As Lighter is about to welcome its TGE, the market's divergence in valuation is not due to emotions, but rather to different understandings of its product positioning and growth path.
Article author, source: MarsBit
Editor's Note: As Lighter is about to welcome its TGE, the market's divergence in valuation is not due to emotions, but rather to different understandings of its product positioning and growth path. Is it just another perpetual contract exchange, or a trading infrastructure with the potential to support greater distribution and asset forms? The answer determines the valuation ceiling.
This article attempts to break out of the lazy framework of 'simple benchmarking' and return to the more verifiable facts themselves: the real TVL and trading volume scale, proven revenue capability, first-mover advantage in the RWA track, and a product expansion roadmap pointing to 2026. Based on this, the author presents a valuation range that does not rely on sentiment, using 'zones' instead of 'target prices' to address uncertainties.
The following is the original text:
As Lighter's TGE approaches, there is a clear divergence in the market regarding 'how much it's actually worth.'
On one hand, some simply categorize it as 'just another perpetual contract exchange,' believing it will struggle to surpass Hyperliquid; but on the other hand, some genuine market signals have emerged, showing that its scale and potential impact may be far from just another ordinary Perp DEX launch.
TL;DR: The current market pricing for Lighter is still primarily concentrated in the low single-digit billion FDV range; however, if the fundamentals continue to materialize and key catalysts are implemented, its reasonable repricing range could be closer to $6 to $12.5 billion, or even higher.
Disclosure: I am an early user of Lighter (644.3 points) and will likely receive an airdrop. This article represents only personal research and views and does not constitute any investment advice.
In my view, the current situation can be summarized as follows: Based on trades on Polymarket, the market implies a valuation for Lighter of about $2 to $3 billion (at least based on the price signals currently being traded).
In the OTC market, the trading price of Lighter's points is around $90; if calculated based on approximately 11.7 million points, the corresponding airdrop value is about $1.05 billion.
If this portion of the airdrop accounts for about 25% of the total token supply, then backtracking, Lighter's fully diluted valuation (FDV) is approximately $4.2 billion.
Lighter previously completed a $68 million financing round, corresponding to a valuation of about $1.5 billion, led by Founders Fund and Ribbit.
Founders Fund has a long and prominent record of early bets on category-defining companies, having invested in iconic firms like Facebook, SpaceX, Palantir, Stripe, and Airbnb.
Additionally, $LIT is priced at around $3.5 billion FDV in the pre-market, which can be seen as a real-time market reference signal (although still in the early stages and not entirely precise).
Therefore, my judgment framework is actually quite simple: $1.5 billion can be seen as the lower limit of valuation (bearish range, anchored by VC pricing from financing rounds). $3 billion to $4.2 billion belongs to the bearish to benchmark range (prediction markets, pre-market prices, and valuation estimates from points are roughly concentrated here).
The real core question is: based on fundamentals and catalysts, does Lighter deserve to be revalued to the range of $6 billion to $12.5 billion or even higher?
The purpose of this analysis is to attempt to clarify these issues logically: what exactly is Lighter as a product, what signals are released at the data level, which valuation frameworks are reasonable, and what catalysts might drive it further upward in revaluation.
1. A key misunderstanding: Lighter and Hyperliquid are not the same type of product
The clearest mental model I have found so far is:
Hyperliquid is building a Web3 native liquidity layer, with its primary monetization coming from retail trading fees (in addition to network effects at the ecosystem level).
Lighter is building a decentralized trading infrastructure, with the long-term goal of connecting to fintech companies, brokerages, and professional market makers, while also reducing execution costs to extremely low levels (some spot markets even achieve 0% fees).
From this perspective, the problems addressed by both products, the customer bases they serve, and their long-term business paths are fundamentally different.
This distinction is important because it directly determines where the valuation ceiling lies.
If Lighter were 'just another perpetual contract exchange,' it would not be surprising for it to be priced like similar Perp DEXs; however, if it is essentially a trading infrastructure that can be integrated by large distribution channels (brokerages/fintech companies), then the valuation ceiling it faces is entirely a different set of rules.
2. Where is Lighter currently (truly important data)
Let's first look at the most critical set of indicators:
TVL: $1.44 billion
LLP TVL: $698 million (Lighter's liquidity pool for trading execution and system stability)
Open Interest: $1.7 billion
Trading Volume: 24 hours: $5.41 billion / 7 days: $44.4 billion / 30 days: $248.3 billion
Revenue: Last 30 days: approximately $13.8 million / Last year: approximately $167.9 million
The 'texture' conveyed by these numbers is itself significant: this is already the real scale. A monthly trading volume of $248 billion is certainly not a 'playful' exchange.
The scale of open interest (OI) is considerable, but not high enough to reach a level where 'an extreme liquidation could possibly trigger systemic chaos.'
TVL is high enough for Lighter to reasonably position itself as a trading venue capable of handling large transactions and exhibiting stability—while reliability is one of the core factors that institutions value most.
Risk rationality check: OI / TVL (open interest / total locked value)
A quick way to measure the leverage level and liquidity matching is to calculate OI/TVL (open interest divided by TVL). Based on current snapshot data:
Lighter: 1.71B / 1.44B ≈ 1.18
Hyperliquid: 7.29B / 4.01B ≈ 1.82
Aster: 2.48B / 1.29B ≈ 1.92
Intuitively, Lighter's OI/TVL is significantly lower, indicating that under relatively controllable leverage levels, there is a more ample liquidity buffer. This structure does not pursue extreme efficiency but leans more towards robust execution and systemic resilience—this aligns with its positioning as an 'infrastructure trading system.'
Key conclusion: Lighter already has a considerable scale of open interest, but relative to its liquidity level, it is not overly stretched; compared with the closest leading peers, its risk structure is more restrained and robust.
3. Spot market: the key unlock for driving TVL further upward
Lighter recently launched spot trading, and its importance may have been significantly underestimated by the market.
Perpetual contracts can indeed create massive trading volumes, but what truly retains 'sticky funds' is often the spot market—especially when the trading platform demonstrates significant advantages in execution efficiency and costs.
At the same time, spot trading also significantly broadens the potential user base: for new users, spot is a lower-threshold starting point; for market makers, spot provides more reasons for long-term holding and inventory adjustment on the platform.
Currently, ETH is the only spot asset listed. This is not a limitation, but a starting point. The truly noteworthy signal is that the 'track' for spot trading has already been established, and the product itself has a structural basis to smoothly expand with more assets coming online.
Even though ETH is currently the only asset listed, DeFiLlama's data shows that Lighter has approximately $32.33 million worth of WETH value on the spot side (snapshot time: 2025/12/18).
This is still in the early stages, but the signals are correct: funds have begun to 'dock' on the spot side.
If Lighter gradually introduces dozens of (even eventually hundreds of) spot assets according to the publicly implied path, then spot trading will become a substantial driver of TVL growth, not just a 'nice-to-have' feature module.
More importantly, the 0% fee on ETH spot trading is itself a strong wedge. As long as execution quality remains stable (spreads converge, trades are reliable), it will naturally attract active traders and institutions to route high-frequency strategies and spot-perpetual basis trades to Lighter. The result is very direct: more trades → more inventory → deeper liquidity, forming a self-reinforcing positive feedback loop.
The conclusion is clear: the launch of spot trading is an important milestone. ETH is just the first step; the real upward potential comes after expanding the catalog of spot assets, gradually positioning the platform as the default place for 'trading + holding' on-chain.
4. RWA: Unlocking point for 2026 (and why Lighter is already ahead)
One of the clearest signals that Lighter is not 'just another Perp DEX' comes from RWA (real-world assets).
RWA (tokenized stocks, forex, commodities, indices, etc.) essentially serves as a bridge between crypto trading and traditional markets. If by 2026, tokenized assets continue to migrate on-chain, then the trading platform that wins RWA first will gain not only more trading volume but also a completely new growth curve that most Perp DEXs are unprepared for.
The key is not the narrative, but the scoreboard. And from the data, Lighter has already taken the lead.
Lighter is already leading in both open interest (OI) and trading volume for on-chain RWA perpetual contracts. This combination is crucial:
OI reflects the scale of the exposure that traders hold long-term;
Trading volume reflects the intensity and activity of daily use.
When a trading venue leads in two metrics simultaneously, it usually indicates that traders are not 'just testing the waters' but are already using it as their primary base for that product line.
This is also why RWA is more like a structural opportunity for Lighter: it is not chasing hot spots but positioning itself early in a market that is about to expand.
In the current snapshot, the open interest scale of RWA perpetual contracts is approximately:
Lighter: approximately $273 million
Hyperliquid: approximately $249 million
This gap is significant because RWA is still in its early stages. In early markets, liquidity often exhibits a highly concentrated characteristic:
When a trading venue first gathers scaled liquidity, spreads will converge, trade quality will improve, and better execution experiences will, in turn, attract more capital and trading volume, forming a self-reinforcing positive feedback loop.
From this perspective, Lighter's lead in RWA OI is not just a static ranking, but more like the starting point of a potential compounding effect.
From the trading volume perspective, this trend becomes even clearer:
Lighter: approximately $484 million
Hyperliquid: approximately $32.7 million
This is a typical manifestation of early product-market fit (PMF): a new category begins to form, and a trading venue attracts a disproportionate amount of trading activity. When usage frequency and execution experience accumulate on the same platform, the competitive edge tends to be further amplified.
It's worth taking a broader view: Tokenized RWA is not a niche track. On public chains, it has already reached a multi-billion dollar market scale, and the growth curve is still upwards.
This means that the platform that first establishes liquidity, execution quality, and user habits not only wins the current trading volume but also locks in a long-term growth channel that is still expanding.
Tokenized RWA on public chains has reached about $18.9 billion or more and is still in its early stages.
This is important because RWA is one of the few narratives that does not need to 'compete for attention' within the crypto circle: it can extend outward, bringing real-world assets and real-world trading behaviors on-chain, directly doing increment instead of internal competition.
RWA perpetual contracts have validated real demand; however, the larger unlocking point lies in the next step: RWA spot.
Perpetual contracts excel at speculation;
Spot trading is key to expanding the user base.
If Lighter can become one of the first to offer credible RWA spot trading (tokenized stocks / forex / commodities) on-chain, while achieving strong execution quality and institutional-level reliability, then it is not just adding a feature but substantially expanding the serviceable market (TAM).
This is also directly related to the Robinhood alignment narrative: Once tokenized stocks become a real product distribution channel, the value of 'backend exchanges/infrastructure layer' will be significantly amplified—because in the trading field, distribution capability is the hardest moat to build.
From the product roadmap, Lighter is clearly pointing towards 2026: deeper RWA expansion and the supporting capabilities required for its scaling (mobile, portfolio margin, prediction markets, etc.).
This is not a one-time narrative, but a product curve that continues to amplify.
If RWA is one of the most important themes for 2026, then entering early and having already achieved leadership in OI and trading volume is itself a strong starting point.
The conclusion is clear: RWA is not Lighter's 'side task.' On the contrary, it is the clearest path to achieving extraordinary growth in 2026–2027—because this path expands Lighter from a purely crypto-native perpetual contract market to a broader world of tokenized financial products.
5. Robinhood alignment narrative: why 'distribution' will change everything
Robinhood is currently the cleanest and most imaginative distribution wedge on the desktop: approximately 26 million accounts with funds and about $333 billion in assets under management (AUM)
Mature patterns: routing order flow to large market makers (a typical Citadel-style flow structure)
Once Robinhood becomes a real distribution channel for tokenized assets, providing the backend trading infrastructure for execution and settlement will become extremely valuable—because in the trading realm, distribution capability is always the hardest moat to build.
If Lighter can become one of the backend rails for tokenized assets / perpetual contracts / settlement-like flow (even if just partially involved), its impact is not just 'a few more crypto users,' but rather: introducing entirely new liquidity into the on-chain market through a familiar front-end UI.
The significance for valuation lies in its direct attack on the biggest ceiling most Perp DEXs face: Web3 native liquidity is substantial, but still has limits compared to traditional finance's distribution capabilities.
And the market often does not wait for everything to settle. Even if this narrative is merely 'likely to trend toward the mainstream,' it is enough to trigger a repricing—because the crypto market prices probabilities rather than certainties.
6. Valuation: a simplified framework that does not rely on 'faith'
I prefer to use anchors + reality checks for valuation.
Valuation Anchor (information already provided by the market)
$1.5 billion FDV: lower limit / bear market anchor (from $68 million financing round's VC pricing). Falling below this level would mean that this financing round has been in a loss position from the start.
Approximately $4.2 billion FDV: market implied anchor (OTC point pricing + community's approximate 25% allocation retroactively).
Reality check #1: FDV / TVL comparison
If priced at ~5× TVL for Lighter: 1.44B TVL × 5 ≈ $7.2 billion FDV
This is not just a shot in the dark, but consistent with the gathering ranges of similar platforms:
Hyperliquid: ~5.8× FDV/TVL
Aster: ~4.2× FDV/TVL
Therefore, as long as TVL can be maintained and Lighter continues to prove its leading position in trading volume and OI, a $7-8 billion FDV is a reasonable 'fair value' range.
Reality check #2: Revenue comparison (imperfect, but significant)
Revenue is not the only valuation method in crypto (narrative is also important), but it is one of the hardest reality anchors that can test whether 'usage has really turned into cash flow.'
Estimated annual revenue (1 year):
Hyperliquid: ~$900 million
Aster: ~$513 million
Lighter: ~$16.79 million
dYdX: ~$10.9 million
Two conclusions can coexist: revenue gaps are real. Lighter's current revenue is lower than Hyperliquid and Aster, which is a reasonable rationale for the market discounting it today. If someone directly prices Lighter as 'the next Hyperliquid,' revenue is the most direct rebuttal point.
As a platform without issued tokens and products not fully rolled out, this revenue remains solid. An annualized ~$168 million is not 'common.' It does not automatically prove a higher FDV is immediately reasonable, but clearly indicates: Lighter is not running on vibes but is managing a real, monetizable business.
How valuation ranges settle
Bear/Benchmark ($1.5–7.5 billion FDV):
As long as TVL stabilizes and continues to prove its leading position in trading volume/OI, this range can hold up even in the face of revenue gaps.
Bull market ($7.5–12.5 billion+ FDV):
Catalysts need to become consensus, specifically including:
(a) Faster revenue growth;
(b) Higher and sustainable activity; or
(c) The mainstream distribution narratives that the market is willing to price in advance.
In summary: Revenue is the 'proof point.' It pressures short-term multiples, but is also a strong signal that Lighter already has real traction; the upward potential depends on whether revenue growth significantly accelerates after product expansion.
7. Scenario assumptions (truly 'reasonable' FDV range)
Bear market scenario: $1.5–4.2 billion FDV
Assumption: Weak market + TGE selling pressure + Narrative gap. Prices hover around VC's lower limits or slightly above implicit values.
Benchmark scenario: $4.2–7.5 billion FDV
Assumption: Pricing returns to fundamentals. TVL maintains above $1 billion, trading volume/OI remains at the top, priced based on comparable multiples.
Bull market scenario: $7.5–12.5 billion+ FDV
Assumption: Catalysts form consensus, including:
RWA momentum continues + clear RWA spot path; and/or
Robinhood-style distribution narrative is widely accepted (even if not fully confirmed yet).
8. Roadmap signals: why 2026 could be the true year of expansion
Integrating the rhythm of products and narrative paths, 2026 seems more like a key year for Lighter's amplification curve.
RWA deepening, spot expansion, mobile and portfolio margin enhancements—these are not isolated functions but point in the same direction towards greater distribution and higher monetization efficiency.
Lighter has already demonstrated impressive traction in 2025, but what will truly change the valuation ceiling is what is about to happen next.
At the Chainlink × Lighter Seoul Meetup, a roadmap marked '2026 – Expansion' surfaced, including:
ZK EVM, RWA Perps, RWA Spot, Portfolio Margin, Mobile App, Prediction Markets, S3 / Tokenomics... and more
Even if viewed as 'informal information before official confirmation,' when connected with Lighter's verified capabilities—stable execution, rapid delivery, and clear momentum in RWA—this directional line is highly self-consistent.
Why this roadmap is important for valuation
1) Expand product scope (more growth paths for TVL and trading volume)
A DEX can grow large solely relying on perpetual contracts; however, adding spot trading, especially the path to RWA spot, will significantly broaden the funnel.
Spot trading is stickier, better at accumulating TVL, and will also attract a type of user that is not core to 50× leverage.
2) Enhance capital efficiency (portfolio margin is key)
Portfolio margin may not sound sexy, but it is what institutions and professional traders truly care about.
It allows funds to work collaboratively across different positions, reducing fragmentation, thus increasing activity without disproportionately increasing new deposits.
3) Upgrading distribution (mobile)
Most retail trading occurs on mobile phones.
If Lighter wants to become a viable alternative to 'one-click trading' experiences like Binance or Robinhood, then a native mobile platform is not a bonus but a direct growth lever.
4) Amplifying the strongest narrative (RWA)
RWA is not just a new market, but the clearest bridge to non-crypto native demand.
The roadmap clearly states RWA Perps + RWA Spot, indicating it is a core strategy rather than a peripheral feature.
5) Increase optionality (prediction markets + 'more')
The prediction market has repeatedly validated demand in crypto.
If integrated into a larger trading stack, it could form a new product line with high engagement, enhancing retention and keeping users within the same ecosystem.
9. Risks that need to be taken seriously
Market Environment: The current total crypto market cap is approximately $2.96 trillion, significantly lower than the $4.27 trillion ATH in October 2025. If the macro environment continues to weaken, all assets will be under pressure.
Post-TGE behavior: short-term selling pressure is almost certain; the key observation point is whether TVL / trading volume stabilizes after the initial volatility.
Competition is real: Hyperliquid has strong product capabilities, and other platforms will quickly replicate features.
Narrative vs. confirmation: Robinhood / RWA spot narratives may see overheating pullbacks if the timeline is stretched.
Final thoughts
A lazy valuation method is: 'It's a Perp DEX → benchmark Hyperliquid → apply a discount → done.'
A better approach is to acknowledge these differences:
Scale is already real (TVL, trading volume, revenue).
RWA appears to be a structural wedge, not a side task.
Product direction points to a broader market (Perps → Spot → Margin → New verticals).
Once fintech/brokerage distribution even partially lands, the ceiling will no longer be 'another crypto exchange.'
Thus, my framework is: $1.5 billion is the bottom, ~$4.2 billion is the cleanest market anchor derived from point pricing; as long as TVL stabilizes and catalysts continue to materialize, discussions of fair value should begin at ~$7 billion or more.
How I'm thinking about the zones (not investment advice, just personal planning)
To maintain my discipline, I treat these FDV ranges as 'zones' rather than precise target prices.
Bear market range ($1.5–4.2 billion FDV)
If prices oscillate within this range after TGE, I would consider it an 'opportunity zone.'
Holding an airdrop here minimizes my psychological pressure; for those who truly resonate with this logic, this is also the cleanest area for risk-reward ratio—because TVL, trading volume, and RWA traction are already visible and verifiable facts.
Benchmark range ($4.2 billion–$7.5 billion FDV)
If Lighter can stabilize TVL and continue to operate at a leading scale, I would regard this range as fair value.
If prices run to this point, I would personally consider partial profit-taking ('get back the cost first'), but still maintain exposure. The reason is simple: The 2026 roadmap is the kind that can gradually raise the valuation ceiling—including RWA, spot expansion, portfolio margin, mobile, etc.
Bull market range ($7.5 billion–$12.5 billion+ FDV)
This is a range where 'the catalyst has become consensus.'
If Lighter trades up to this point, it usually means that RWA momentum can no longer be ignored, and/or the distribution narrative (fintech/brokerage alignment) is starting to be taken seriously by the market.
In such cases, I would be more proactive in managing risk during the rise, as this is a position where the crypto market is prone to overshooting and can quickly reverse.
In summary: I'm not trying to catch the top. I just want a plan that allows me to navigate volatility, take profits without regret, and still maintain exposure when Lighter successfully executes into 2026.
