Crash

Aster

Hyperliquid

<ul>
 <li>The Oct.11 crash caused $19.3B in liquidations, reigniting debates between CEX fairness and DEX transparency led by Binance and Hyperliquid.</li>
 <li>As performance gaps shrink, DEXs like Hyperliquid gain ground, but true fairness remains elusive—only transparency can rebuild market trust.</li>
 <li>Binance faces backlash after depegging losses; Hyperliquid touts on-chain transparency but faces its own crises, showing fairness is always relative.</li>
</ul>
&nbsp;
Although the epic market crash on October 11 (“10.11”) has passed and prices are gradually recovering, the event created a record-breaking $19.3 billion in single-day liquidations, leaving a deep shadow across the crypto market.
&nbsp;
Many investors blamed Donald Trump’s loose remarks as the main trigger, while others pointed fingers at Binance, arguing that the depegging of USDE, BNSOL, and WBETH was the true cause of the extended downturn.
&nbsp;
Binance officially attributed the depegging issue to temporary technical malfunctions in certain platform modules during the broader market downturn. As for the extreme price anomalies in some spot trading pairs, Binance said they were caused by historic limit orders being triggered under one-sided liquidity and UI display precision issues.
&nbsp;
To take responsibility, Binance compensated users affected by the USDE, BNSOL, and WBETH incidents, covering a total of $283 million in losses. Even so, some investors remained unconvinced—accusing Binance of contributing to the altcoin crash and reigniting long-standing debates about market manipulation, data opacity, and “pulling the plug” practices in centralized exchanges.
&nbsp;
<h2 id="hyperliquid-s-jeff-hl-clashes-with-binance-s-cz">Hyperliquid’s Jeff.hl Clashes with Binance’s CZ</h2>
&nbsp;
On October 13, Hyperliquid co-founder Jeff.hl publicly sparred with Binance founder CZ on social media. Jeff.hl claimed that all orders, trades, and liquidations on Hyperliquid are executed fully on-chain, making them transparent and verifiable, while criticizing certain centralized exchanges (CEXs)—specifically naming Binance—for underreporting liquidation data.
&nbsp;
CZ swiftly responded, saying:
<blockquote>
 “While others choose to ignore, hide, shift blame, or attack competitors, key BSC ecosystem participants—including Binance and Venus—personally spent hundreds of millions to protect users.”
</blockquote>
He added that this reflected a different value system.
&nbsp;
The debate sparked wide discussion. No single model can satisfy every market participant. Jeff.hl’s open criticism during such a sensitive period reflects the core trade-off between CEX and DEX models—the former pursuing relative fairness, the latter aiming for absolute transparency.
&nbsp;
<h2 id="performance-is-no-longer-the-defining-line-between-dex-and-cex">Performance Is No Longer the Defining Line Between DEX and CEX</h2>
&nbsp;
In the past, even though decentralized exchanges (DEXs) were seen as the ultimate form of crypto trading, CEXs dominated the market due to massive performance gaps—high latency, poor liquidity depth, low capital efficiency, and less precise order execution.
&nbsp;
As a result, despite CEXs’ centralization risks (and blowups like FTX), traders preferred them for their speed and reliability.
By 2025, however, this gap has largely closed. Take Hyperliquid, a DEX built for CEX-level performance, which uses an on-chain central limit order book (CLOB) instead of traditional AMMs. The platform achieves an average trade confirmation time of 0.07 seconds, comparable to CEX performance.
&nbsp;
While niche tokens on Hyperliquid still face liquidity and slippage challenges, for major assets like BTC and ETH, slippage is now below 0.1%, fully competitive with centralized exchanges.
&nbsp;
As performance converges, both funds and traders have started migrating toward DEXs throughout 2025.
According to The Block, DEXs’ market share in spot trading continued to grow in 2025, reaching 19% in Q3.
In perpetual futures, the shift has been even faster—from 4.9% at the end of 2024 to 14.33% by October 2025.
&nbsp;
During the “10.11” crash, DEXs also proved their resilience. Hyperliquid reported that despite record-high traffic and trading volume during the crash, its blockchain experienced no downtime or delay.
&nbsp;
In contrast, Binance suffered temporary system outages due to technical issues. Still, this doesn’t necessarily mean Hyperliquid has surpassed Binance in performance—after all, their system loads were vastly different.
&nbsp;
On October 11, Hyperliquid’s perps volume exceeded $10 billion, while Binance’s volume was over 10 times higher. The Block data shows that in September, Hyperliquid’s perps volume reached $282.47 billion, compared with Binance’s $2.34 trillion, meaning Hyperliquid’s volume is still about 12% of Binance’s.
&nbsp;
<h2 id="the-market-only-knows-relative-fairness">The Market Only Knows “Relative Fairness”</h2>
&nbsp;
If performance is no longer the key gap, will investors automatically switch to DEXs? After the “10.11” crash, even as Binance faced harsh criticism, Gen-Z trader Vida publicly stated that large capital should still use Binance, because “Binance always takes responsibility for its users.”
&nbsp;
Critics claimed Vida spoke this way because he was favored by Binance. During extreme volatility, exchanges often compensate VIPs or key clients while ignoring smaller traders, leading some to argue that Binance’s strength is built “on countless silent victims,” where big players are refunded in full while retail bears the loss.
&nbsp;
Yet, even beyond conspiracy theories, fairness in this market is always relative.
Even DEXs that champion decentralization can waver under pressure. On March 26, 2025, Hyperliquid faced its biggest crisis when a whale manipulated the price of the meme coin JELLY, leaving the platform’s liquidity pool (HLP) with massive short exposure and a $240 million wipeout risk.
&nbsp;
In response, Hyperliquid suspended the JELLY contract, effectively saving itself and turning a potential loss into a $700,000 profit—a move critics compared to “pulling the plug.”
&nbsp;
This sparked outrage and accusations that “decentralization and fairness” had become empty slogans. It wasn’t the first such event—previously, whales’ forced liquidations caused $4 million and $46 million in HLP losses, and affected users were never compensated.
&nbsp;
Investors began to realize: Hyperliquid isn’t bound by absolute fairness—it simply chooses inaction until the problem threatens its own interests. Each upgrade and improvement has been, in a sense, built on the remains of past failures.
&nbsp;
<h2 id="the-market-needs-absolute-transparency">The Market Needs “Absolute Transparency”</h2>
&nbsp;
There is no true fairness in trading. For one side to win, another must lose—whether on a DEX or a CEX. But while fairness is relative, transparency can be absolute.
&nbsp;
CEXs are often accused of manipulation because they are, by nature, opaque black boxes. Even with better regulation and compliance, a lack of transparency breeds distrust. Investors rely entirely on exchange announcements—official but unverifiable.
As Jeff.hl pointed out when questioning Binance’s liquidation data: for Binance to truly prove itself innocent, it would need to “cut itself open and show exactly how much it ate.”
&nbsp;
Hyperliquid, in contrast, operates on-chain, and its transparency is verifiable. This on-chain visibility minimizes manipulation risk and reassures users, reducing conspiracy theories. During Hyperliquid’s crises, users could literally watch whale liquidations on-chain. Even if some lost money, few accused the platform of foul play.
&nbsp;
Perfect mechanisms don’t exist—but transparent, rules-based, auto-executing systems create far less controversy than CEX “black boxes.”
Even DEXs aren’t immune: when the Prep DEX Aster surged in popularity, it was accused of volume inflation and data falsification due to its private-order design. DeFiLlama even delisted Aster for a time.
&nbsp;
As the crypto industry matures, the line between CEX and DEX is blurring. DEXs are approaching CEX-level performance, while CEXs are expanding on-chain with user wallets. Each has its own risk spectrum:
<ul>
 <li>CEXs can bail users out during crises—but at the cost of central control.</li>
 <li>DEXs uphold “code is law”—but offer no safety net when things go wrong.</li>
</ul>
&nbsp;
Still, transparency remains the cornerstone of crypto’s ethos and progress. Despite their different value systems, both CEXs and DEXs should move toward greater verifiability, clearer accountability, and stronger crisis mechanisms.
〈<a href="https://www.coinrank.io/market/the-10-11-crash-leaves-a-lasting-shadow-cex-vs-dex-in-the-era-of-transparency/" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">The “10.11” Crash Leaves a Lasting Shadow: CEX vs. DEX in the Era of Transparency</a>〉這篇文章最早發佈於《<a href="https://www.coinrank.io" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">CoinRank</a>》。

The “10.11” Crash Leaves a Lasting Shadow: CEX vs. DEX in the Era of Transparency

Table of Contents

CoinRank_io

Other articles published on Oct 16, 2025

Join our free newsletter for daily crypto updates!