dYdX: perpetual dexs rating breakdown
V4, own chain
The venue that proved on-chain perpetuals could work at all, and the one that took decentralisation most seriously when it moved to its own chain: the order book is matched by validators, the code is open, and the migration away from a company-run matching engine was carried out rather than promised.
The venue that proved on-chain perpetuals could work at all, and the one that took decentralisation most seriously when it moved to its own chain: the order book is matched by validators, the code is open, and the migration away from a company-run matching engine was carried out rather than promised.
How the score is built
Each criterion is scored 0–10 and weighted. The median column is the middle score across every entry in this ranking, so a row reads as a position rather than a number.
| Criterion | What we measured | Weight | Score | Category median | Rank | Weighted gap |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| What happens when the rules cost the house money | validator-run order book, open source matching · sourced · 2026-08-27 · source | 30% | 8 | 7 | 1 of 8 | +0.30 |
| Depth and where the flow actually is | $75.6m value locked · sourced · 2026-08-27 · source | 25% | 4 | 5 | 6 of 8 | -0.25 |
| What a position really costs | — | 22% | 6 | 6.5 | 5 of 8 | -0.11 |
| Who holds the collateral | — | 15% | 8 | 7 | 2 of 8 | +0.15 |
| Markets and access | — | 8% | 6 | 6 | 2 of 8 | 0.00 |
Measured 27 August 2026 · weights and method · decided by what happens when the rules cost the house money, worth +0.30 points against the median
What happens when the rules cost the house money: 8/10
Every intervention on record: forced settlements, delistings, socialised losses, auto-deleveraging events and oracle changes, with dates and amounts. Hyperliquid settled an entire manipulated market at a chosen price and delisted it by validator vote in March 2025, then reimbursed users from a foundation. That is a specific, documented answer to “who decides”, and it is worth more than any decentralisation claim on a landing page.
Scored 8 of 10 against a category median of 7, which places it 1st of 8 among perpetual dexs on this criterion. At a 30% weight that is 0.30 points above the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 8, the worst 5.
Depth and where the flow actually is: 4/10
Collateral and vault value locked at a stated timestamp, alongside thirty days of protocol fees as the closest public proxy for real flow. Depth on a perpetual venue is not a comfort — it is what decides whether your stop fills near your stop.
Scored 4 of 10 against a category median of 5, which places it 6th of 8 among perpetual dexs on this criterion. At a 25% weight that is 0.25 points below the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 10, the worst 4.
What a position really costs: 6/10
Published taker and maker fees, plus the funding mechanism as documented — and then our own division: thirty days of protocol fees, annualised, per dollar of collateral held. That last number is the intensity of extraction at each venue, and no fee page shows it.
Scored 6 of 10 against a category median of 6.5, which places it 5th of 8 among perpetual dexs on this criterion. At a 22% weight that is 0.11 points below the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 9, the worst 5.
Who holds the collateral: 8/10
Whether margin sits in a contract you can verify or on a company balance sheet, who runs the sequencer or validator set, and how upgrades and market listings are authorised. A venue where a small set of operators can pause, list or settle is a custodian with extra steps.
Scored 8 of 10 against a category median of 7, which places it 2nd of 8 among perpetual dexs on this criterion. At a 15% weight that is 0.15 points above the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 9, the worst 6.
Markets and access: 6/10
Markets listed, chains supported, and the practical route in and out — a venue that only accepts one collateral asset on one chain is narrower than its market count suggests.
Scored 6 of 10 against a category median of 6, which places it 2nd of 8 among perpetual dexs on this criterion. At a 8% weight that is exactly level with the median of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 9, the worst 4.
Its nearest neighbours in this ranking
| # | Entry | What happens when the rules cost the house money | How it differs |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | Jupiter Perps | 7 | Behind by 1 on what happens when the rules cost the house money. |
| 4 | GMX | 8 | Level on what happens when the rules cost the house money; the gap is elsewhere. |
| 6 | Drift | 7 | Behind by 1 on what happens when the rules cost the house money. |
| 7 | Extended | 6 | Behind by 2 on what happens when the rules cost the house money. |
Questions about this score
Is dYdX still worth using?
+
On principle, it is the most credibly decentralised venue of real size: validator-matched order book, open source, no forced settlement of user positions in its history. On execution, its depth is a fraction of the leaders and that shows up in every fill. The honest framing is that you are choosing architecture over price, and knowing that is better than discovering it.
What changed when dYdX moved to its own chain?
+
Matching moved from a company-run engine to a validator set, and the code became open. That is a genuine decentralisation step rather than a marketing one — and it added friction for users, who now bridge to a separate chain and hold a separate token before trading. Some of the flow that left went for that reason.