Drake Exchange: Engineering a CEX Onchain, but Can It Hold Liquidity?

📢 Sponsor | 💡 Telegram | 📰 Past Editions

The decentralized perpetuals market has matured fast. What started as a niche experiment is now one of the largest sectors in DeFi, pulling in hundreds of billions in trading volume each month. Early exchanges like dYdX and GMX proved that decentralized leverage could work, but they also revealed the limits of current blockchain performance.

Then came Hyperliquid, the breakout success of 2024. It dominated with around 70% of total market share, combining high throughput and a fair launch that excluded venture investors. For a moment, it looked unstoppable.

But our Perp Wars 2025 report makes one thing clear: no one stays on top for long. Decentralized perpetual DEX volume now exceeds $808B per month, with new players like Aster and Lighter breaking Hyperliquid’s dominance through massive incentive programs. The market has turned into a contest of token rewards rather than product fundamentals.

Drake Exchange is stepping into this environment with a very different proposition. Built on Monad, it aims to bring centralized-grade trading fully on-chain. Its hybrid model merges a limit order book with AMM liquidity, while leveraging Monad’s parallel execution layer to eliminate gas fees. The concept is elegant, but the question is whether technical precision can overcome the same economic forces that have made other DEXs fragile.

Key Takeaways

• Drake’s architecture merges CEX execution with on-chain transparency, but liquidity consistency remains unproven.

• Monad’s performance data confirms near-instant execution, yet most early usage is incentive-driven rather than organic.

• The Funding Rate Vault creates a sophisticated way to earn delta-neutral yield, but its sustainability depends on continuous market imbalance.

• The perpetual DEX market has evolved into an incentive loop where token emissions dictate trader flow more than UX or performance.

• Drake’s real test will be converting Monad’s technical strength into genuine, self-sustaining liquidity once incentives fade.

Market Context

The perpetual DEX market has entered a phase of hyper-competition.

• Hyperliquid still leads with $274B in 30-day volume and $5.9B TVL, supported by a $1B annualized revenue stream.

• Aster followed aggressively, reaching $46B in daily trading and $115.8B monthly volume after launching an airdrop campaign.

• Lighter, still tokenless, recorded $154B in 30-day volume purely from points farming.

The pattern mirrors DeFi’s earlier “vampire wars.” Aster’s approach recalls SushiSwap’s 2020 attack on Uniswap, where traders moved liquidity temporarily in exchange for emissions. The report concludes that dominance in this sector is fragile and depends more on incentives than fundamentals.

Drake is entering at a time when the market is hungry for a platform that can sustain volume without bribing users. Its success depends on whether Monad’s performance advantage can turn speculative flows into structural liquidity.

Monad’s data so far is impressive:

• 2.77B successful transactions

• 98% success rate

• 311.7M unique addresses

• Nearly 40M contracts deployed by 3M unique creators

• Median transaction fee of only 0.0035 MON

• Peak of 10M active users early in 2025

These metrics show throughput and scalability that no other Layer 1 currently matches. But they also reveal the classic cycle of hype-driven spikes. Monad’s activity cooled sharply after testnet incentives ended. The data suggests Drake will face the same challenge that every new exchange does: turning temporary engagement into durable liquidity.

Product Architecture

Drake’s design philosophy is clear: match the trading experience of a centralized exchange while preserving full on-chain transparency. Its system combines a central limit order book (CLOB) for precision execution with a backstop AMM for liquidity depth.

The CLOB matches orders using Monad’s high-speed consensus layer, providing traders with tight spreads and fast execution. The AMM serves as a liquidity safety net, filling trades when the book is thin or volatile. Chainlink’s low-latency oracle infrastructure ensures price accuracy, while gas-free trading makes active strategies costless.

This structure solves two long-standing pain points in DeFi: delayed execution and fragmented liquidity. However, the hybrid model introduces new dependencies. For one, it requires constant activity to keep the order book deep enough for smooth trades. If volume slows, the AMM shoulders the risk, widening spreads and raising slippage.

There is also an economic challenge. Order book liquidity depends on market makers earning consistent fees. Without natural flow or incentives, maintaining deep liquidity becomes costly. This is why even technically perfect DEXs often fail once rewards decline.

Drake’s architecture is sound, but it will need a liquidity strategy that goes beyond the “fair launch” narrative.

Vault Design and Yield Mechanics

The Funding Rate Vault is Drake’s most interesting innovation. It tokenizes funding-rate arbitrage, letting users deposit USDC and automatically earn yield from perpetual market imbalances. The vault stays delta-neutral by pairing long and short positions, earning from the difference in funding payments.

This approach opens a sophisticated trading strategy to retail users, which is a major step forward. But sustainability is not guaranteed. Once long-short positions equalize, funding spreads collapse and yields approach zero. In bear markets, negative funding could even turn the vault into a loss position.

We have seen this play out before. Hyperliquid’s buyback mechanism works only as long as trading revenue remains high. Aster’s yield program depends entirely on token inflation. Drake’s vault is more elegant in structure but exposed to the same macro problem: neutral-yield strategies do not survive balanced markets for long.

For Drake to succeed, the vault must be paired with strong market activity and a steady source of imbalance. Without it, yields will fade as quickly as they appeared.

Drake’s potential advantage is architectural, not promotional. It offers a smoother UX and institutional-grade logic at a time when competitors are chasing users with airdrops. But that can also be a disadvantage. If traders prioritize quick rewards, Drake’s focus on fundamentals may not convert into traction fast enough.

Risks and Challenges

The biggest risk is liquidity concentration. Without steady trader activity, liquidity could fragment between the order book and AMM, reducing efficiency. Drake also inherits systemic risk from Monad’s mainnet stability. Any downtime or congestion on Monad would directly affect execution and trader confidence.

There is also competitive pressure. If Hyperliquid expands beyond its custom chain or Aster sustains its incentive loop longer than expected, Drake could struggle to attract early attention.

From a regulatory perspective, on-chain perpetuals may soon face the same scrutiny as their centralized counterparts. As trading volumes grow, regulators are likely to treat on-chain derivatives no differently from CEX-based futures, which could bring new compliance hurdles.

Outlook

Drake has all the elements of a flagship exchange for Monad. Its hybrid design, gas-free experience, and innovative vault structure give it real differentiation. If Monad continues scaling and the team secures strategic liquidity partners, Drake could become the first on-chain exchange that actually feels like a CEX.

However, the broader market trend remains clear. Incentives, not infrastructure, have driven growth so far. Aster and Lighter show that traders will rotate instantly to wherever short-term rewards are higher. Unless Drake finds a way to build durable liquidity loops, it risks being another “perfect product” that is lost out to simpler, louder competitors.

Our Take

Drake is a serious project in a field full of short-lived experiments. It represents a thoughtful attempt to merge professional-grade execution with decentralized transparency. The engineering is solid, the team understands markets, and Monad gives it the technical foundation to perform.

But performance is not the same as product-market fit. The 2025 perp market is addicted to incentives. Traders are mercenaries, not loyalists. Unless Drake proves it can build retention through real yield and consistent market depth, it may struggle to convert respect into adoption.

If it succeeds, it could redefine how decentralized exchanges operate, setting a new standard for CEX-quality trading on-chain. If it fails, it will serve as another reminder that in crypto, technology alone rarely decides who wins.

If you enjoy reading this issue, please consider subscribing. It takes 1 minute of your time but it would mean the world to us 🙇

Disclaimer: All the information presented in this publication and its affiliates is strictly for educational purposes only. It should not be construed or taken as financial, legal, investment, or any other form of advice.