I have to admit that @yupp_ai is indeed very useful. I asked it to compare these two projects, and the answer it gave me was very straightforward. Everyone take a look, isn't it impressive? This isn't just talk; I was genuinely shocked. Comparison analysis between @edgeX_exchange and @HyperliquidX Core architecture differences Dimension Hyperliquid edgeX_exchange Underlying technology Self-developed high-performance Layer 1 blockchain Based on StarkEx Ethereum Layer 2 ZK-Rollup Positioning Pure on-chain order book DEX Hybrid liquidity cross-chain DEX Liquidity model HLP (public liquidity pool + liquidators) Professional market makers (like Amber Group) dominate Key differences in contract mechanisms 1. HLP (liquidity provision mechanism) Project Hyperliquid edgeX_exchange Role Public on-chain role, anyone can become HLP Not set HLP, relies on professional market makers for liquidity Transparency HLP positions/orders/liquidations fully on-chain and publicly available Not disclosed market maker details, higher degree of centralization Liquidation process HLP actively takes over liquidated positions, attempts limit liquidation → if it fails, triggers ADL Not disclosed specific mechanism, speculated to be handled internally by market makers Source of income Market making profits + liquidation profits Not open for public participation 2. ADL (automatic liquidation mechanism) Project Hyperliquid edgeX_exchange Trigger conditions Account net worth ≤ 0 or position maintenance margin rate < 66% Not disclosed ADL mechanism operation logic Forced liquidation of profitable positions ranked by profit, hedging against losing positions No public data, may rely on market maker risk control system Transparency Fully executed on-chain, real-time verifiable Off-chain processing, lower transparency 3. Handling of liquidation crises (taking the black swan event as an example) Hyperliquid (March 2025 $JELLYJELLY event): Reason: Malicious price manipulation triggered a chain liquidation. Handling: HLP limit liquidation + ADL forced liquidation + Hyper Foundation emergency intervention (triggering centralization controversy). edgeX_exchange: No public liquidation events yet, but relies on Amber Group's market maker risk control, potential risk lies in opaque centralized intervention. Comparison of advantages and disadvantages Dimension Hyperliquid Advantages edgeX_exchange Advantages Transparency ✅ Fully on-chain liquidation/ADL data public ❌ Market maker internal operations opaque Anti-manipulation ❌ HLP liquidation relies on market depth, vulnerable to extreme market conditions ✅ Professional market makers provide deep liquidity, strong against volatility User participation ✅ Allows ordinary users to become HLP and earn profits ❌ Liquidity provision limited to institutions Technical performance ⚡ 0.2 seconds delay (median) ⚡ 10 milliseconds delay (order matching) Risk points Hyperliquid edgeX_exchange Centralization risk ADL trigger requires ranking algorithm, foundation emergency intervention raises controversy Relies on Amber Group market makers, off-chain risk control lacks verification Liquidity risk HLP may trigger ADL when funds are insufficient Market makers dominate, liquidity stable but has single point failure risk Summary Essential mechanism differences: Hyperliquid adopts on-chain democratized risk control (HLP+ADL), transparent but relies on community collaboration. edgeX adopts institution-led risk control, efficient but centralized. User choice recommendations: Pursuing transparency and participation → Hyperliquid (suitable for advanced users with strong risk tolerance). Pursuing low latency and stable liquidity → edgeX (suitable for institutions and high-frequency traders). Potential improvement directions: Hyperliquid needs to reduce governance intervention to enhance decentralized trust. edgeX needs to improve on-chain risk control transparency (such as public liquidation logic). Data sources: Project documentation, on-chain records (Hyperliquid), technical white paper (edgeX)