2026-01-08 04:21:57

Large platforms use resources to lower competitors' costs, which is quite normal in business competition. But upon closer inspection of some leading exchanges in recent years, they have invested a lot in operations and marketing, and their public relations efforts are quite substantial. However, there has been little real breakthrough at the product level.

Think about how other platforms do it—perpetual contracts with funding rate mechanisms, which have rewritten the way derivatives trading is done; integration of quantitative trading tools... These are innovations based on the product structure itself. The technical barriers are high, and user stickiness is strong. In contrast, what they mostly do is marketing tricks and user subsidies. There is almost no product iteration involving contract mechanisms, pricing models, or trading structures—these are financial engineering issues. That is the real problem.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

20 Likes

Reward
20
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

MoodFollowsPrice

· 12h ago

Spending money on marketing doesn't equal product strength. After all these years, some people still don't understand this. True competitiveness lies in financial engineering, not in subsidy amounts. The perpetual contract strategy has long been a lower-dimensional attack; the difference is too obvious. Product innovation is too expensive, and no one is willing to invest. I'll be watching—whoever makes a real breakthrough first wins.

View OriginalReply0

TopBuyerBottomSeller

· 01-09 15:35

Spending money on marketing doesn't equal product strength; this should have been understood long ago. The platforms that truly survive are those that put effort into contract mechanisms and pricing models. Subsidy wars can't create differentiation; financial engineering is the real moat. Some major institutions have indeed been declining in recent years. Once the logic of perpetual contracts emerged, the entire derivatives market landscape changed—that's what we call innovation. It's not something achieved by throwing money at it. To put it simply, it's still laziness. User subsidies are satisfying, marketing momentum is strong, but the product iteration process is too exhausting. Short-term glory, long-term dead end. Raising funds and spending money is easy; building a good product is difficult—that's the gap.

View OriginalReply0

NftRegretMachine

· 01-08 04:51

Throwing money into marketing can't really save a product; ultimately, it's still about solid core strength.

View OriginalReply0

IfIWereOnChain

· 01-08 04:30

Throwing money into marketing just to suppress competitors? Wake up, product strength is the real key. The perpetual contract strategies should have been mastered long ago. Still offering subsidies now, that's really ridiculous. I love watching these moments of failure, thinking that having more capital means winning. But when technical strength is compared, everything is exposed. Without innovation, how long can a product survive just by burning money? Eventually, it will fail.

View OriginalReply0

ConsensusBot

· 01-08 04:29

Just burning money for marketing is really pointless; product strength is the key. --- Large subsidies can't attract real users; mechanism innovation is the only way to retain them. --- Honestly, it's laziness. Spending money is easy; financial engineering is hard. --- The perpetual contract gameplay has long been validated; why are some top players still stuck in the same place? --- Having abundant resources actually narrows thinking—so ironic. --- No matter how much subsidies are fought over, it still comes down to the product; otherwise, it's all superficial. --- Am I the only one who feels that marketing gimmicks these days are too many, and truly innovative products are rare? --- The winners are those who can innovate in contract mechanisms and pricing models. --- Spending money to grab market share is ultimately just surface-level effort. --- Technical barriers and user stickiness are the real moat for exchanges.

View OriginalReply0

fomo_fighter

· 01-08 04:27

How long can this money-burning marketing approach last? Sooner or later, it all depends on the product. It's just a lack of genuine innovation; subsidizing users comes and goes quickly. Once the perpetual contract mechanism was introduced, the landscape changed. Platforms still burning money are indeed a bit outdated. To put it plainly, no matter how aggressive the marketing is, if the product isn't good, it's all in vain. User stickiness fundamentally can't rely on subsidies; it must come from the mechanism design itself that attracts people. Top exchanges keep bragging, but I haven't seen any real product breakthroughs, which is a bit embarrassing. Financial engineering is truly the core competitiveness; they don't seem to have figured that out.

View OriginalReply0