Dashboards

232Views

Perps DEXs Monetization Models Comparison

Public
By Calm Playful Llama

This dashboard compares multiple leading perpetual DEXs across 3 distinct monetization models to understand how different approaches to fee structure, liquidity, and ecosystem strategy impact revenue generation and other key metrics. Dashboard by: X @marevi0

Ops & Monetization Models:

3 Major Categories:

  • Traditional Fee: Hyperliquid, dYdX, Extended, Pacifica, Aster, Grvt, Apex - Order book matching + explicit trading fees (maker/taker)
  • LP Pool: GMX V2, Jupiter, Merkle Trade - Liquidity pool as counterparty + fees compensate LPs for risk
  • Zero-Fee/RFQ/PFOF: Lighter, Paradex, Variational - Minimal/no trading fees; monetization via spreads, flow routing, or premium tiers

Detailed analysis below for representative protocols from each category.

Key Metrics

  • Fee Efficiency: % of volume converted to fees (higher = better monetization)
  • Fees per $1M Volume: Standardized fee comparison across protocols
  • Revenue Retention: Revenue / Fees (Higher = protocol keeps more; Lower = heavy LP/user incentives)
  • OI Turnover (Annualized): How many times OI turns over yearly (Lower = stickier positions; Higher = more speculative)
  • 30-Day Volume to Open Interest Ratio: Monthly turnover view (Lower = real usage; Very high = possible wash trading/farming)

Data: DefiLlama + External | External updated weekly | 1/31/2026

Loading card
Loading card
Loading card
Loading card
Loading card
Loading card
Loading card
Loading card
Loading card

Group 1: Traditional order book + fees model

How it works: Order book matching with explicit maker/taker fees.

Spotlight: Hyperliquid Fee Efficiency: 0.030% | Fees per $1M: $341.61 | OI Turnover: 572.3x

Dominant market share with sustainable unit economics. High retention = minimal need for subsidies.

─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Spotlight: Extended Fee Efficiency: 0.010% | Fees per $1M: $113 | OI Turnover: 1,898x

Aggressive pricing to capture share. Extremely high turnover suggests points farming.

Last updated: 2/19/2026

Group 2: LP Pool Model + Fees

How it works: LPs deposit assets as counterparty to trades. Fees compensate LPs for directional risk.

Spotlight: GMX Fee Efficiency: 0.04% | Fees per $1M: $412 | OI Turnover: 1,333x

Higher fees create sustainable LP yields but limit HFT appeal. ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Spotlight: Jupiter Perpetual Fee Efficiency: 0.64% | Fees per $1M: $6,400 | OI Turnover: 229x

Note: OI data sourced from [https://dune.com/jupiter/jupiter-perps]; not tracked on DefiLlama

Last updated: 2/19/2026

Group 3: Zero-Fee / PFOF/ RFQ Model

**How it works:**Minimal explicit fees. Monetize via spreads, premium tiers, or flow routing.

Spotlight: Lighter - Zero-Fee / PFOF Fee Efficiency: 0.01% | Fees per $1M: $69.5 | OI Turnover: 1,516x

Lighter's "zero fees for retail, fees for premium/HFT" model shows in the data very low overall fee efficiency but 100% retention. Extremely high turnover confirms MM-heavy flow.

Last updated: 2/19/2026

Group 3: Zero-Fee / PFOF/ RFQ Model

Spotlight: Variational - Zero-Fees / RFQ Fee Efficiency: ~0.04%* | Fees per $1M: ~$430* | OI Turnover: 535.12x

*Note: Variational monetizes via spreads embedded in MM quotes, not explicit fees.

*No explicit fees tracked; revenue via spread capture. Est. from refund pool payouts and 10% pool size. Referral and refunds data from Dune (@entropy_advisors) [https://dune.com/entropy_advisors/variational-protocol#3-loss-refunds]

Last updated: 2/19/2026