceptible to compelled liquidations. This outlook shifts the controversy away from uncooked numbers towards change design and threat administration.
A Sample of Backlash within the Perp DEX Sector: What Counts as “Real” Exercise?
The controversy comes amid a broader wave of disputes surrounding Hyperliquid and the perpetual DEX market.
Earlier, Kyle Samani, co-founder of Multicoin Capital, publicly criticized Hyperliquid, elevating considerations about transparency, governance, and its closed-source parts.
Sponsored
Sponsored
Hyper liquid is in most respects the whole lot flawed with crypto
Founder actually fled his residence nation to construct
Brazenly facilitates crime and terror
Closed supply
Permissioned
— Kyle Samani (@KyleSamani) February 8, 2026
His remarks triggered sturdy reactions from merchants and supporters of the platform, a lot of whom dismissed the criticism and questioned his motives.
BitMEX co-founder Arthur Hayes additional escalated the feud by proposing a $100,000 charity guess, difficult Samani to pick any main altcoin with a market cap above $1 billion to compete in opposition to Hyperliquid’s HYPE token in efficiency over a number of months.
The dispute highlights a deeper challenge going through crypto derivatives markets: the dearth of standardized metrics for evaluating exercise throughout DEXes.
Buying and selling quantity has lengthy served as a headline indicator of success. Nonetheless, the rise of incentive applications, airdrop campaigns, and liquidity-mining methods has sophisticated the interpretation of these figures.
As new perp DEX platforms launch and competitors intensifies, metrics similar to open curiosity, liquidation patterns, leverage ranges, and order-book depth have gotten central to assessing market integrity.
This Coinglass incident mirrors how information itself has turn out to be a battleground amid a sector pushed by each numbers and narratives. Subsequently, the controversy over what these numbers really imply is prone to intensify because the perpetual futures market continues to develop.
