I'll be more direct.

Binance is the best entry point for project teams to exit liquidity after issuing tokens, without exception. The $MON launch on Coinbase plummeted, which should completely dispel any thoughts from other project teams about trying to bypass Binance.

When the market consensus is that BNB Chain projects will receive some priority attention for Alpha listings, BNB Chain projects will naturally scale.

There's no way around it; liquidity is the absolute lifeline of assets, and Binance is the liquidity center, which determines and controls the "fate" of the vast majority of projects.

Next, there may only be one area left to focus on—marginal innovation. Marginal innovation refers to replacing Kodak, not with a better Kodak, but with a smartphone. From "Qi, Qin, Jin, and Chu" to the United States and Japan, it all originated from marginal cultural groups and continuously absorbed foreign cultural innovations.

When large companies encounter potential "marginal innovations," direct acquisition is the best defensive measure. If that doesn't work, they can create something similar or conduct several internal competitions.

After FTX collapsed, Solana's MEME from late last year to early this year was an attempt to allow project teams to exit liquidity directly through on-chain transactions, bypassing exchanges. In fact, even now, Solana's ICM (Internet Capital Markets) route still aims to do this. The name itself indicates this intention.

Moreover, and most importantly, after MEME, Solana developers clearly understand the importance of "transaction ordering." We can see that Solana is currently experimenting with various ordering methods, and the final direction is ACE application control execution.

However, they may not have anticipated that Binance's Alpha would reclaim new asset pricing power, while Hyperliquid pursued its own goals.

Hyperliquid—perhaps historically, no project has ever received such attention from Binance, not even the Uniswap of that year. Thus, APX was revived and renamed Aster, with significant subsidies for trading.

As I mentioned before, Hyperliquid redesigned the microstructure of the order book, directly incorporating transaction recognition into the consensus mechanism.

This seemingly simple yet truly disruptive design mandates that, at the consensus layer, Hyperliquid requires nodes to process Cancel and post-only orders before handling GTC and IOC orders.

This has provided market makers with a very favorable market-making environment on-chain. However, currently, Hyperliquid's liquidity is still concentrated in BTC, and previous attempts to issue new assets ended in failure. It is now primarily focused on utilizing Builders Coding for liquidity distribution, further acquiring liquidity and revenue.

So, I now very intuitively feel that the competition in blockchain has escalated to a competition over "ordering" methods. And ordering directly determines whether market making can occur and whether various parties can effectively exit liquidity.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。