#ETF与衍生品 Seeing the heated discussion around Lighter's TGE, I need to calm down and ask myself a few questions.

To be honest—Lighter does have some innovative points in its business design, such as zero fees being friendly to retail investors, and the "use money to buy time" model being quite novel. But this is exactly what I am most cautious about.

Every time I see project teams hype up before the TGE—claiming deep integration with Coinbase, claiming to be safer than Hyperliquid, or that institutional-grade funds are about to pour in—I think of those past airdrop schemes. After the incentive funds retreat, will the actual trading volume support the valuation? Some community discussions have already pointed out that Lighter lacks staking, Gas Token, and ecosystem expansion space, and the TAM might be seriously overestimated.

Another detail worth noting: Hyperliquid's success was due to organic growth after the TGE, breaking the "mine, dump, sell" curse. But Lighter faces a more severe test—what does a clear VC unlock schedule mean? Continuous selling pressure. When airdrop expectations are fulfilled, large amounts of funds flow into the next hot project, slippage worsens, liquidity dries up—this is a classic negative cycle.

No matter how good the technical architecture is, human nature can’t be fooled. I’ve seen too many projects fall behind because of liquidity issues. The key this time is: can the trading activity be maintained in the first three months after the TGE? If not, it’s just a prelude to a rug pull.

Participate cautiously, and focus on preventing the risk of liquidity collapse after the TGE.