How should I say this? SIP-5 and Hyperliquid's HIP-3 both seem to be about "allowing anyone to list on the contract," but they are not at the same level.

HIP-3 is more like opening up the listing rights for perpetuals, mainly solving the question of "who can create a market." Essentially, it makes Hyperliquid more like a permissionless perpetual contract platform, with the core still being trading itself.
SIP-5 is more substantial; it’s not just about opening listing rights, but about modularizing all the components needed to go from 0 to 1 in a market. The formula proposed by StandX is already very clear: UM = Seed + Oracle Grid + Shield.
In other words, it aims to solve not only "can it be listed," but also "what does this market use to bootstrap liquidity, how is it priced, how to prevent manipulation, and how to do risk management."
Looking further, their underlying ideas are also different. Hyperliquid’s advantage has always been matching, depth, user experience, and trading mindset, so HIP-3 is more like opening up market creation permissions on an existing strong trading platform.
StandX, on the other hand, builds up from modules like DUSD, yield-bearing collateral, and community market making, ultimately connecting to SIP-5, so it’s more like creating a "market generation framework" rather than just a listing proposal.
To put it simply:
• HIP-3: Open perpetual listing rights
• SIP-5: Open perpetual listing rights + bundle liquidity, oracle, risk control, and collateral yield
So if I have to summarize in one sentence: HIP-3 is about enabling more people to create markets, while SIP-5 is about not only enabling more people to create markets but also trying to ensure those markets can survive.