How Hyperliquid Quietly Killed Every DeFi Competitor – The Chopping Block
Jeff Pers explains how Hyperliquid's product‑first philosophy, transparent order‑book and community‑driven design let it dominate on‑chain trading and outpace both DeFi rivals and centralized exchanges.
1h 8m·Guest Jeff Pers·Host Tom·
Hyperliquid's Market Dominance and Explosive Growth
Within a few months Hyperliquid captured the lion's share of on-chain trading volume, amassed a multi-billion-dollar fee run-rate and began siphoning volume from the biggest centralized exchanges, all without any venture-capital backing.
Hyperliquid captures roughly 75% of daily on‑chain trading volume
- On any given day Hyperliquid processes about three‑quarters of all on‑chain trade volume.
- This dominance translates into a massive liquidity pool that attracts both retail and institutional traders.
- The sheer volume share gives Hyperliquid pricing power and a feedback loop that fuels further growth.
- Jeff notes that this figure is a snapshot; the platform’s share continues to rise as more users migrate from centralized venues.
Quote
00:02:52“Hyperlquid is dominating onchain per volume. on any given day they're roughly 75% of all volume in onchain.” — Jeff Pers
Quote
00:03:03“Hyperlquid is something like 5% total market share of volume and of open interest you're something like 14% of all open interest across all chains globally.” — Jeff Pers
The protocol grew without VC money, fueled by a $1B‑plus airdrop
- Hyperliquid was built entirely self‑funded, avoiding dilution and external pressure.
- An airdrop of over a billion dollars (present value) was distributed to early users, seeding liquidity and community ownership.
- Jeff emphasizes that the airdrop size is unprecedented in DeFi and helped cement the protocol’s network effects.
- The lack of VC backing also allows the team to stay humble and focus on product rather than fundraising.
Quote
00:03:49“of course you've done all of this with no VC backing so completely self-funded and with one of the largest airdrops in history over a billion dollars at present value.” — Jeff Pers
Quote
00:04:00“over a billion dollars that was distributed to early users of the protocol.” — Jeff Pers
Hyperliquid is rapidly gaining market share on major centralized exchanges
- Jeff reports that Hyperliquid now accounts for roughly 5‑10% of Binance’s volume or open interest, depending on the metric.
- The platform’s fee generation is on track for a roughly $1 billion annual run‑rate.
- These numbers show that even the most entrenched CEXs are losing ground to a permission‑less, on‑chain alternative.
- The growth curve is still upward, suggesting the gap could widen further as more traders discover the product.
Quote
00:03:22“you are currently something like 5 to 10% of Binance per depending on if you're looking at volume or open interest.” — Jeff Pers
Quote
00:03:32“you're now something like on the order of a billion dollars of annual run rate for the fees that are being generated by the protocol.” — Jeff Pers
Product-First Philosophy: No Marketing, Let the Code Talk
Hyperliquid deliberately eschews traditional crypto marketing, relying on a tiny core team, community contributions, and a product that markets itself through usage and word-of-mouth.
Hyperliquid operates with zero core marketing staff
- The core team of 11 includes developers, community members and marketers, but there is no dedicated marketing department.
- Jeff argues that the product’s performance and community adoption are the true promotional tools.
- This lean structure reduces overhead and keeps the focus on engineering excellence.
- It also aligns incentives: contributors earn reputation and token rewards rather than salaries tied to marketing campaigns.
Quote
00:02:27“we have zero marketing team on the core side.” — Jeff Pers
Quote
00:02:35“All these really smart people coming together, spending their valuable time working on adjacent and synergistic things that collectively become Hyperlid.” — Jeff Pers
The brand is defined by product usage, not memes or Twitter hype
- Jeff contrasts Hyperliquid with typical crypto projects that flood Twitter with memes.
- He states that Hyperliquid lets the product do the talking, creating a brand that is the “negative space” of the team.
- Users experience the platform directly, and their positive feedback becomes the marketing engine.
- This approach builds authentic trust and reduces the risk of hype‑driven volatility.
Quote
00:06:30“Most crypto projects, they're out on Twitter every day. They're making memes. They're doing this stuff. And you guys are you let your product do the talking.” — Jeff Pers
Quote
00:06:48“The brand of Hyperlid is the sort of negative space of the team is not the one telling you this. People are using the product and they're telling you this.” — Jeff Pers
Jeff attributes success to a humble, community‑driven ethos
- Jeff repeatedly downplays personal credit, emphasizing the broader ecosystem.
- He highlights that developers, marketers, and community members all contribute to the protocol’s evolution.
- This humility fosters a collaborative culture where contributors feel ownership.
- The narrative reinforces Hyperliquid’s image as a people‑first project rather than a founder‑centric venture.
Quote
00:02:43“I wouldn't take that much credit for all right. So, you're very humble.” — Jeff Pers
Quote
00:04:06“I think this is part of the reason why you're so beloved.” — Jeff Pers
Transparent Order Book and User-Level Discrimination
Hyperliquid's on-chain transparency lets anyone see positions, stop-losses and liquidation points, enabling price discrimination that rewards trustworthy traders and penalizes toxic high-frequency actors.
Full transparency reveals every trader’s positions and liquidation points
- The protocol publishes all open positions, stop‑losses and liquidation levels on‑chain.
- This data benefits market makers who can assess risk more accurately.
- High‑frequency takers lose the anonymity they enjoy on centralized exchanges, reducing predatory behavior.
- Transparency also builds trust among retail users who can verify that the market is not being gamed.
Quote
00:13:31“Hyperliquid is transparent and allows everybody to see everybody's positions, everybody's stop losses, everybody's liquidation points that is actually beneficial in some way to certain market participants.” — Jeff Pers
Quote
00:13:45“In particular, it hurts high frequency takers, people who are arbitraging orders very quickly and stuff like that. But it benefits market makers and kind of creates healthier liquidity for uninformed traders.” — Jeff Pers
The platform quotes tighter spreads for reputable, non‑toxic traders
- By tracking fee discounts, account longevity and on‑chain reputation, Hyperliquid can offer better pricing to trustworthy participants.
- Toxic actors (e.g., aggressive stop‑loss hunters) receive wider spreads, discouraging harmful strategies.
- This dynamic creates a self‑regulating market where good‑faith liquidity providers are rewarded.
- Jeff likens this to “price discrimination” that aligns incentives without central authority.
Quote
00:19:31“I can say this guy looks like James Win... I'm willing to quote you really tight spreads because I know that you have no idea what you're doing.” — Jeff Pers
Quote
00:19:44“But if you are this kind of high frequency toxic trader maker taker type person, I don't trust you... basically I don't know that I want to fulfill your quotes as often as others.” — Jeff Pers
Transparency creates a community‑owned liquidity pool
- Because all data is public, community members can build tools, analytics and bots that improve market depth.
- The open data encourages third‑party developers to create UI layers, further expanding participation.
- Jeff notes that this “negative space” branding makes the product itself the messenger, reinforcing community ownership.
- The result is a virtuous cycle: more data → better tools → more users → deeper liquidity.
Quote
00:06:48“The brand of Hyperlid is the sort of negative space of the team is not the one telling you this. People are using the product and they're telling you this.” — Jeff Pers
Quote
00:02:35“All these really smart people coming together, spending their valuable time working on adjacent and synergistic things that collectively become Hyperlid.” — Jeff Pers
Cancel-Priority Design: Cutting Toxic Flow
Hyperliquid deliberately prioritizes order cancellations over new taker orders, a design choice that reduces toxic high-frequency activity while preserving price discovery for genuine traders.
The protocol prioritizes cancels over taker orders to curb toxic flow
- Cancel requests are processed before new taker orders, preventing aggressive stop‑loss hunting.
- This reduces overall volume slightly but dramatically improves execution quality for honest participants.
- Jeff frames the change as a first‑principles decision: protect real users rather than chase raw volume.
- The approach demonstrates that a small protocol tweak can have outsized impact on market health.
Quote
00:12:04“protocol kind of like prioritizes cancels over ticker orders.” — Jeff Pers
Quote
00:12:22“if you're a little bit more like first principles about it and you think like who are the real users of this platform... then all of a sudden this change looks very good.” — Jeff Pers
Cancel priority improves execution for genuine users without hurting price discovery
- By removing toxic orders early, the order book becomes cleaner, allowing market makers to provide tighter quotes.
- Jeff notes that the net effect on volume is a modest decrease, but the quality of trades improves.
- The design does not impede price discovery because price accuracy at sub‑second intervals remains acceptable for most traders.
- This trade‑off reflects Hyperliquid’s focus on user experience over raw throughput.
Quote
00:12:24“If you care about volume above all else you wouldn't make this change because the net effect of this change is to decrease volume.” — Jeff Pers
Quote
00:12:48“but if you're a little if you're a little bit more like first principles about it... then all of a sudden this change looks very good even though no one's doing it.” — Jeff Pers
Design reflects a first‑principles focus on real users rather than metrics
- Jeff emphasizes that engineering decisions start with “who are the real users?”
- The cancel‑priority rule is a concrete example of building from user needs rather than chasing volume KPIs.
- This mindset permeates other product choices, reinforcing a user‑centric culture.
- It also signals to the community that the protocol will protect honest traders even at the cost of short‑term volume.
Quote
00:12:44“who are the real users of this platform... let's improve execution for them then all of a sudden this change looks very good.” — Jeff Pers
Quote
00:10:01“I always said this is for big projects... numbers are good for that.” — Jeff Pers
Community-Centric Design vs. Toxic Actors
Hyperliquid's architecture leans heavily on community participation, rewarding constructive behavior and actively filtering out predatory high-frequency traders.
Hyperliquid is more community‑reliant than many top‑down DeFi protocols
- Jeff contrasts Hyperliquid with centralized exchanges, describing it as “more reliant on the community”.
- The protocol’s governance, liquidity provision and product feedback loops are driven by active users rather than a central authority.
- This decentralised ownership aligns incentives for long‑term health.
- Community members also receive fee discounts and reputation benefits, reinforcing participation.
Quote
00:05:35“the protocol is more reliant on the community than maybe some other protocols where it's more like top down, right? Like a centralized exchange is another good counter example.” — Jeff Pers
Quote
00:05:15“I think Hyperlid is viewed favorably because it's something new... represents what we think DeFi can be and I think everyone can rally behind that.” — Jeff Pers
Toxic high‑frequency traders are filtered out through cancel‑priority and reputation mechanisms
- Jeff identifies “toxic users” as those who hunt stop‑losses or flood the market with aggressive taker orders.
- The cancel‑priority rule directly targets this behavior, reducing their impact.
- Reputation scores, fee discounts and persistent accounts allow the protocol to quote tighter spreads to trustworthy participants while widening spreads for toxic actors.
- This creates a healthier market for uninformed traders.
Quote
00:18:00“there are toxic users... we prioritize cancels to cut toxic flow.” — Jeff Pers
Quote
00:18:04“The only users who care about this are the toxic users.” — Jeff Pers
The ultimate goal is to improve liquidity for uninformed traders, not to profit from predatory strategies
- Jeff stresses that market makers should provide liquidity that benefits retail and less‑informed participants.
- By discouraging toxic strategies, the protocol reduces adverse selection and narrows spreads.
- This aligns with Hyperliquid’s broader mission to make on‑chain trading a reliable, low‑friction experience for the majority.
- The community‑centric approach ensures that the platform’s success is measured by user satisfaction rather than short‑term extraction.
Quote
00:13:49“it benefits market makers and kind of creates healthier liquidity for uninformed traders.” — Jeff Pers
Quote
00:16:30“We want to improve the market, not extract money from it.” — Jeff Pers
Metrics, KPIs and What Really Matters
Jeff argues that traditional financial metrics like token price are noisy; instead, Hyperliquid focuses on on-chain volume share, open-interest ratios and usage-centric indicators to guide product decisions.
Volume share of total on‑chain activity is a core health metric
- Jeff tracks Hyperliquid’s volume as a percentage of total on‑chain volume, which currently sits around 75%.
- This metric directly reflects user adoption and liquidity depth.
- It is more actionable than token price because it ties to actual trading activity.
- The team uses shifts in this share to prioritize feature development and capacity upgrades.
Quote
00:10:01“I always said this is for big projects, big companies, mature organizations that wanted incremental steps with high confidence. Numbers are good for that.” — Jeff Pers
Quote
00:11:44“volume as a percentage of total volume is a good one.” — Jeff Pers
Token price is a lossy north‑star; focus should be on usage metrics
- Jeff calls token price a “lossy metric” that can incentivize short‑term manipulation.
- He prefers metrics that capture real user behavior, such as order‑book depth, cancel‑rate and fee revenue.
- By decoupling success from price, the protocol avoids perverse incentives that could harm long‑term health.
- This philosophy informs product road‑mapping, ensuring features improve actual trading experience.
Quote
00:10:56“Token price is probably too lossy and not accurate of a metric to be your north star.” — Tom
Quote
00:12:24“If you care about volume above all else you wouldn't make this change because the net effect of this change is to decrease volume.” — Jeff Pers
KPIs should inform product roadmaps, not become the sole objective
- Jeff emphasizes that metrics are useful for guiding decisions but should not be the only objective function.
- He warns against “staring at numbers all day”, which can lead to sub‑optimal product choices.
- Instead, the team treats KPIs as signals that feed into broader strategic discussions.
- This balanced approach keeps the focus on user value while still tracking performance.
Quote
00:10:01“I always said this is for big projects... numbers are good for that.” — Jeff Pers
Quote
00:10:35“Token price is a lossy metric... you start doing things that aren't actually good long term.” — Tom
HIP 3: Opening the Perpetual Marketplace
HIP 3 is Hyperliquid's next-gen upgrade that lets anyone launch a custom perpetual market, stake HYPE tokens and plug in an oracle, dramatically expanding the protocol's product universe.
HIP 3 enables external parties to create bespoke perpetual markets
- Developers can stake HYPE, provide an oracle and launch a new perpetual contract without needing Hyperliquid to list it on the UI.
- The new market can be any asset with a reliable price feed, from crypto pairs to real‑world indices.
- This democratizes product creation, turning Hyperliquid into a platform rather than a single exchange.
- By abstracting the oracle layer, HIP 3 lowers technical barriers for innovators.
Quote
00:31:33“HIP 3 allows external parties to create their own purpose markets. They have to stake some hype, provide an oracle and this per market is not necessarily going to be listed on the front end.” — Jeff Pers
Quote
00:32:03“The oracle part is also abstracted away. It's very general purpose.” — Jeff Pers
HIP 3 abstracts away oracle complexity, making it a plug‑and‑play component
- While the market creator must supply an oracle, the protocol handles integration, validation and security checks.
- This design mirrors Hyperliquid’s earlier permissionless spot‑trading launch, extending the same simplicity to derivatives.
- Builders can focus on economic design rather than low‑level oracle engineering.
- The result is a rapid expansion of tradable assets, increasing overall platform utility.
Quote
00:32:03“The oracle part is also abstracted away. It's very general purpose.” — Jeff Pers
Quote
00:32:15“You could even make a contract that doesn't have funding and it's more like a pre‑launch style futures contract.” — Jeff Pers
HIP 3 turns Hyperliquid into a multi‑asset ecosystem, inviting builders to create value‑added interfaces
- By allowing custom markets, third‑party developers can build UI layers, analytics dashboards and niche products on top of Hyperliquid’s core engine.
- Jeff notes that the core team does not have capacity to build every UI, encouraging a vibrant builder community.
- This modularity aligns incentives: builders earn fees proportional to the volume their markets generate.
- The ecosystem effect multiplies liquidity and user adoption across a broader set of assets.
Quote
00:41:32“We don't have capacity and are not the best people to build slick UI for whatever user group needs to use it.” — Jeff Pers
Quote
00:41:48“There's a lot of incentive for people to come and build these kinds of interfaces on Hyperode especially as the universe of tradable things expands.” — Jeff Pers
DeFi vs. Centralized Exchanges: Competition and Complementarity
Jeff acknowledges the strengths of centralized exchanges (metric optimization, AB testing) but stresses Hyperliquid's distinct mission as an open, permissionless platform that serves a different set of users.
Jeff rarely envies centralized exchanges but respects their optimization capabilities
- He admits CEXes can do precise AB testing and metric‑driven product iteration.
- However, he does not view them as the end goal for Hyperliquid; the protocol aims to be a platform for all finance.
- This perspective keeps Hyperliquid focused on decentralization rather than chasing CEX‑style efficiencies.
- Jeff’s humility reinforces the narrative that Hyperliquid is building something fundamentally different, not a copy of Binance.
Quote
00:07:44“I very rarely envy them. I think we have a misconception that Hyperliquid is a centralized exchange kind of like that is the end goal.” — Jeff Pers
Quote
00:08:41“I wouldn't trade it by a long shot. I think like for us it's what brings us excitement and what gets us out of bed is building something that doesn't exist.” — Jeff Pers
Hyperliquid sees CEXes as competitors but not the ultimate benchmark
- Jeff tracks CEX volume vaguely, acknowledging they still dominate overall market share.
- He believes Hyperliquid can eventually surpass them in specific metrics (e.g., fee revenue, user‑centric liquidity).
- The protocol’s open‑source order‑book and transparent data give it a strategic edge that CEXes lack.
- This competitive stance fuels continuous innovation without sacrificing core values.
Quote
00:09:20“we track them vaguely are aware of them, but ultimately I see a world in which centralized exchanges always have more volume than Hyperliquid and that doesn't mean Hyperliquid has failed.” — Jeff Pers
Quote
00:09:28“There will be orders of magnitude more than centralized exchanges. That doesn't mean the centralized exchanges have failed either.” — Jeff Pers
CEXes excel at metric‑driven optimization; Hyperliquid prioritizes user‑centric outcomes
- Centralized platforms can fine‑tune latency, fee structures and UI through rapid A/B tests.
- Hyperliquid instead focuses on protecting real users, reducing toxic flow and providing transparent pricing.
- This philosophical difference leads to divergent product roadmaps: Hyperliquid invests in protocol‑level safeguards, while CEXes invest in UI polish.
- Jeff believes both models can coexist, serving different trader archetypes.
Quote
00:08:28“you can kind of go for more metrics optimization sort of AB test stuff like know exactly what you care about.” — Jeff Pers
Quote
00:06:23“we think the way we operate is kind of typified in many ways part of Hyperlid's brand is that they don't do the things most crypto protocols do.” — Jeff Pers
Hype Vehicles, SPAC-style Tokens and Market Dynamics
The panel discusses on-chain "hype" vehicles that trade at premium to NAV, their similarity to GBTC, and the risks they pose for market stability.
Hype vehicles provide on‑chain exposure but often trade at a premium to NAV
- Jeff notes that these vehicles are harder to buy for some users because they require on‑chain custody.
- When they become popular, they can trade at a large premium, similar to the GBTC discount/premium dynamics.
- This creates arbitrage opportunities but also adds a layer of price distortion.
- The phenomenon mirrors traditional finance products where market sentiment drives price away from underlying value.
Quote
00:52:01“hype vehicles add some value, it's a bit harder to buy hype for some people right now. It's onchain.” — Jeff Pers
Quote
00:52:20“If the vehicle gets big it's going to trade at a huge premium to NAV, kind of like GBTC style trade.” — Jeff Pers
Premiums can be arbitraged but require mechanisms that many hype vehicles lack
- Jeff explains that without a built‑in arbitrage mechanism, premiums can persist and eventually collapse.
- He compares the situation to GBTC, where a large premium persisted until market forces corrected it.
- The lack of a redemption mechanism means investors can be stuck with over‑priced tokens.
- This risk underscores the need for transparent, liquid secondary markets for such vehicles.
Quote
00:52:20“If the vehicle gets big it's going to trade at a huge premium to NAV, kind of like GBTC style trade.” — Jeff Pers
Quote
00:53:05“There will be a huge premium to NAV, and if there's no mechanism to arbitrage it, the price can stay inflated for a while.” — Jeff Pers
Crypto capital flows differ from public‑market flows, creating distinct liquidity dynamics
- Jeff observes that while stock markets are experiencing frothy rallies, crypto markets remain relatively flat.
- This separation leads to divergent investor behavior: retail capital chases public‑market equities, while crypto traders stay within on‑chain products.
- The divergence can cause mispricing between on‑chain assets and their fiat‑market equivalents.
- Understanding these dynamics is crucial for builders launching new products on Hyperliquid.
Quote
01:03:45“the stock market is frothier and more retail driven than the crypto markets. That's the moment.” — Jeff Pers
Quote
01:03:13“Crypto markets just like another day, you know? It's like things are all slightly down today.” — Jeff Pers
Stablecoin Legislation and Institutional Acceptance
The passage of the Genius Act signals a more favorable regulatory environment for stablecoins; Jeff weighs its implications for Hyperliquid's future stablecoin offerings.
The Genius Act passed the Senate 68‑30, creating a stablecoin‑friendly framework
- The bipartisan vote indicates growing political support for regulated stablecoins.
- The bill aims to provide clarity on custody, reserves and consumer protection.
- Jeff sees this as a positive step toward mainstream acceptance of crypto‑backed assets.
- However, the exact language and implementation details remain to be seen.
Quote
01:00:27“Genius Act passed Senate by a bipartisan margin of 68 to 30.” — Jeff Pers
Quote
01:01:00“I think institutional acceptance of crypto, even if incremental, is always good.” — Jeff Pers
Stablecoin distribution remains a challenge despite low issuance cost
- Jeff notes that even if minting a stablecoin is cheap, gaining market share against incumbents like Circle is difficult.
- Distribution channels, network effects and trust are critical for adoption.
- Hyperliquid could serve as a platform for stablecoins, but it would need a compelling distribution strategy.
- The legislation may lower barriers, but the competitive landscape stays tough.
Quote
01:01:42“Even if it's low cost to spin one up, it doesn't mean you get a bunch of competitors to Circle.” — Jeff Pers
Quote
01:01:40“I think the fundamental problem of stablecoins is still distribution.” — Jeff Pers
Jeff remains cautiously optimistic about Hyperliquid minting stablecoins in the future
- While no stablecoin is currently planned, Jeff believes Hyperliquid’s robust on‑chain infrastructure makes it a natural candidate.
- The platform’s fee‑generation model could subsidize stablecoin operations.
- He emphasizes that any stablecoin launch would need to align with the protocol’s user‑centric ethos and transparent design.
- The upcoming legislation may provide the regulatory runway needed to move forward.
Quote
01:01:27“Hyperliquid is a great ledger to mint stable coins for people who genuinely need tokenized dollars.” — Jeff Pers
Quote
01:01:00“I think institutional acceptance of crypto, even if incremental, is always good.” — Jeff Pers
⚙ Agent-readable JSON index — click to expand
{ "memcast_version": "0.1", "episode": { "id": "xQK9TFbGyN0", "title": "How Hyperliquid Quietly Killed Every DeFi Competitor – The Chopping Block", "podcast": "Unchained", "guest": "Jeff Pers", "host": "Tom", "source_url": "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQK9TFbGyN0", "duration_minutes": 68 }, "concepts": [ { "id": "hyperliquid-s-market-dominance-and-explosive-growth", "title": "Hyperliquid's Market Dominance and Explosive Growth", "tags": [ "market-share", "fee-revenue", "onchain-volume" ] }, { "id": "product-first-philosophy-no-marketing-let-the-code-talk", "title": "Product-First Philosophy: No Marketing, Let the Code Talk", "tags": [ "marketing‑strategy", "lean-teams", "product‑first" ] }, { "id": "transparent-order-book-and-user-level-discrimination", "title": "Transparent Order Book and User-Level Discrimination", "tags": [ "liquidity" ] }, { "id": "cancel-priority-design-cutting-toxic-flow", "title": "Cancel-Priority Design: Cutting Toxic Flow", "tags": [ "toxic-flow", "execution" ] }, { "id": "community-centric-design-vs-toxic-actors", "title": "Community-Centric Design vs. Toxic Actors", "tags": [ "asset‑allocation", "community-collaboration" ] }, { "id": "metrics-kpis-and-what-really-matters", "title": "Metrics, KPIs and What Really Matters", "tags": [ "growth-metrics", "KPIs", "product‑roadmap" ] }, { "id": "hip-3-opening-the-perpetual-marketplace", "title": "HIP 3: Opening the Perpetual Marketplace", "tags": [ "custom‑assets", "hip‑3", "perpetual-contracts" ] }, { "id": "defi-vs-centralized-exchanges-competition-and-complementarity", "title": "DeFi vs. Centralized Exchanges: Competition and Complementarity", "tags": [ "centralized-exchange", "cex‑competition", "product‑roadmap" ] }, { "id": "hype-vehicles-spac-style-tokens-and-market-dynamics", "title": "Hype Vehicles, SPAC-style Tokens and Market Dynamics", "tags": [ "market-share", "ai-hype" ] }, { "id": "stablecoin-legislation-and-institutional-acceptance", "title": "Stablecoin Legislation and Institutional Acceptance", "tags": [ "ai-adoption", "stablecoin" ] } ] }