Onchain Perps Go Mainstream: How $7.9T of 2025 Volume Redrew the Derivatives Map

Perpetual DEXs hit $7.9 trillion in 2025 as one-year activity dominates lifetime volume

Perp decentralized exchanges processed roughly $7.9 trillion of notional trading in 2025. That number is striking not just for its size but for the speed: about 65% of all onchain perpetuals’ lifetime volume happened inside that single year. For context, markets that once saw trickles of derivatives activity are now handling a steady stream of big trades and heavy leverage.

The growth changed how traders think about onchain derivatives. What started as an experimental corner of DeFi — where a few power users chased yield and curve-fitting strategies — moved quickly into regular use by professional market makers, hedge funds and momentum traders. The result: deeper books, tighter spreads in many markets, and a set of winner platforms that now claim real market share.

Why trading exploded in H2 2025: the monthly and quarterly inflection

The year wasn’t a smooth climb. H1 showed healthy but modest growth. The real break came in Q3 and accelerated into Q4. October through December produced multiple months above $1 trillion in notional activity, driven by a mix of macro volatility, cross-venue arbitrage and new tooling that made large trades cheaper and faster onchain.

Q3 was the turning point: a few high-liquidity events and improved margining models proved the concept that perpetuals could handle scale. By Q4, more liquidity providers and market makers felt comfortable committing capital. That concentration — heavy activity in the last six months of the year — explains why a single year could account for so much of total lifetime volume.

Two dynamics mattered most. First, volatility and macro catalysts brought traders back to derivatives. Second, execution improvements and native onchain features cut the cost of running large, short-lived positions. Put together, they created a positive feedback loop where more volume drew more liquidity, which drew more volume.

From single leader to multi-venue market: Hyperliquid’s lead versus Aster and Lighter

Hyperliquid started the year with a clear lead. Its early engine and deep incentives gave it the liquidity advantage. But the market split fast. Aster and Lighter launched aggressive maker programs and rolled out tighter funding models that appealed to professional counterparties. Over the summer and into Q3, both challengers chipped away at Hyperliquid’s market-share in majors like BTC and ETH perpetuals.

Monthly volume charts show a clear migration: Hyperliquid kept absolute volume growth but lost share as Aster and Lighter grew faster. By late Q4, all three platforms regularly handled comparable notional in top pairs, and smaller niche venues picked up activity in altcoin perpetuals. The change didn’t happen overnight — it shows up in a steady climb by the challengers, punctuated by a few months where incentives and airdrops briefly tilted flow their way.

The end result is a multi-venue market where no single venue can claim monopoly control. That’s healthier for traders, but it also means execution decisions — where to route a large order — matter more than before.

What deeper liquidity and better onchain execution mean for leveraged traders

Deeper liquidity reduces slippage and compresses spreads, which is good for large, leveraged traders. Improved onchain margining, faster batch settlement and better native order types let traders hold and flip positions with less friction than earlier DeFi models allowed.

Funding rates became more competitive with centralized exchanges for the first time in years. That narrowed a previously wide arbitrage wedge and encouraged cross-venue strategies. On the flip side, when many venues tightened funding and margin rules simultaneously, forced liquidations tended to propagate faster across the ecosystem because positions are more concentrated and connected.

Execution quality rose, but it’s uneven. Where orderbook depth onchain now rivals mid-tier centralized exchanges, certain niche pairs still suffer wild spreads and thin depth. Traders seeking to scale should expect better performance on major pairs but keep a mental map of which venues carry real depth in each market.

Risks that could reverse the run: code, oracles, liquidations and regulators

Rapid growth raises a long list of risks. Smart-contract bugs remain a standalone hazard. A single exploit can drain liquidity and freeze markets, and bigger pools mean bigger targets.

Oracle failures are another major threat. Perpetuals depend on reliable price feeds. If an oracle lags or is manipulated during volatile moves, liquidations can cascade and wipe out LPs and traders. The larger and more connected the market, the greater the potential systemic hit.

Liquidation cascades amplified by tight cross-venue funding alignments are a third risk. Faster execution and concentrated liquidity make simultaneous deleveraging more likely. Finally, regulatory attention is rising. Authorities focused on derivatives and market safety will watch for systemic risk, retail protection and where these platforms intersect with centralized services.

What traders and investors should monitor now — key metrics and scenario signals

For active traders and investors, these are the actionable monitorables:

• Monthly volume and its distribution across venues — watch whether growth stays broad or reconcentrates.
• Open interest and TVL — rising OI with stagnant or falling TVL signals leverage stress.
• Funding-rate dispersion — wide divergence across venues creates arbitrage but also signals stress.
• Onchain liquidity depth and slippage for key pairs — measure actual fill costs, not quoted spreads.
• Oracle latency and sources — track oracle composition and any reported outages.
• Token unlock schedules and incentive expiries — volume spikes around airdrops can be transient.

Near term, expect continued volatility and episodic spikes in volume tied to macro events and token incentives. In a bullish scenario, improved tooling and diversified liquidity providers will keep pushing execution costs down and broaden onchain derivatives usage. In a downside scenario, an exploit or oracle failure could trigger a wave of forced selling that tests market plumbing and invites regulatory scrutiny.

For traders, the market now rewards execution skill and venue selection. For investors in platform tokens or LP positions, the case is mixed: platforms with diversified liquidity, professional market-maker ties and robust risk systems look attractive; those that rely on short-term incentives or single points of failure look risky. The next 12 months will separate platforms that earned native, repeat flow from those that only chased it with subsidies.

Sources

• cointelegraph.com
• cointelegraph.com
• cointelegraph.com