Follow me via Twitter/X：@fatratkiller

The evolution from GMX to Hyperliquid was sold as progress. The shift to CEX-backed Perp DEX 3.0 was framed as innovation. But what if this entire trajectory was designed from the beginning? What if "decentralization" was always meant to be temporary—a stepping stone back to centralized control?

🎯 THE UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTH:

We've witnessed a fascinating pattern: GMX's 1.0 model introduced the masses to perpetual DEX trading. Hyperliquid's 2.0 refined it, building trust and adoption. Now CEXs swoop in with their "3.0" solutions, claiming efficiency and scale. But here's what they're not telling you—this progression looks suspiciously orchestrated.

🔍 WHAT THIS INVESTIGATION REVEALS:

→ The 1.0 to 3.0 Progression Decoded (02:30)Why the evolution of Perp DEX follows a suspiciously predictable path toward centralization, and who benefits most from each "upgrade."

→ The Infrastructure Trap (06:15)Solana and Avalanche have the tech. They have the speed. Yet they haven't produced market leaders like Hyperliquid or Aster. Coincidence? Or is something preventing true decentralized competitors from emerging?

→ The Business Model Recursion Nobody Discusses (09:40)How sustainability and "user experience" arguments are being weaponized to justify centralized control. The real math behind why CEXs claim only they can handle volume.

→ The Hidden Tax Policy Connection (12:20)Why regulatory pressure in markets like India is forcing second-tier CEXs into DEX operations—creating a "squeezed position" that reveals the true power dynamics at play.

→ The GMX Disappearance (14:50)How did the pioneer lose relevance so quickly? Was GMX designed to fail, paving the way for centralized alternatives?

→ The Innovation Dead End (17:25)Generic compliance, multi-jurisdictional platforms, financial literacy tools—these aren't innovations. They're smoke screens hiding the fact that true decentralization is being systematically dismantled.