Futures
Access hundreds of perpetual contracts
TradFi
Gold
One platform for global traditional assets
Options
Hot
Trade European-style vanilla options
Unified Account
Maximize your capital efficiency
Demo Trading
Introduction to Futures Trading
Learn the basics of futures trading
Futures Events
Join events to earn rewards
Demo Trading
Use virtual funds to practice risk-free trading
Launch
CandyDrop
Collect candies to earn airdrops
Launchpool
Quick staking, earn potential new tokens
HODLer Airdrop
Hold GT and get massive airdrops for free
Launchpad
Be early to the next big token project
Alpha Points
Trade on-chain assets and earn airdrops
Futures Points
Earn futures points and claim airdrop rewards
More
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.
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.
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.
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.
---
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.
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.