Solana Was Too Late to Perps

Panel unpacks token‑vs‑equity friction, Solana perpetuals’ liquidity and execution gaps, and experiments (ACE/MetaLex, buybacks) aimed at restoring token trust and on‑chain product growth.

Key Takeaways

Token vs equity split creates structural conflicts; ACE/MetaLex conversion offers warrants/safes but acquisition payouts remain unclear—consider unified vehicle or explicit token acquisition remedies.
Programmatic buybacks and transparency can rebuild confidence: Pump’s 36% burn and 50% revenue buybacks reduced re‑issuance risk but poor communication sustained heavy token discounts.
Perpetuals adoption lags despite strong spot activity: Hyperliquid’s liquidity moat, routing habits, and trader stickiness mean late entrants must prioritize UX, routing integration, and incentives.
Technical designs to capture perps volume include validator sidecars, low‑CU updates, and fast consensus for execution—these reduce toxic flow while preserving Solana composability.
On‑chain customer acquisition hampered by lack of identity layer; targeted incentives (balance matches, transfer bonuses) require wallet‑to‑user links to be effective.
Q1 product signal: tokenized equities and RWAs led growth; prediction markets and pre‑stock offerings show retail demand—legal and disclosure infrastructure will determine scalable retail VC access.

Original Source

Visit Source