Why dYdX was overtaken by Hyperliquid in the derivatives track is attributed to a core issue within the industry: the difference in liquidity responsibility mechanisms.

Industry insiders point out that dYdX adopts a "protocol does not guarantee" logic, which in the eyes of DeFi idealists counts as a pure form of decentralized design. But problems arise—when market conditions experience extreme volatility, market makers will proactively withdraw, causing depth to evaporate instantly. In such cases, subsequent traders can only get poor prices, and the user experience drops sharply.

In contrast, Hyperliquid's approach is different. It employs more aggressive incentives for liquidity provision to ensure that even in extreme market conditions, basic depth can be maintained. This may seem like a small detail, but it has a huge impact on the actual trading experience—whether trades can be executed quickly and slippage is well-controlled are what traders truly care about.

To some extent, this reflects two different development paths: one sticking to DeFi fundamentalism, and the other more pragmatically aligning with user experience. The market has already given the answer as to which is more likely to succeed.