Vincent W
Welcome to my X: https://x.com/dangxiawww （Provide for one’s family）
Open Trade
BFUSD Holder
Frequent Trader
8.2 Years
26 Following
262 Followers
768 Liked
48 Shared
Posts
Portfolio
All
Quotes
I have a long-term, mechanism-level suggestion. Previously, during critical moments like 10.11, the market could clearly feel the changes in the leading industry's attitude towards 'confidence.' In the future, if at the right stage, considering taking out a portion of the phased profits (for example, 20%) to buy BNB and BTC (10% each), I believe this would be a very direct and effective expression of confidence, and it could also create a positive demonstration at the industry level. @CZ
When stablecoins move towards high-frequency use, why is Plasma worth serious research?
In the current cryptocurrency market, many projects prefer to tell a story first and then supplement with technology, while Plasma has chosen a relatively 'slow but solid' path—starting from the underlying operational logic of stable assets to reconstruct the infrastructure of on-chain finance.
Stablecoins have become the most frequently used asset form in the cryptocurrency world, but the real issues are also very obvious: high transaction fees, low cross-scenario efficiency, and performance bottlenecks in high-frequency trading or complex settlements. What Plasma attempts to solve are these long-ignored yet persistent pain points.
Stablecoins have become the most frequently used asset form in the cryptocurrency world, but the real issues are also very obvious: high transaction fees, low cross-scenario efficiency, and performance bottlenecks in high-frequency trading or complex settlements. What Plasma attempts to solve are these long-ignored yet persistent pain points.
#plasma $XPL Plasma is trying to solve the real issues faced by stablecoins and high-frequency trading on-chain: the balance between cost, speed, and security. Compared to projects that simply pile on narratives, Plasma focuses more on underlying execution efficiency and asset settlement experience.
From the current information, Plasma XPL's design philosophy leans more towards "financial-grade infrastructure" rather than short-term hot applications, which is clearly reflected in its emphasis on the circulation of stable assets, settlement delays, and on-chain risk isolation.
If on-chain stablecoins are to support higher frequency and larger scale real use cases in the future, then projects like Plasma, which start from the underlying structure, may gradually reveal their value.
From the current information, Plasma XPL's design philosophy leans more towards "financial-grade infrastructure" rather than short-term hot applications, which is clearly reflected in its emphasis on the circulation of stable assets, settlement delays, and on-chain risk isolation.
If on-chain stablecoins are to support higher frequency and larger scale real use cases in the future, then projects like Plasma, which start from the underlying structure, may gradually reveal their value.
What Vanar wants to solve is not the "problem of blockchain"
In the past few years, the most discussed keywords in the blockchain industry have been performance, scalability, and security. But the reality is that most ordinary users do not care about these technical details; they only care about one thing: is it easy to use?
This is precisely the entry point for Vanar Chain.
Vanar is not looking to "crush all public chains" on TPS or Gas, but has chosen a more application-layer direction—entertainment, content, and interactive experiences. Whether it's games, digital content, or AI-driven applications, these scenarios do not demand extreme performance from the chain, but rather stability, low thresholds, and a good user experience.
This is precisely the entry point for Vanar Chain.
Vanar is not looking to "crush all public chains" on TPS or Gas, but has chosen a more application-layer direction—entertainment, content, and interactive experiences. Whether it's games, digital content, or AI-driven applications, these scenarios do not demand extreme performance from the chain, but rather stability, low thresholds, and a good user experience.
#vanar $VANRY The first time understanding Vanar Chain, you will find that its narrative is quite different from most public chains.
Vanar does not focus on "financial gameplay" but pays more attention to content, games, entertainment, and the creator ecosystem. This is actually a very clear choice: as blockchain technology matures, what really determines user scale is no longer TPS, but "are there people willing to use it every day?"
What Vanar is trying to solve is a more realistic problem —
how to make Web3 applications as smooth as Web2 while retaining the advantages of decentralization.
From this perspective, Vanar is more like infrastructure prepared for the next generation of digital content, rather than a public chain that simply chases hot trends.
Vanar does not focus on "financial gameplay" but pays more attention to content, games, entertainment, and the creator ecosystem. This is actually a very clear choice: as blockchain technology matures, what really determines user scale is no longer TPS, but "are there people willing to use it every day?"
What Vanar is trying to solve is a more realistic problem —
how to make Web3 applications as smooth as Web2 while retaining the advantages of decentralization.
From this perspective, Vanar is more like infrastructure prepared for the next generation of digital content, rather than a public chain that simply chases hot trends.
Vanar Chain: The Real Application-Oriented Public Chain Born for the Next Generation of Content and Entertainment
@Vanar #vanar
Vanar Chain is a public chain that I have been closely following recently. My intuitive feeling is not that "the concept is very new," but rather that "the direction is very clear." While many public chains are still focused on performance parameters and TPS number competition, Vanar has placed its emphasis early on real use cases such as entertainment, gaming, and digital content. This is very important because what truly brings long-term users is not complex financial structures, but high-frequency, natural, and sustainable application behaviors. From the very beginning, Vanar Chain considered the experience issues of developers and ordinary users, aiming to reduce the complexity of on-chain interactions and make Web3 products closer to Web2 usage habits. This mindset itself makes Vanar appear more pragmatic among many public chains, and it is also more easily accepted by non-crypto native users.
Vanar Chain is a public chain that I have been closely following recently. My intuitive feeling is not that "the concept is very new," but rather that "the direction is very clear." While many public chains are still focused on performance parameters and TPS number competition, Vanar has placed its emphasis early on real use cases such as entertainment, gaming, and digital content. This is very important because what truly brings long-term users is not complex financial structures, but high-frequency, natural, and sustainable application behaviors. From the very beginning, Vanar Chain considered the experience issues of developers and ordinary users, aiming to reduce the complexity of on-chain interactions and make Web3 products closer to Web2 usage habits. This mindset itself makes Vanar appear more pragmatic among many public chains, and it is also more easily accepted by non-crypto native users.
#vanar $VANRY Vanar Chain One aspect that left a deep impression on me is that it focuses on 'real use cases' from the very beginning rather than just simple on-chain storytelling. Whether it's support for games, entertainment content, or digital assets, Vanar is more like building a set of low-threshold, high-performance infrastructure, allowing developers to focus on the content itself, rather than being limited by complex on-chain costs and performance issues. For ordinary users, this design also lowers the participation threshold, making the Web3 application experience closer to the familiar Web2 world. As more and more projects begin to focus on user experience and scalable implementation, public chains like Vanar Chain that emphasize performance, cost, and application friendliness are more likely to stand out in long-term competition.
Plasma XPL: Making stablecoin transfers 'as cheap as air' in a settlement-oriented L1
Plasma XPL: A settlement-oriented public chain born for stablecoins, is becoming the default choice.
The most easily perceived and underestimated advantage of Plasma XPL is that transfers are almost free. Currently, in several CEX, the deposit and withdrawal costs of XPL are close to zero, making the flow of stablecoins between different platforms and accounts extraordinarily smooth. For users who frequently need to allocate stablecoins like USDT and USDC, this isn't just about 'saving a little bit on fees'; it fundamentally changes their usage habits. When transfers no longer require repeated calculations of Gas or concerns about cost-effectiveness, the flow of funds itself becomes more natural. Personally, when I make stablecoin transfers, I tend to prioritize XPL; this choice is not deliberate but rather an intuition formed after multiple practical uses.
The most easily perceived and underestimated advantage of Plasma XPL is that transfers are almost free. Currently, in several CEX, the deposit and withdrawal costs of XPL are close to zero, making the flow of stablecoins between different platforms and accounts extraordinarily smooth. For users who frequently need to allocate stablecoins like USDT and USDC, this isn't just about 'saving a little bit on fees'; it fundamentally changes their usage habits. When transfers no longer require repeated calculations of Gas or concerns about cost-effectiveness, the flow of funds itself becomes more natural. Personally, when I make stablecoin transfers, I tend to prioritize XPL; this choice is not deliberate but rather an intuition formed after multiple practical uses.
#plasma $XPL Plasma XPL is becoming one of my recent focuses in public chains. Currently, transfers of XPL are almost free on multiple CEX platforms, and the actual experience is very smooth. Therefore, I prioritize using XPL for stablecoin transfers. This is not solely relying on subsidies, but rather Plasma is building an L1 architecture around stablecoin settlement from the ground up, enabling transfers, clearing, and settlement of stablecoins on-chain to be closer to a real financial system through high performance and low-cost design. For users, this means lower friction in capital flow, and for applications, it is easier to support large-scale usage scenarios.
Are you considered an old user?
Without Binance's support, he's nothing, cake is just a beast project team.
What is the treasury address of CAKE? Why is the project team still keeping it secret? The treasury charges about an 8% fee, earning 1 billion per year. The treasury probably holds around 50 million CAKE. With the current 350 million in supply, this means there's almost no circulating supply left. The situation is too complicated, and sorting it out slowly is too time-consuming. I don't even know how many project treasuries there are—whether they're separate or combined. Why keep a treasury address secret? I just can't understand. $CAKE
Dusk: Finding the True Financial Application Path for Blockchain Between Privacy and Compliance
At the current stage of development in the crypto industry, there are few public blockchain projects that can truly balance 'privacy, compliance, and real-world application.' @dusk_foundation is one of the leading examples actively advancing in this niche. Unlike most blockchains that emphasize anonymity or high performance, Dusk has consistently integrated real-world financial needs into its core design from the start, aiming to solve the most pressing concerns for institutions and enterprises on blockchain: how to protect privacy while still complying with regulatory requirements.
The core value of Dusk lies in its privacy execution and compliance verification capabilities built around zero-knowledge proofs. Using cryptographic methods, users can complete transactions, asset transfers, or identity verification without exposing sensitive information—making this especially critical for security tokens, real-world assets, and compliant DeFi scenarios. Compared to chains that solely pursue anonymity, Dusk emphasizes 'verifiable privacy,' giving it stronger long-term viability in the face of evolving regulatory trends.
The core value of Dusk lies in its privacy execution and compliance verification capabilities built around zero-knowledge proofs. Using cryptographic methods, users can complete transactions, asset transfers, or identity verification without exposing sensitive information—making this especially critical for security tokens, real-world assets, and compliant DeFi scenarios. Compared to chains that solely pursue anonymity, Dusk emphasizes 'verifiable privacy,' giving it stronger long-term viability in the face of evolving regulatory trends.
#dusk $DUSK Recently paying close attention to the developments of @dusk_foundation, it's evident that Dusk is making a long-term strategic move in privacy finance and compliant blockchain. Dusk provides safer, compliant, and more efficient solutions for real-world financial scenarios through privacy technologies like zero-knowledge proofs—a capability that is currently very rare in the public blockchain ecosystem. $DUSK is not just a token, but represents a future-oriented privacy finance infrastructure. As regulatory and privacy demands continue to rise, #Dusk is poised to play a more significant role in real-world assets and compliant DeFi sectors, making it worth continuous attention and in-depth research.
A Comprehensive Guide to Walrus: Understanding the DeFi Protocol and the $WAL Ecosystem for Beginners
1. Why Does Decentralized Finance Need a New Protocol Approach?
The original intention of decentralized finance was to allow users to manage assets and conduct financial operations without relying on banks or centralized institutions. However, in practice, many users encounter common issues:
The operational process is complex, resulting in a high onboarding cost for newcomers;
Security incidents occur frequently, and contract risks are a major concern;
The revenue structure is unstable, often accompanied by high volatility;
Many projects focus more on short-term incentives while neglecting long-term development.
Walrus's core idea is not to pursue extreme returns, but to make the system safer, more transparent, and more suitable for ordinary users to participate in long-term, all while adhering to the principle of decentralization.
The original intention of decentralized finance was to allow users to manage assets and conduct financial operations without relying on banks or centralized institutions. However, in practice, many users encounter common issues:
The operational process is complex, resulting in a high onboarding cost for newcomers;
Security incidents occur frequently, and contract risks are a major concern;
The revenue structure is unstable, often accompanied by high volatility;
Many projects focus more on short-term incentives while neglecting long-term development.
Walrus's core idea is not to pursue extreme returns, but to make the system safer, more transparent, and more suitable for ordinary users to participate in long-term, all while adhering to the principle of decentralization.
#walrus $WAL Walrus: The Key Protocol Reshaping the Decentralized Finance Experience
In today's rapidly evolving crypto world, projects with lasting value are rarely driven by short-term hype narratives, but rather by technological and mechanism innovations that gradually build ecosystems. @Walrus 🦭/acc is precisely such a protocol worth continuous attention. As a new DeFi infrastructure, Walrus aims to address core pain points in decentralized finance—security, transparency, and efficiency—from the ground up.
$WAL serves as the core token within the Walrus ecosystem, fulfilling governance functions and playing a crucial role in incentive mechanisms and ecosystem development. Through a well-designed token model, Walrus deeply aligns the long-term interests of users, developers, and the protocol itself, transforming participants from passive observers into genuine ecosystem co-builders. This is especially rare in today's DeFi landscape, where high user churn rates are common.
From a technical standpoint, Walrus leverages advanced smart contract architecture and asset management mechanisms to deliver safer, more efficient on-chain financial services. Additionally, its innovative liquidity solutions lower entry barriers, enabling more ordinary users to participate steadily in ecosystem growth and earn long-term returns. This "sustainable participation" design philosophy is what fundamentally distinguishes Walrus from many short-lived projects.
In the community sphere, the growing momentum behind the #Walrus hashtag reflects market recognition of the project's technical strength and future potential. As more features are gradually launched, Walrus is poised to become a driving force behind the next wave of technological narratives on Binance Square and across broader blockchain communities.
Whether you're a long-term investor, a DeFi user, or a builder interested in blockchain infrastructure development, consistently monitoring @Walrus 🦭/acc and $WAL could be a crucial step in positioning yourself ahead of the next cycle. #Walrus Ecosystem is worth the patience and time to validate.
In today's rapidly evolving crypto world, projects with lasting value are rarely driven by short-term hype narratives, but rather by technological and mechanism innovations that gradually build ecosystems. @Walrus 🦭/acc is precisely such a protocol worth continuous attention. As a new DeFi infrastructure, Walrus aims to address core pain points in decentralized finance—security, transparency, and efficiency—from the ground up.
$WAL serves as the core token within the Walrus ecosystem, fulfilling governance functions and playing a crucial role in incentive mechanisms and ecosystem development. Through a well-designed token model, Walrus deeply aligns the long-term interests of users, developers, and the protocol itself, transforming participants from passive observers into genuine ecosystem co-builders. This is especially rare in today's DeFi landscape, where high user churn rates are common.
From a technical standpoint, Walrus leverages advanced smart contract architecture and asset management mechanisms to deliver safer, more efficient on-chain financial services. Additionally, its innovative liquidity solutions lower entry barriers, enabling more ordinary users to participate steadily in ecosystem growth and earn long-term returns. This "sustainable participation" design philosophy is what fundamentally distinguishes Walrus from many short-lived projects.
In the community sphere, the growing momentum behind the #Walrus hashtag reflects market recognition of the project's technical strength and future potential. As more features are gradually launched, Walrus is poised to become a driving force behind the next wave of technological narratives on Binance Square and across broader blockchain communities.
Whether you're a long-term investor, a DeFi user, or a builder interested in blockchain infrastructure development, consistently monitoring @Walrus 🦭/acc and $WAL could be a crucial step in positioning yourself ahead of the next cycle. #Walrus Ecosystem is worth the patience and time to validate.
Recently, I've seen quite a few projects on-chain. To be honest, the oracle sector has always been crucial, but there aren't many that are truly useful. During this time, I noticed @APRO_Oracle , and my biggest takeaway is not how great the concept is, but that the direction is quite pragmatic.
APRO is not telling flashy stories, but prioritizing data security, verifiability, and on-chain usability. For DeFi, RWA, and AI scenarios, reliable data is more important than anything else.
What I value more is long-term worth, rather than short-term hype. Oracles are not a path to instant wealth, but could be a slowly accumulating and increasingly stable infrastructure.
I will continue to observe the development of #APRO , and I also look forward to $AT 's actual performance in the ecosystem.
APRO is not telling flashy stories, but prioritizing data security, verifiability, and on-chain usability. For DeFi, RWA, and AI scenarios, reliable data is more important than anything else.
What I value more is long-term worth, rather than short-term hype. Oracles are not a path to instant wealth, but could be a slowly accumulating and increasingly stable infrastructure.
I will continue to observe the development of #APRO , and I also look forward to $AT 's actual performance in the ecosystem.
My personal judgment on Aster:
The technical vision is indeed very advanced, but the practical proof is not yet sufficient;
This is a directional bet, rather than an established infrastructure;
More importantly, in this case, its valuation is not low.
Before the risks are fully digested and the key assumptions are verified, I would not consider Aster as a long-term hold or an actively recommended target. For me, this is not a matter of whether I am optimistic about the technology, but rather whether the risk-reward ratio is reasonable.
If in the future Aster can prove with facts: privacy is equally valid for the execution layer, the system cannot do harm, real funds are willing to use it long-term, and it can operate continuously without relying on emotions and a single ecosystem, then it will transition from a "bet" to an "establishment."
Until then, I choose to remain cautious.
The technical vision is indeed very advanced, but the practical proof is not yet sufficient;
This is a directional bet, rather than an established infrastructure;
More importantly, in this case, its valuation is not low.
Before the risks are fully digested and the key assumptions are verified, I would not consider Aster as a long-term hold or an actively recommended target. For me, this is not a matter of whether I am optimistic about the technology, but rather whether the risk-reward ratio is reasonable.
If in the future Aster can prove with facts: privacy is equally valid for the execution layer, the system cannot do harm, real funds are willing to use it long-term, and it can operate continuously without relying on emotions and a single ecosystem, then it will transition from a "bet" to an "establishment."
Until then, I choose to remain cautious.
The technical vision is advanced, but the on-the-ground proof is still insufficient: why I personally do not recommend continuing to hold Aster
Aster's current narrative is undoubtedly advanced—privacy trading, zero-knowledge proofs, exclusive execution environments, next-generation DEX architecture; these keywords are enough to attract attention in any cycle. However, investing is never about whose vision is grander, but rather which assumptions have been validated and which are still merely bets.
Essentially, Aster's current valuation is not based on genuine demand that has been repeatedly validated by the market, but rather on one premise: whether a sustainable privacy trading ecosystem can actually be established in the future, attracting a sufficient scale of real funds for long-term use.
This in itself is a bet, not a conclusion.
What needs to be faced is that the route of privacy DEX is extremely complex in engineering. It must not only solve performance issues but also handle execution fairness, MEV, liquidation credibility, and the ultimate asset security exit mechanism for users. If any one of these aspects is not handled well, it will degrade “decentralization” into “a more complex semi-centralized system.” Before these key issues have been long-term validated by the market, all valuations are closer to option pricing rather than value pricing.
More realistically, at the current stage, Aster's price and attention largely stem from emotions and endorsements, rather than from stable, quantifiable fundamentals. Even with public statements from influential figures, such impacts can essentially only raise expectations, but cannot replace the validation process of technology and products themselves. Emotions can drive up prices, but when expectations cannot be fulfilled, the retraction of valuations is often just as swift.
Aster's current narrative is undoubtedly advanced—privacy trading, zero-knowledge proofs, exclusive execution environments, next-generation DEX architecture; these keywords are enough to attract attention in any cycle. However, investing is never about whose vision is grander, but rather which assumptions have been validated and which are still merely bets.
Essentially, Aster's current valuation is not based on genuine demand that has been repeatedly validated by the market, but rather on one premise: whether a sustainable privacy trading ecosystem can actually be established in the future, attracting a sufficient scale of real funds for long-term use.
This in itself is a bet, not a conclusion.
What needs to be faced is that the route of privacy DEX is extremely complex in engineering. It must not only solve performance issues but also handle execution fairness, MEV, liquidation credibility, and the ultimate asset security exit mechanism for users. If any one of these aspects is not handled well, it will degrade “decentralization” into “a more complex semi-centralized system.” Before these key issues have been long-term validated by the market, all valuations are closer to option pricing rather than value pricing.
More realistically, at the current stage, Aster's price and attention largely stem from emotions and endorsements, rather than from stable, quantifiable fundamentals. Even with public statements from influential figures, such impacts can essentially only raise expectations, but cannot replace the validation process of technology and products themselves. Emotions can drive up prices, but when expectations cannot be fulfilled, the retraction of valuations is often just as swift.
The technical vision is advanced, but the on-the-ground proof is still insufficient: why I personally do not recommend continuing to hold Aster
Aster's current narrative is undoubtedly advanced—privacy trading, zero-knowledge proofs, exclusive execution environments, next-generation DEX architecture; these keywords are enough to attract attention in any cycle. However, investing is never about whose vision is grander, but rather which assumptions have been validated and which are still merely bets.
Essentially, Aster's current valuation is not based on genuine demand that has been repeatedly validated by the market, but rather on one premise: whether a sustainable privacy trading ecosystem can actually be established in the future, attracting a sufficient scale of real funds for long-term use.
This in itself is a bet, not a conclusion.
What needs to be faced is that the route of privacy DEX is extremely complex in engineering. It must not only solve performance issues but also handle execution fairness, MEV, liquidation credibility, and the ultimate asset security exit mechanism for users. If any one of these aspects is not handled well, it will degrade “decentralization” into “a more complex semi-centralized system.” Before these key issues have been long-term validated by the market, all valuations are closer to option pricing rather than value pricing.
More realistically, at the current stage, Aster's price and attention largely stem from emotions and endorsements, rather than from stable, quantifiable fundamentals. Even with public statements from influential figures, such impacts can essentially only raise expectations, but cannot replace the validation process of technology and products themselves. Emotions can drive up prices, but when expectations cannot be fulfilled, the retraction of valuations is often just as swift.
Aster's current narrative is undoubtedly advanced—privacy trading, zero-knowledge proofs, exclusive execution environments, next-generation DEX architecture; these keywords are enough to attract attention in any cycle. However, investing is never about whose vision is grander, but rather which assumptions have been validated and which are still merely bets.
Essentially, Aster's current valuation is not based on genuine demand that has been repeatedly validated by the market, but rather on one premise: whether a sustainable privacy trading ecosystem can actually be established in the future, attracting a sufficient scale of real funds for long-term use.
This in itself is a bet, not a conclusion.
What needs to be faced is that the route of privacy DEX is extremely complex in engineering. It must not only solve performance issues but also handle execution fairness, MEV, liquidation credibility, and the ultimate asset security exit mechanism for users. If any one of these aspects is not handled well, it will degrade “decentralization” into “a more complex semi-centralized system.” Before these key issues have been long-term validated by the market, all valuations are closer to option pricing rather than value pricing.
More realistically, at the current stage, Aster's price and attention largely stem from emotions and endorsements, rather than from stable, quantifiable fundamentals. Even with public statements from influential figures, such impacts can essentially only raise expectations, but cannot replace the validation process of technology and products themselves. Emotions can drive up prices, but when expectations cannot be fulfilled, the retraction of valuations is often just as swift.
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.
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.
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.'
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.'
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.'
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.'
Login to explore more contents