#加密市场观察 Decentralized Exchange Tokens: UNI, HYPE, ASTER—Who Can Truly Capture Value?
In the crypto market, decentralized exchanges (DEXs) are no longer a niche concept but core infrastructure for on-chain finance. Spot liquidity, perpetual contracts, and cross-chain trading are almost impossible to avoid. The protocols’ native tokens often directly reflect their competitiveness and value-capture capabilities. The three currently attracting the most market attention are UNI, HYPE, and ASTER. They have different positioning and divergent paths, but together they outline the competitive landscape of the DEX sector.
UNI: The Undisputed King of Spot Liquidity, Stable but Unlikely to Surge Again
Uniswap is unquestionably the leading spot DEX. From its early AMM model to its current multichain presence, it has become the default standard for on-chain asset issuance and liquidity access. Whether for new token listings, RWA mapping, or institutional capital flows, Uniswap’s deep pools are often the first choice.
UNI’s fee switch continues to advance, while its previous large-scale burn strengthened the deflationary narrative. Combined with narratives such as tokenized stocks and anticipated CME futures, its medium- and long-term value-capture path is clear.
The market views it as infrastructure on the level of an “on-chain Nasdaq.” Its large scale, stable ecosystem, and high level of institutional recognition are its biggest advantages. But precisely because it is already mature enough, the probability of doubling or even rising tenfold again is no longer high. It is more like a portfolio asset—those seeking stability can hold it long term, while those pursuing high elasticity may find it too slow.
At this stage, it is enough to continue waiting patiently for clearer positive catalysts or a directional breakout.
HYPE: The Traffic and Fee Machine for Perpetual Contracts
If UNI is the king of spot trading, Hyperliquid (HYPE) is the undisputed leader in perpetual contracts. Through its own L1 and order-book model, it delivers an on-chain derivatives trading experience close to that of centralized exchanges while retaining its non-custodial nature. What makes HYPE most impressive is the directness of its value capture. The platform uses most of its fees to buy back and hold or burn HYPE, creating sustained deflationary pressure. Its trading volume has led the market over the long term, while open interest and fee revenue also clearly surpass those of its peers.
For investors, HYPE is more like a “high-elasticity fee-dividend asset”—as long as trading volume does not collapse, the buyback mechanism can continuously support demand for the token. Of course, it also faces risks from unlock pressure and intensifying competition, but its leading position in the perpetuals sector remains quite solid for now.
ASTER: A High-Leverage Challenger Using Aggressive Tokenomics to Capture Market Share
ASTER is a relatively new player formed through the merger of Astherus and APX Finance. It is backed by YZi Labs and others and has previously attracted significant market attention. It focuses on multichain support, a self-built privacy-oriented L1, extremely high leverage, and features such as hidden orders, seeking to better meet the needs of professional traders in terms of user experience.
ASTER’s token mechanism is also quite aggressive: the platform uses the vast majority of its fees for buybacks and distribution to stakers, combined with burns, with the goal of gradually reducing its supply to a lower level. This “high fee redistribution + deflation” design has attracted significant attention and trading volume in its early stages.
However, compared with Hyperliquid, it still lags in scale, open interest, and sustainability. The market is also watching to see whether it can turn short-term enthusiasm into long-term users and revenue.
How to Choose Among the Three? Consider Positioning and Timing
Looking at UNI, HYPE, and ASTER together, the logic is quite clear: UNI seeks stability and is suitable as a core DeFi holding, with high certainty and relatively controllable drawdowns but limited upside elasticity. Its current unrealized profit is nearly 80%, its structure remains healthy, and it is enough to continue waiting for catalysts. HYPE’s fees and leadership advantage make it suitable for investors who can accept volatility and are bullish on continued growth in the perpetuals sector. Its direct buyback mechanism and leading trading volume make it one of the strongest “fee machines” at present. ASTER offers elasticity and differentiation; its high leverage, privacy features, and aggressive buybacks are highlights, but competition is intense, requiring continued verification of user retention and revenue conversion. It is suitable for those with a higher risk tolerance who are willing to track emerging challengers.
Short-term prices will be affected by market sentiment, unlocks, and competition, but long-term differentiation will ultimately be determined by fundamentals: whoever can consistently generate trading volume and real revenue and effectively return that revenue to token holders will go further.
Competition among decentralized exchanges has moved from “whether there is trading volume” to “whether trading volume can be converted into sustainable token value.”
UNI represents maturity and stability, HYPE represents efficiency and fee capture, while ASTER is attempting to seize market share through more aggressive products and Tokenomics.
For investors, there is no absolute “best” choice—only the one most suited to their risk tolerance and holding period. In the short term, trading volume, open interest, and buyback data can be tracked; over the medium and long term, the focus should be on who can truly become the default gateway for on-chain trading.

#美联储9月纪要偏鹰 #每周来晒 The Fed’s September Minutes Send an Important Signal: “Insurance Rate Hikes” Are Making a Comeback!
The key change revealed in the Fed’s September meeting minutes is not merely a “more hawkish” stance, but the return of risk-management thinking to policymaking. Barclays believes the minutes show that the Fed is beginning to place greater emphasis on proactively guarding against inflation risks. Some officials believed further tightening remained necessary under the baseline scenario, while others viewed additional rate hikes as “insurance” against the risk of stronger-than-expected demand or renewed supply-side shocks. At the September meeting, the Fed raised the federal funds target range by 25 basis points to 3.75%-4.00%, with all participants supporting the decision; most officials believed that one more rate hike before year-end “could be appropriate.” The Committee also emphasized that subsequent policy would depend on economic data and the balance of risks. Goldman Sachs believes the minutes show a strong consensus among officials in favor of further tightening, but that “insurance rate hikes” do not mean future action has been determined, with whether to continue raising rates ultimately depending on inflation and economic data. The two institutions have broadly similar views on the near-term path: no move in October and one more rate hike in December. Their main difference is that Goldman Sachs believes the FOMC may ultimately conclude that no further tightening is necessary as the data change, while Barclays expects rates to remain unchanged for most of 2027 after a December hike.
I “Insurance Rate Hikes” Return: Risk Management Becomes the Policy Logic Again
The minutes show that many participants supported a higher policy-rate path, mainly for risk-management reasons. If demand remains stronger than expected or the supply side is hit by another shock, raising rates in advance could reduce the risk of inflation remaining above target for an extended period. However, some officials believed that further rate hikes were necessary under their baseline scenario, rather than merely serving to guard against potential risks. This distinction determines the flexibility of subsequent policy: if rate hikes are primarily a risk-management measure, the Fed can stop tightening once inflation data improve and the balance of risks changes; if further hikes are necessary under the baseline forecast, it means rates still have room to rise. Barclays believes this is the exact opposite of the logic during the previous rate-cutting cycle. At that time, the Fed believed downside employment risks outweighed upside inflation risks, allowing it to cut rates preemptively; now the balance of risks has tilted back toward inflation, and policy is once again leaving room in advance for a potential inflation rebound.
II Hawkish Bias Clear, but December Still Depends on the Data.
The hawkish judgments in the minutes mainly stemmed from inflation. All participants believed inflation remained elevated and that progress in reducing it had been insufficient in recent months; nearly all officials saw inflation risks as tilted to the upside, with some believing those risks had increased further. At the same time, risks in the labor market were viewed as “broadly balanced” and were no longer considered a major obstacle to further policy tightening. Several officials also believed that the policy rate before the hike was “not restrictive or only mildly restrictive,” while several others raised their estimates of the neutral rate. However, the minutes repeatedly emphasized that policy would “depend on the incoming data.” Goldman Sachs expects another 25-basis-point hike in December, but believes that as more data are released, the Fed will ultimately “likely conclude that further tightening is unnecessary.”
III AI Investment Becomes a New Inflation Variable
Another notable change in these minutes is that AI investment was explicitly identified as a potential source of inflation for the first time. Several officials pointed out that as the effects of AI infrastructure construction gradually emerge and the impact of tariffs gradually fades, core goods inflation could remain elevated; some officials warned that the AI construction boom could push aggregate demand above aggregate supply, creating new inflationary pressure. At the same time, some of the pressure on PCE inflation may simply reflect temporary distortions caused by statistical methodology. A few participants noted that software and asset-management fees had made significant contributions to recent PCE data, and that this impact was expected to fade as the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) adjusted its statistical methods. According to a Barclays report, Fed staff expected at the September meeting that the BEA revision would lower year-over-year PCE and core PCE growth by approximately 0.2 percentage points, but the actual revision was about twice as large as expected, bringing year-over-year core PCE growth down to 3.0%, with the three-month annualized rate close to 2%. This means that the inflation backdrop at the September meeting was in fact more severe than indicated by the latest data: AI investment could generate genuine demand-driven inflationary pressure, while software and asset-management fees included a degree of statistical distortion. The revision to the latter weakened part of the basis for supporting further rate hikes at the time.
IV Economic Outlook Improves, Leaving Room for a Policy Shift
Fed staff raised their inflation forecasts for 2026 through 2028, expecting the effects of tariffs, geopolitics, and AI-related factors to gradually fade, with inflation eventually returning to the 2% target in 2029, though risks remained tilted to the upside. At the same time, the economic and employment outlook improved. Staff expected real GDP to rebound in the second half of this year and remain above potential growth through 2028; the unemployment rate was expected to remain below its long-run level through 2029. Goldman Sachs noted that some officials attributed the rise in long-term U.S. Treasury yields to a stronger economy, increased expectations of AI-related borrowing, and geopolitical factors, while most officials believed overall financial conditions remained supportive of economic growth. Barclays maintained its baseline expectation of a 25-basis-point hike in December, but believed that the inflation revisions, recent weakness in economic data, and a slowdown in labor supply could ultimately lead the Fed to abandon further rate hikes. Therefore, the current policy path is becoming clearer: the Fed is once again adopting a risk-management approach to rate hikes, but whether this “insurance” is actually needed still depends on subsequent data. If inflation continues to cool, the need for a December hike will diminish; if AI investment drives continued demand expansion and inflation comes under renewed pressure, the case for further tightening will strengthen.