Lighter: perpetual dexs rating breakdown
zk order book
The most technically ambitious answer to the question this category keeps failing: it runs a real order book with zero-knowledge proofs of correct matching, so a user does not have to take the operator’s word that their order was filled by the rules. $4.07m of thirty-day fees on $622m of collateral, at fee levels that undercut most of the page.
The most technically ambitious answer to the question this category keeps failing: it runs a real order book with zero-knowledge proofs of correct matching, so a user does not have to take the operator’s word that their order was filled by the rules. $4.07m of thirty-day fees on $622m of collateral, at fee levels that undercut most of the page.
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 | — | 30% | 7 | 7 | 3 of 8 | 0.00 |
| Depth and where the flow actually is | $4.07m 30-day protocol fees · sourced · 2026-08-27 · source$622m value locked · sourced · 2026-08-27 · source | 25% | 6 | 5 | 3 of 8 | +0.25 |
| What a position really costs | — | 22% | 9 | 6.5 | 1 of 8 | +0.55 |
| Who holds the collateral | — | 15% | 7 | 7 | 4 of 8 | 0.00 |
| Markets and access | — | 8% | 5 | 6 | 6 of 8 | -0.08 |
Measured 27 August 2026 · weights and method · decided by what a position really costs, worth +0.55 points against the median
What happens when the rules cost the house money: 7/10
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 7 of 10 against a category median of 7, which places it 3rd of 8 among perpetual dexs on this criterion. At a 30% weight that is exactly level with the median of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 8, the worst 5.
Depth and where the flow actually is: 6/10
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 6 of 10 against a category median of 5, which places it 3rd of 8 among perpetual dexs on this criterion. At a 25% weight that is 0.25 points above the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 10, the worst 4.
What a position really costs: 9/10
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 9 of 10 against a category median of 6.5, which places it 1st of 8 among perpetual dexs on this criterion. At a 22% weight that is 0.55 points above the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 9, the worst 5.
Who holds the collateral: 7/10
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 7 of 10 against a category median of 7, which places it 4th of 8 among perpetual dexs on this criterion. At a 15% weight that is exactly level with the median of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 9, the worst 6.
Markets and access: 5/10
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 5 of 10 against a category median of 6, which places it 6th of 8 among perpetual dexs on this criterion. At a 8% weight that is 0.08 points below the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 9, the worst 4.
Its nearest neighbours in this ranking
| # | Entry | What a position really costs | How it differs |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Hyperliquid | 8 | Behind by 1 on what a position really costs. |
| 3 | Jupiter Perps | 6 | Behind by 3 on what a position really costs. |
| 4 | GMX | 5 | Behind by 4 on what a position really costs. |
Questions about this score
What do Lighter's zero-knowledge proofs actually guarantee?
+
That the matching engine followed its own rules — that your order was filled in the sequence and at the prices the protocol specifies, verifiably, rather than on the operator's assurance. What they do not cover is ordering fairness, oracle behaviour or the correctness of the circuits themselves, which is where the residual trust in this design sits.
Is Lighter deep enough to trade size?
+
Not compared with Hyperliquid. $622m of collateral against a venue collecting fifteen times its fee flow tells you where the flow is, and thin books turn a stop into a worse fill than the screen suggests. For smaller positions the cost advantage is real; for size, depth decides.