Original Source: Mable, Co-founder of Trends.fun

Original Translation: Ismay, kkk, BlockBeats

Editor's Note: In this exclusive interview, Mable, co-founder of the social protocol Trends, and Leonard, CEO of the trending Perp DEX Aster, discussed a wide range of topics from personal experiences to project strategies. Leonard's journey from a traditional investment bank tech role to a blockchain entrepreneur represents a crossroads between finance and Web3. In this interview, he elaborated on how Aster, starting from perpetual contracts, gradually evolved into a multi-chain integrated trading platform; how they experimented with on-chain dark pool design to balance privacy and transparency; and how they sought efficiency and fairness in token distribution, reward programs, and buyback strategies.

During the interview, he candidly reflected on the XPL incident's lessons and shared insights into Aster Chain, liquidity provider plans, and future on-chain governance. The entire interview not only presented Aster's product philosophy and strategic layout but also reflected the wisdom of balancing compliance, privacy, and market demand in Web3 entrepreneurship, providing readers with a precious perspective to understand the development of the next generation of decentralized exchange platforms.

Below is the full interview:

Mable: Let's start with your background. How did you enter the crypto industry? And how did you end up where you are today?

Leonard: The story is quite long. I initially started in the banking technology field. I was working in Hong Kong at an investment bank in a tech role, which no longer exists. I began with technology infrastructure, mainly responsible for building high-frequency trading systems. I later moved to be a stock market risk engine programmer and spent around five years there. After that, I entered the startup world and created a B2B fintech lending platform for the Asian region. However, my first startup failed.

Mable: Around which year was this?

Leonard: Around 2015-2016. At that time, the concept of "Internet+" was particularly popular in China, where you could turn anything into a startup project by adding "Internet" behind it. Everyone wanted to disrupt the financial industry. But later, regulatory pressures increased significantly, and some scams tarnished the entire industry, leading to its decline.

But during that process, we were constantly thinking if there was a better way to do this. It was around that time that I came across blockchain—probably around 2016, when Bitcoin was already established, and Ethereum had just appeared. I was initially attracted by ICOs, invested in a few projects, made some money on the first one, thought I was a genius, but then lost everything on the next few projects. However, it was through this experience that I truly became interested in the technology.

At the time, we were thinking, what if we could put all loan information on the blockchain? There was still a debate between "permissioned blockchains" and "permissionless blockchains." I remember IBM launching a project called Hyperledger, and I started learning about that, trying to build a loan platform based on it.

Of course, looking back now, we chose the wrong direction; we should have chosen Ethereum. Later on, I also tried collaborating with a gaming company to integrate NFTs and tokens into games, but it was too early at that time, no one understood it, and it never materialized.

For about a year after that, I tried many directions and eventually joined the DeFi project Injective Finance in 2019. There, I encountered many products and ideas. Later, dYdX emerged, and we also began conceptualizing the possibility of building our own on-chain trading platform, which led to the birth of the first iteration of Aster, which eventually evolved into what Aster is today.

The crypto projects have always been iterating within cycles: from dYdX, to GMX, to Hyperliquid. We went through all these stages, continuously adjusting, trying, until we created something that the market truly needed.

Mable: How would you define Aster now? And how do you envision its development one to three years from now?

Leonard: One year is already a long time. If you had asked me this question two weeks ago, I might have given you a completely different answer. After all, in the crypto space, a year is too long. From an outsider's perspective, Aster is a multi-chain trading platform, a multi-chain DEX. But in my view, we are no longer just a traditional perp DEX.

In everyone's mind, Aster is a project within the Binance ecosystem because originally, we started on the BNB Chain and received help from CZ. However, we are now more than just the BNB Chain; we also support Arbitrum, OP, Linea, Solana, and will onboard more chains in the future.

We did indeed start out with perp, but in the past two weeks, it is our spot trading product that has attracted a large number of new users because everyone wants to buy the Aster token, which can only be traded through an on-chain order book.

At the same time, we are also one of the largest yield asset providers on the BNB Chain, with products such as USDS and aUSDT, allowing users to earn yield while trading.

So now, we have evolved from a simple perp project into a comprehensive multi-chain trading platform, aiming to enhance user capital efficiency—you can deposit money to earn yield, while using these assets as collateral to participate in more strategies.

In the future, we hope to support more chains and more assets, reconstructing all mainstream products and experiences from CEXs on-chain, thereby creating a complete, composable DEX product matrix.

Many people will compare us to other projects, such as dYdX or GMX. But our true competitor is not other DEXs, but CEXs themselves. What we hope to achieve is the on-chain version of Binance. Ultimately, we hope that one day we can surpass Binance—our largest investor.

Within a year, we hope to replicate 80% of the product experience on CEXs, but in a fully on-chain manner. In five years, I hope the entire DEX industry can surpass CEXs, and we will be its leader.

Mable: There has always been a narrative in the market that Binance is very supportive of Aster, even using it as a "weapon" against Hyperliquid. So if you were to describe Aster in one sentence, what is its core value proposition compared to CEXs or other DEXs?

Leonard: I think the most core point is that our entire infrastructure is built entirely on-chain, giving us a fundamental advantage in "self-custody" and "transparency." This is our biggest difference from CEXs.

Additionally, as a DEX, we have greater flexibility in our governance model. CEXs have extremely low efficiency when it comes to listing or adjusting products because their processes are too centralized, approvals are slow, and there are many risk control processes. On-chain governance, on the other hand, can continuously evolve along with community and market demands.

You can now see projects like pump.fun, which may have taken a few years to try out new models, but these ideas originally came from the community. Ultimately, what can survive must be the product design that best matches the market.

This is the beauty of decentralization.

And we have been building our product in this direction from day one, so I believe an on-chain trading platform can more quickly find its market fit.

Of course, from a startup perspective, we are also more flexible and responsive. CEXs have more resources, but DEXs are closer to the community and more agile. For example, when it comes to listing new tokens or products, we are faster.

Mable: So are you suggesting that future new markets or new token listings will be decided through governance voting?

Leonard: This is one of the directions we are seriously considering.

But it is also important to balance that in the early stages of the project, for the sake of execution efficiency, we have indeed retained a certain degree of centralized control. This is to ensure that decisions are implemented in a timely manner, maximizing the benefits for the project and the community.

However, we are also "pragmatists." We know that in the future, we will gradually transition towards decentralization through governance—as the entire system matures and we find a clear business model, we will gradually release control and involve the community in governance.

Mable: I completely agree, gradual decentralization is a process. And indeed, a bit more centralization in the early stages is more efficient—many projects now, where a single address holds over 50% of the voting power, governance is merely symbolic.

Leonard: Yes, so governance is something we have to take step by step as well.

Mable: We will discuss your "dark pool design" later, but I want to ask a personal question first—aside from Aster, which DEX is your personal favorite?

Leonard: That's too easy, of course, it's Hyperliquid.

In fact, I have tried almost all the products. You could say that these projects have indeed ushered in a new era of Orderbook-based perpetual DEXs. But the true OG is actually projects like GMX; they laid the foundation for the later LP model and market-making frameworks.

However, I also think there are some interesting projects that are not yet widely known, such as Surf Protocol. I have tried it myself; they also have products with a thousand times leverage, like us, but they adopt a completely different profit-sharing model—users only need to pay fees when they are making money, which is quite interesting.

And then there's JoJo on Base, I really like their UI. It's the kind of UI that gives you a "Wow, cool" feeling at first sight.

I feel like the whole perp product is becoming more and more homogenized. Everyone is chasing new features, and as soon as you release a user-attracting feature, someone else can immediately copy it. After all, Web3 is an open world, and many things have low barriers to replication. So, the core of competition becomes "What area are you truly specialized in?" Some teams excel at high leverage, while others focus on an oracle-driven LP model. In the end, everyone has their own expertise, and it's really hard to say who is better.

Aster's Dark Pool Design

Mable: So let's talk about your Dark Pool design. The hidden orders on Aster cannot be seen in terms of direction and quantity. So, here's the question: Can users verify after the fact whether the matching of these orders is fair? Have you provided some form of public record?

Leonard: We do have the capability to do post-trade verification at the moment, such as inviting a third party for an independent audit. Our matching engine is snapshot-able, and all trades can be replayed for verification. However, there is currently no "public verification" method.

But this itself is a bit of a paradox—if you can speculate on the trade content after the fact, then this hidden mechanism becomes meaningless. So, at the moment, we indeed do not have any open verification method for anyone.

Of course, if someone has a good solution, we are very open to collaboration. We are continuously improving this part of the product design. If anyone is working on chain or feature related to private transactions, feel free to contact us for collaboration. We have some ideas, but they are not fully developed yet.

Mable: So, you implemented the Dark Pool design on the first day of launch, indicating a strong conviction in this direction, right?

Leonard: Actually, we have been thinking about this issue from the very beginning. In the TradFi world, the volume of Dark Pools and OTC far exceeds that of the public trading market.

Many people have talked to us about this. If we were to move this system to the chain, would there be a similar demand? This is actually a quite conflicting concept—the blockchain is all about transparency, but financial transactions inherently have "privacy preferences."

Later, there happened to be a public discussion between CZ and James Wynn, where James mentioned being "liquidation hunted" on Hyperliquid because transactions were public. CZ replied that on-chain transactions should remain transparent. This debate inspired us.

We thought at the time that perhaps this was an opportunity. Everyone was aware of this, so we decided to take the opportunity to try it out. So we basically worked on research and development overnight and launched this feature in about a week and a half. CZ is also our advisor, and Yzi Labs is also an investor, so we thought this was a good entry point, and we just went for it.

After the launch, we did see some users trying it out, but honestly, the demand was not as great as we expected. Later on, we realized that if someone really cares about transaction privacy, they might still find it more convenient to use a centralized exchange (CEX).

However, we did not give up. We will continue to explore and test whether there is a more suitable model for on-chain privacy transactions and over-the-counter (OTC) transactions. Our goal is to "validate without leaking market signals." We are still in the experimental stage, but at the moment, retail investors' preference for privacy is not that strong.

Mable: This is actually similar to TradFi's dark pools, mainly serving not ordinary transactions but institutions. In other words, if you want this product to succeed, do you have to wait for more institutions to enter?

Leonard: That's right. The problem is that once institutions are involved, it will involve a whole regulatory and compliance framework. And in our current anonymous, non-KYC state, it is actually a threshold that most institutions cannot cross.

We have also talked to some institutions, and they have all expressed interest but are stuck at this point. So I think if you want to do a new Web3 project now, you really should consider the "permissioned mechanism" direction.

Although we are not working on this at the moment, I do think that in some scenarios, adding a little bit of "permission control" layer could potentially be the answer to resolving the privacy and compliance conflict.

I guess the next high-frequency trading (HFT) Prop Trading firms might start experimenting in the next 1 to 2 years.

Mable: Now, going back to the distribution of Aster's Token, we can see on-chain that 96% of the supply is concentrated in a few addresses. Can you explain the structure of these wallets?

Leonard: I have also seen discussions online about this, but that's not entirely accurate. We do not control all of these Token addresses.

We do control a portion ourselves, but about 80% of the Tokens are in a locked state, which can be verified on-chain, and the distribution is also very clear: 50% is for airdrop, with 8% being for the initial airdrop, and about 40% is directly sent to on-chain wallets, and all of this is verifiable.

Those largest wallet addresses are actually asset contract addresses used for users to conduct spot trading, so naturally, there will be a large amount of tokens held there.

After we enabled withdrawals, some large holders withdrew their tokens. We don't know who they are, but they chose not to sell directly within the trading contract but rather withdrew to their own addresses, indicating they may be long-term holders.

I understand the skepticism around the "96% concentration" figure, but in reality, at least 80% of the supply is transparently locked up on-chain.

Currently, only about 10% is circulating, including the share from users who converted from APX. About 10% is from the 1:1 conversion for old users; the initial airdrop accounts for around 8%; and there will be further linear releases, including the marketing budget, all of which are documented and can be verified on-chain.

The reason why the contract address seems to hold all the tokens is that most trading activities occur within that contract, but in reality, many tokens belong to users.

Mable: Is Yzi Labs your only current private investor?

Leonard: Yes, but they are only minority shareholders with a low ownership percentage. However, they have provided us with a lot of support.

Mable: Does their portion of tokens have a lock-up? The community is particularly concerned about this.

Leonard: We cannot disclose specific protocol details, but we can say that they have no intention to cash out. They are not in need of money, nor are they in a rush to sell.

From the TGE to now, our performance in the BNB ecosystem has already proven the project's value. So, even without a mandatory lock-up, they have no incentive to dump.

The tokens they can receive come from only a small part of the 5% team allocation, which is also fully transparent and verifiable on-chain. Because they invested in equity, not the tokens themselves.

Moreover, this percentage is much lower than their actual investment. You can think of it as a very small incentive share. But precisely because of the significant increase in the token's value since listing, even this small part of the 5% now appears to be a "not insignificant amount."

However, in terms of the Token ratio, I don't think we need to worry too much. And from a motivation standpoint, they have almost no reason to sell coins now. It's just that we have a confidentiality obligation regarding the specific protocol and can't reveal too much.

What is the logic behind the second phase's points plan?

Mable: Since we are on the topic of Tokens, let's also discuss your Genesis second phase points plan. I remember you are currently running the points system, just entering the second cycle. Could you please briefly explain the design logic?

Leonard: Of course. This round of the points plan actually started two weeks before TGE and will last a total of four weeks.

We have just finished the third week, with one week left. In this round, we will distribute 4% of the total supply, aiming to distribute it as fairly and evenly as possible to everyone.

We especially want to reward those users who truly engage in trading activities. After all, this type of activity will definitely attract some users who are only here to boost their points, so we have been continuously optimizing the rules to ensure that real traders, loyal users, and long-term holders can receive rewards.

Of course, we cannot list out all the criteria, as there will always be someone who finds a loophole. But for example, users who have held for a long time are usually genuine traders. We also look at some other behavioral data to filter out obviously fake accounts engaged in boosting activities and try to ensure that the rewards are distributed to real users.

In terms of results, this round of activity has been quite successful in terms of trading volume. After we announced the end time of the points activity and the total allocation, the platform's trading volume took off immediately, even surpassing other projects, briefly becoming the top-ranked project in terms of trading volume within the perp DEX.

For three or four consecutive days, we have been ranked first in terms of daily trading volume.

Mable: So, in the third season, do you hope that everyone will also try something different, or does it not matter?

Leonard: Of course, we also hope that everyone will migrate their spot trading activities to our platform and then tell us what features they really want. Because now many people are testing, we have received a lot of feedback. Although sometimes it may sound a bit harsh, we still take it very seriously.

Because now we are very clear about what we want to do. So in the new season, we hope everyone will experience our spot products and tell us which assets they would like to see listed, as well as what features they would like to see added.

Mable: However, the spot liquidity trading pairs probably won't have as many other assets to trade as on Aster, right?

Leonard: Yes, currently we only have some mainstream ones, such as BTC, ETH. We hope to collaborate with more issuance platforms to provide liquidity for early-stage projects, which is a direction we have tried and will continue to try, such as the asset generation process and the liquidity of early-stage assets.

Because as we mentioned, one of the core aspects of the entire Adventure Index is how to onboard new assets faster. If we can quickly provide liquidity for these assets as well, then the whole process will be very efficient, which is what the market truly needs. So we will continue to advance this on different projects.

Mable: So about the rewards for the second season, will the actual distribution be delayed until the end of the third season and distributed together? Or is there another arrangement?

Leonard: Our idea is this: after the second season, how many points and allocation you will receive will be clearly and transparently displayed to everyone. As for the specific distribution method, we are still in the design phase, considering what is most appropriate.

For example, we cannot only consider new participants but also need to take into account existing token holders. Everyone will be concerned that if 4% of the reward is immediately dumped into the market, will it cause significant selling pressure. So there will definitely be some adjustment space for the project team in terms of the release schedule. But the amount you can receive will be immediately made transparent to everyone after the end of the second season.

Mable: So will there be an unlocking schedule or a similar arrangement?

Leonard: We are indeed studying the possibility of doing this, will design a plan based on the situation, and will announce it soon - after all, there is only one week left, so everyone will know soon.

This is also a key point we are considering, how to find a balance between the interests of existing holders and the incentives of new users. So I think within the next two to three days, we will make a final decision and release an announcement.

Mable: I saw some discussions in the community, but no one gave a clear answer, so I think it's better to ask you directly during the live broadcast. So before entering the third season, you currently have not implemented any incentive measures for spot trading, right? So, as it stands now, what is the trading volume distribution like for perpetuals, spot, and some of the high-risk products you just mentioned?

Leonard: Perpetual contracts still account for the vast majority, as the current market's trading demand is mainly concentrated in this area.

Over 90% of the trading volume is in perpetual contracts, with over 80% of that concentrated in BTC perpetual contracts. So, in terms of trading volume distribution, that's roughly how it looks.

Mable: Interestingly, BNB is actually not included in this, which I originally thought BNB would at least have a similar share to Ethereum in perpetual trading.

Leonard: I think this is because for those who truly want to trade BNB, Binance's own product is already very mature. In other markets, the demand for BNB is not that high, so relatively speaking, the trading volume is not high.

Mable: I think I've asked enough about tokens. Let's talk about the XPL incident. I know there may be some details you may not be able to disclose, but within the scope you can share, can you take everyone back to the situation at that time? For example, the XPL perpetual index pricing configuration error that caused the price to briefly spike to $4, resulting in losses for some users. Can you talk to everyone about the post-incident review process?

Leonard: Regarding this experience, actually, later on, some very smart people on Twitter also summarized the key issues. I believe the biggest mistake we made was that at that time, it was stuck in "pre-market mode."

If it were a regular perpetual contract, it would automatically follow the correct index price, and there would be no price spikes or deviations from the market price. However, the pre-market perpetual itself carries such risks—because its pricing can only rely on the internal order book, not on publicly available market prices. In other words, during the pre-market stage, there is originally no external price source, and the price can only be derived from our internal order book. When we adjusted the configuration, we mistakenly derived an incorrect price from the internal order book.

We quickly discovered this error and immediately switched it back to regular perpetual mode, thus restoring normalcy. It was our mistake, and we quickly made a decision—full compensation for the affected users, with us bearing the losses ourselves. Because at that time, there was no better solution to the problem. It also reminded us once again: pre-market products themselves carry higher risks.

In the future, we will take some improvement measures. Firstly, even for pre-market perpetuals, we can obtain oracle prices from external pre-market markets, such as referencing pre-market data from platforms like Binance, rather than relying solely on the internal order book. If there had been such a mechanism at the time, this incident could have been completely avoided.

Of course, as long as it is the pre-market, risks are unavoidable. If there is a lack of external price signals and insufficient liquidity, similar price divergences are always possible. Therefore, we need to find a balance in two aspects: evaluating whether we have enough capability to manage this risk and assessing the market demand for the product. If there is indeed a market need, risk management measures must be enhanced to ensure system robustness and prevent the same mistakes from happening again.

Mable: Regarding the oracle issue, I actually have a related question. I remember you are planning to launch a product for tokenizing stocks. So, where will the price oracle or data source for such assets come from? Are you planning to offer 24/7 trading?

Leonard: The oracle we are currently using is from sources like Pyth. At the moment, due to limitations of the oracle itself, we cannot achieve 24/7 availability. For example, when there is no data, we cannot continuously provide prices. We can use a method similar to "pre-market," where in the absence of oracle pricing, we can derive prices from the internal order book.

However, the issue with this approach is that we can only confine trades within a price range. Yet, this actually defeats the purpose—if fluctuations are limited to ±2%, people usually lack interest in trading; but once real fluctuations occur, trade demand peaks, and due to strict risk control, normal trading is not possible, posing a high risk to users.

So, currently, we cannot provide stock tokenization trading services after the market closes. Unless we can find a better oracle that can cover a longer time span. For example, we are currently researching some index-based products that have futures trading in multiple markets, allowing the oracle to provide price data close to 23 hours a day. For assets like the Nasdaq index, continuous market quotes can be obtained through the futures market. If it is such an asset, we may be able to open trading for close to 24 hours. But for individual stocks, we are still limited by the fact that oracles cannot provide prices round the clock.

Will Aster Conduct Buybacks?

Mable: I remember someone mentioned in another interview that you might have a buyback plan, so how often would such measures usually be carried out?

Leonard: I think we currently do not want to commit to a fixed schedule. We prefer to let the project or operations team have more autonomy in the use of income. That said, we will indeed conduct buybacks and allocate a certain percentage of income to it. However, the specific amounts and frequencies will be announced later. But one thing is certain, we will not design it as a fixed and entirely predictable mechanism. Compared to some other projects, we will retain more flexibility to optimize allocations based on income conditions.

Mable: Yes, actually, on this issue, different founders have very different views. For example, the founders of Pengu believe that buyback is not the best use of funds, but rather it was done just because of external expectations and pressure, so it was more of an industry practice. On the other hand, for example, the Pyth people believe that all revenue should be 100% reinvested back into the token; this is their firm stance. I know your current response does not represent Aster's final decision, but on a conceptual level, how do you view this execution logic?

Leonard: Personally, I am a more pragmatic person, and I believe that the best answer often lies between the two extremes. Extreme solutions are difficult to apply in all situations. Sometimes, using 100% of revenue for buybacks may be the optimal solution, but in other cases, setting aside a larger proportion for project development may be more beneficial.

So the key is to maintain flexibility. As we conduct one or two buybacks, the community will gradually build trust, believing that we are using the funds in good faith and responsibly. Ultimately, as the project matures, we can also make the mechanism more automated and standardized. I have a traditional financial background and have read a lot of related material, so I tend to be more rational and cautious in this respect.

When I was younger, I read a lot of investment books, so I can understand why some people say that buyback may not always be the best choice. Because it is essentially a bit like dividends; when an institution chooses to pay dividends, it usually means there is no better way to use that money. For projects like ours, we do have many opportunities to use the funds in more valuable ways, such as investing in the team, investing in partnerships, thereby driving further project growth.

Another very important factor is that the token price will directly affect the efficiency of buyback. If only an automated algorithm is used to execute the buyback, and the price is at a high level, the effect may be counterproductive. Sometimes it may work, but it often distorts market expectations and drives the price up.

So I think two points are crucial:

First, the proportion of buyback and how much of the income should be used for buyback should be flexibly adjusted based on the project's stage, rather than being set in stone.

Second, I believe that there is no need for 100% transparency at the execution level, as it may actually reduce efficiency. But after the buyback is completed, all information must be publicly transparent, recorded on the chain for everyone to monitor. Otherwise, it becomes a gimmick: you announce a buyback, but no one knows where you bought back from, how much was bought back, which would be meaningless.

Therefore, we need a certain level of flexibility in execution; but post-execution, all data must be made transparent and auditable to ensure that external parties can clearly see what we have actually done.

Mable: So you might disclose it like, for example, this quarter you decided to use only 30% of the revenue for buybacks, while also explaining why the remaining funds need to be used for other purposes. This logic makes sense.

Leonard: Exactly, and we can adjust at any time. If the community provides strong feedback and presents valid opinions, we can completely change course. It is precisely because we did not lock in the proportion from the beginning that we have this flexibility to continuously optimize over time.

Mable: Yes, especially as your market cap grows, it's impossible to please everyone; you always have to find a balance. I believe you have already encountered this situation.

Leonard: Indeed, our growth has been rapid, and we are constantly learning.

Mable: I'd like to delve into the product itself a bit more. I've looked at your existing features, and you mentioned earlier that you hope to gradually provide more functions and services similar to centralized exchanges. However, you already have the grid trading feature. Why did you prioritize this at that time?

Leonard: In fact, we launched this feature very early on, back when we were in the internal testing stage of the trading platform. Obviously, this is a very practical feature, especially for those who are not particularly professional traders. If they only want to run a certain strategy, this tool is very convenient. It is also good for the trading platform to offer such a feature from the beginning to ensure user experience.

It is not just about fee income; more importantly, it is about liquidity. Because most retail users, if you don't provide them with such tools, they tend to place market orders, directly hitting the order book price. But if you equip them with this kind of tool, they will use limit orders to trade, which not only allows them to run strategies but also allows them to become liquidity providers in turn. So this is actually a win-win situation: retail traders can run strategies and at the same time provide liquidity to the market. That's why we launched this feature very early on and have continued it to this day, gradually solidifying it.

Mable: So what is your current trading user profile like? I assume you also pay attention to data such as IP distribution.

Leonard: Previously, most of our IP was concentrated in Asia. Of course, this information was mostly self-hosted, so we didn't need to have access to all user information. Just looking at overall IP usage, before the TGE, users were mainly from Asia. However, after the TGE, we clearly felt a growing interest from the Western world. You can also see on Twitter that more and more users speaking English and European languages are discussing our project. So, it can be said that the user composition is changing.

Mable: I heard that some external teams are using your API and data, and it seems that someone has provided feedback on the data format. Do you have any improvement plans in this regard?

Leonard: Yes, we have received a lot of feedback in this regard. Our team is almost working around the clock to address these issues. If there are times when we couldn't respond promptly, we are very sorry, but we are indeed gradually clearing up technical debt. Everyone can also join our Discord at any time, or directly DM me, or contact us through our official Twitter account. In fact, after the TGE, some developers actively contacted us and provided valuable technical improvement suggestions. For example, one of the long-standing issues that has been bothering us is the slow deposit speed of Solana smart contracts. Later, a developer took the initiative to help, and now we have formed a small group to directly collaborate with our team to research solutions.

We are now releasing almost three iterative updates every day to ensure that system improvements are implemented as quickly as possible. I believe everyone will soon see significant enhancements. If there is still something bothering you, please let us know. We sincerely hope to fix it as soon as possible.

How to Build Aster Chain?

Mable: Yes, if there is still a need on the Solana side, we will definitely help you resolve it. I think this is similar to the situation with Arbitrum or other chains, and everyone should be very interested in collaborating with you. Let's switch topics; you mentioned Aster Chain in another interview before, could you talk about it more? What role do you expect this chain to play in the future?

Leonard: We hope that all on-chain transactions can be transparent, verifiable, while also preserving transaction privacy to some extent. This is the goal of building Aster Chain.

Some competitors spend a lot of resources building a full ecosystem on their own chain, but that is not the direction we want to focus on. We prefer to integrate with other chains and then aggregate the credit of these transactions onto our chain for everyone to verify. We're not saying that approach is wrong; other projects have done a great job building ecosystems. It's just that our focus is different — we are more concerned about the transaction experience.

We hope that for at least the next three to six months, we will focus on providing a good transaction environment and user experience. Aster Chain's positioning is to provide transparency and verifiability, rather than trying to build another "one-chain-fits-all" to attract everyone to build on it. Frankly, I think there are already enough chains now, and we don't need another new L1.

But we do need a better decentralized transaction experience. So, I think this is where Aster Chain's value lies. Of course, the strategy may also adjust over time, and there may be shifts in the future, but at least for now, we need to focus on building a better transaction platform.

Mable: I understand, just like Hyperliquid also benefits from having its chain, being able to collect gas fees and have protocol revenue. I guess you had similar considerations when starting out, right?

Leonard: Yes, I think in the long run, we may invest more in the chain itself. But in the short term, our focus is still on getting all transaction features right. After all, building a complete ecosystem is a very large and complex project, and we don't want to be distracted now. What we are best at and what we should focus on is building a full-featured transaction platform with a user experience close to centralized exchanges. As for the L1 ecosystem, that is something to consider in the future.

Mable: Right, I mean, suppose you have many transactions settling on Aster Chain, then you essentially earn protocol revenue, and that income does not flow to other L1s or other EVM chains. I mean, is this the underlying logic behind your decision?

Leonard: Two points. Firstly, currently, we do put transactions on our chain, but it's only running internally and has not been made public yet. It will consume Gas but has not been fully launched. We want to make this information public so that everyone can run nodes and verify. That is our goal. Whether to build a complete ecosystem around it is not a top priority now. We might do it later, but it's not the focus at the moment. We will consider that after we feel the platform is mature enough.

Mable: Do you have a Market Maker Program? Can people apply to join?

Leonard: We do have a Market Maker Program. If you go to our website's documentation, there is a Market Maker Program page that provides detailed information, including trading volume requirements, fees, and the incentive pool tokens they can receive, which are separate from other scoring systems. Those interested can contact us directly via email, and all the information is on that page.

Mable: Could you share how many market makers you currently have, or is that information not available at the moment?

Leonard: I won't disclose specific numbers. However, I can say that we have been in touch with many, and quite a few have already joined. Active market makers are dynamic because with higher trading volumes, they tend to be more active. If there is an increase in liquidity demand, more people will join.

Yes, they mainly provide credit transactions, and they can only make money if there is a liquidity demand. In the past two weeks, the trading volume has been very high, and many are willing to pay for quality trades. There are inquiries every day from those who want to join the Market Maker Program because everyone sees the market liquidity and knows they can make money by providing liquidity; the demand is significant.

Mable: Currently, you only have a website and desktop version. Will you develop a mobile app or distribute through other front ends?

Leonard: In fact, we do have a mobile app; it's just that we may not have promoted it enough to let everyone know we have a full product.

Mable: Oh, really?

Leonard: Yes, we have an Android version available for download on Google Play. The iOS version is still in the process of getting listed on the App Store, but it is indeed available.

We are also collaborating with other wallets. For example, we are partnering with Trust Wallet and SafePal to have them help us build the front end. Similar to what Base did, Base and Phantom have also done similar things. We will soon be live with Trust Wallet, allowing users to start trading directly using Trust Wallet or SafePal. We are working with multiple partners to progress, and if there are wallets interested in working with us on the front end, we would be very welcoming.

Because we support multiple chains, users do not need to first cross-chain their assets. For example, with Solana, you can deposit directly. So if any audience members would like to work on the front end with us, rather than for us, please feel free to contact us. We are also looking for partners.

「Original Article Link」

Welcome to join the official BlockBeats community:

Telegram Subscription Group: https://t.me/theblockbeats

Telegram Discussion Group: https://t.me/BlockBeats_App

Official Twitter Account: https://twitter.com/BlockBeatsAsia