2026-01-18 21:27:13

The perpetual contract track welcomes new changes. The HIP-3 proposal breaks the original centralized token listing model and opens listing permissions to third-party builders. This means more developers can participate in building market liquidity.

From the builder's perspective, what is the core logic of this model? First, the new market launch process becomes more transparent and predictable—third parties can operate according to clear rules without waiting for individual reviews by the official team. Second, ecosystem participants gain more autonomy, allowing for more flexible deployment of various trading pairs and liquidity strategies.

However, openness does not come without costs. Market liquidity becomes more dispersed, slippage risks increase, and the possibility of bad coins driving out good coins must be taken seriously. Key mitigation measures include strict margin requirements, transparent risk assessment systems, and rapid abnormal transaction monitoring mechanisms.

This upgrade essentially seeks a balance between efficiency and risk—making the ecosystem more open while not sacrificing system stability. For builders who want to participate, understanding these risk points and mitigation plans is crucial.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

17 Likes

Reward
17
8
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

DiamondHands

· 01-21 21:05

Another bunch of rules and frameworks, the margin risk assessment system... to put it simply, it's still afraid of a collapse.

View OriginalReply0

BlockBargainHunter

· 01-20 06:31

Open permissions sound great, but how many actually dare to join? Will the deposit become a new barrier?

View OriginalReply0

BoredStaker

· 01-18 21:53

Another "Open," how far can it go this time? --- It still depends on the actual risk control execution; having rules alone is useless. --- Oh my, guarantees and monitoring... Under the guise of openness, there are still a bunch of restrictions. --- Third-party token listing rights are indeed attractive, but the issue of bad money driving out good money must be well guarded against, or it will end in failure. --- Balancing efficiency and risk? Nice words, but in the end, retail investors still end up holding the bag. --- Can this really break decentralization this time? Feels like just official rhetoric. --- Slippage risk skyrocketing, who will cover the losses... --- The mechanism is good; the key is whether there are arbitrageurs to exploit it.

View OriginalReply0

NotAFinancialAdvice

· 01-18 21:52

Open permissions are satisfying to listen to, but we really need to be careful about liquidity dispersion... Wait, can the system of "bad money drives out good" really be prevented? It still seems to rely on the community's self-discipline. With both escrow deposits and monitoring mechanisms, the threshold for builders will have to be raised again. Honestly, it's still a gamble on whether there will be enough sincere builders in the future.

View OriginalReply0

AlphaLeaker

· 01-18 21:47

This round of openness sounds good, but we really need to be cautious about the phenomenon of bad money driving out good money. Wait, if the deposit requirements are strict, how can small builders play... Anyway, it's all about efficiency and risk; essentially, it's about making money. Can HIP-3 really prevent slippage risk? I'm still a bit skeptical. Opening permissions sounds democratic, but who will oversee it... that's the key.

View OriginalReply0

AlgoAlchemist

· 01-18 21:46

Open permissions sound great, but can this liquidity dispersion really hold up... Wait, if the margin requirements are strict, small builders won't be able to play at all. It's the old trick again—claiming to be decentralized but actually still doing risk control. Will this truly break the deadlock this time, or is it just another feast for the leek farmers? Let's wait and see. I like this approach; finally, someone wants to revive the ecosystem. Slippage risk increases... as expected, there's no free lunch in this world.

View OriginalReply0

SelfCustodyIssues

· 01-18 21:43

Ha, it's both open and risky, sounds just like shouting "Freedom" in a casino.

View OriginalReply0

0xLuckbox

· 01-18 21:35

Open permissions sound great, but the slippage part definitely needs to be closely monitored. Really, do we want both freedom and stability? That's tough, let's see who can handle it. The cycle of bad money driving out good money is back again, always like this. How much can the guarantee deposit block low-quality tokens? I'm a bit curious whether the official risk control system can really handle the influx of so many new users. Open is open, but it still feels like the community needs to do the vetting themselves. The official mechanism might not be reliable. Regarding contract liquidity dispersion, new tricks for retail investors to get chopped up might be coming. But it does give builders a chance, which is better than the previous centralized review system. If this upgrade isn't stable, the community will be arguing like crazy again.

View OriginalReply0