Coinglass Analysis Ignites Controversy Over Authenticity in Perpetual DEX Trading Activity

Coinglass Data Sparks Debate Over Authentic Trading on Perpetual DEXs

An analysis by Coinglass comparing perpetual decentralized exchanges (perp DEXs) has ignited a fierce debate within the crypto derivatives sector, exposing significant discrepancies in trading volumes, open interest, and liquidations among platforms like Hyperliquid, Aster, and Lighter. This has left users questioning the authenticity of reported trading activity across these exchanges.

In a recent 24-hour snapshot, Coinglass revealed that Hyperliquid led the pack with approximately $3.76 billion in trading volume, $4.05 billion in open interest, and $122.96 million in liquidations. Aster followed with $2.76 billion in volume, $927 million in open interest, and $7.2 million in liquidations, while Lighter reported $1.81 billion in volume, $731 million in open interest, and $3.34 million in liquidations.

Coinglass emphasized that these discrepancies are crucial, as high trading volumes in perpetual futures markets usually correlate with open-interest dynamics and liquidation activity during price fluctuations. The firm suggested that the combination of high reported volumes and relatively low liquidations on some platforms might indicate incentive-driven trading, market-maker looping, or points farming, rather than genuine market activity.

“Hyperliquid shows much stronger consistency between volume, open interest, and liquidations—a better signal of real activity,” Coinglass stated, while calling for further validation of the volume quality on competitors Aster and Lighter.

Critics Push Back, but Coinglass Defends Its Position

However, the analysis has not gone unchallenged. Critics argue that drawing conclusions from a single-day snapshot could be misleading, suggesting alternative explanations for the data, such as whale positioning and algorithmic differences between platforms. Some questioned whether liquidation totals alone are a reliable indicator of market health, noting that higher liquidations can also reflect aggressive leverage or volatile trading conditions.

In response to the backlash, Coinglass defended its position, asserting that its conclusions were based on publicly available data. “We didn’t expect that a neutral, data-driven observation would trigger such hostile reactions,” the firm stated, emphasizing the importance of open discussion and evidence-based criticism in the industry.

A Pattern of Backlash in the Perp DEX Sector: What Counts as “Real” Activity?

This controversy comes amid a broader wave of disputes surrounding Hyperliquid and the perpetual DEX market. Kyle Samani, co-founder of Multicoin Capital, publicly criticized Hyperliquid for its lack of transparency and governance, igniting a heated exchange among traders and supporters of the platform.

BitMEX co-founder Arthur Hayes escalated the feud by proposing a $100,000 charity bet, challenging Samani to select any major altcoin with a market cap above $1 billion to compete against Hyperliquid’s HYPE token in performance over several months.

The ongoing disputes highlight a deeper issue facing crypto derivatives markets: the absence of standardized metrics for evaluating activity across DEXs. While trading volume has traditionally served as a key indicator of success, the rise of incentive programs and liquidity-mining strategies has complicated the interpretation of these figures.

As new perp DEX platforms emerge and competition intensifies, metrics such as open interest, liquidation patterns, leverage levels, and order-book depth are becoming increasingly vital for assessing market integrity. This Coinglass incident underscores how data itself has become a battleground in a sector driven by both numbers and narratives, suggesting that the debate over what those numbers truly mean will only intensify as the perpetual futures market continues to evolve.