Coinglass Ignites Perp Dex Data War Amid Hyperliquid Volume Debate

What Happened

An analysis by Coinglass comparing perpetual decentralized exchange (perp DEX) data has sparked fierce debate and, in the process, highlighted rifts within the crypto derivatives sector.

A 24-hour snapshot comparing Hyperliquid, Aster, and Lighter shows that:

Points farming.

Market Context

The study exposed marked discrepancies in trading volumes, open interest, and liquidations across Hyperliquid, Aster, and Lighter. Users are left asking what qualifies as genuine trading activity on these platforms.

Coinglass Data Sparks Debate Over Authentic Trading on Perpetual DEXs

Coinglass is facing backlash after publishing a comparison of perp DEXs, questioning whether reported trading volumes across parts of the sector reflect genuine market activity.

Hyperliquid recorded approximately $3.76 billion in trading volume, $4.05 billion in open interest, and $122.96 million in liquidations.

Aster posted $2.76 billion in volume, $927 million in open interest, and $7.2 million in liquidations

Lighter reported $1.81 billion in volume, $731 million in open interest, and $3.34 million in liquidations.

According to Coinglass, such discrepancies can matter. In perpetual futures markets, high trading volume driven by leveraged positions typically correlates with open-interest dynamics and liquidation activity during price moves.

The firm suggested that, rather than organic hedging demand, the combination of high reported volume and relatively low liquidations may indicate:

Incentive-driven trading

Market-maker looping, or

Meanwhile, the volume quality of some competitors warrants further validation using indicators such as funding rates, fees, order-book depth, and active trader 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.

However, critics argue that conclusions drawn from a single-day snapshot could be misleading. Specifically, they suggest alternative explanations for the data, including whale positioning, algorithmic differences between platforms, and variations in market structure that could influence liquidation patterns without implying inflated volume.

Others 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.

Why It Matters

“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 firm wrote, adding that open discussion and tolerance for criticism are essential for the industry to improve.

The firm also argued that higher leverage ceilings on some platforms could make them structurally more prone to forced liquidations. This outlook shifts the debate away from raw numbers toward exchange design and risk management.

Details

Based on this, Coinglass concludes that Hyperliquid showed stronger internal consistency across key metrics.

Critics Push Back, but Coinglass Defends Its Position

Meanwhile, Coinglass rejects accusations that its analysis amounted to speculation or fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD), emphasizing that its conclusions were based on publicly available data.

In another response, Coinglass stressed that disagreements should be addressed with stronger evidence rather than accusations.

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