Therefore, the core logic of buying Aster is not that "it is

Post

Therefore, the core logic of buying Aster is not that "it is cheaper than Hyper now," but whether you believe in three things:
First, the privacy execution layer can ultimately achieve "no evil" for the executors as well;
Second, Aster can stand at the center of BNB's resources and traffic for the long term;
Third, this highly complex route can run smoothly, rather than being dragged down by engineering risks midway.
CZ's call indeed provided strong short-term confidence and emotional premium, but emotions can only raise valuations, not replace trust models.
Aster's real test is not whether it rises or falls, but whether it can still stand firm when the halo fades.

Vincent W

When Aster stands in the spotlight of CZ: Is this an underestimated opportunity or a high-level risk?

Recently, the discussion around Aster has noticeably heated up. On one side is CZ's strong calls and the backing of the BNB ecosystem, while on the other side is the grand narrative of 'privacy DEX + new chain.' From the data, Aster's current price is about $0.72, with a circulating market cap of approximately $1.8 billion and an FDV of about $5.75 billion; whereas Hyper's circulating market cap is around $8.5 billion, with an FDV nearing $24 billion. On the surface, Aster's 'valuation space' seems enticing, but the question is: does this comparison hold?

Aster's core selling point is to use privacy and zero-knowledge technology to 'hide' transaction, position, and order details, thereby reducing the risks of MEV, front-running, and being targeted. But the first soul-searching question here is: who does privacy actually benefit?

If it is only invisible to external users, while the execution layer or officials can still see plaintext orders at certain stages, then privacy merely addresses the 'external issue' without structurally eliminating the information advantage. This model is close to CEX in experience, but whether it is truly superior on the trust level is worth repeated confirmation.

The second issue is MEV. Aster emphasizes reducing MEV, but if execution power is highly concentrated, is MEV merely shifting from 'external bots' to 'internal execution advantages'? True anti-MEV should be 'even if you know the information, you cannot exploit it,' rather than 'hope you don't exploit it.' This point determines whether Aster is truly a protocol-level innovation or just an engineering-level optimization.

The third and most critical question: when officials act maliciously or disappear, can users save themselves?

If users cannot forcefully exit and retrieve their assets without official cooperation, then no matter how much ZK technology is used, it essentially remains closer to a 'semi-custodial system.' This is the ultimate dividing line between DEX and CEX.

Returning to the valuation level. Hyper's $24 billion FDV is built on a validated trading system, clear product positioning, and continuous real trading demand; whereas Aster's $5.75 billion FDV bets more on the future: privacy trading scale, new chain adoption, and long-term support from the BNB ecosystem. This is not a value comparison, but rather a comparison of 'options vs cash flow.'

Disclaimer: Includes third-party opinions. No financial advice. May include sponsored content. See T&Cs.

.css-1iqe90x{box-sizing:border-box;margin:0;min-width:0;color:#EAECEF;}Therefore, the core logic of buying Aster is not that "it is cheaper than Hyper now," but whether you believe in three things:

Latest News

Therefore, the core logic of buying Aster is not that "it is cheaper than Hyper now," but whether you believe in three things: