With the rise of on-chain Perp DEXs like Hyperliquid and Aster, we've observed a noteworthy new phenomenon: an increasing number of new projects are accumulating liquidity on on-chain Perp DEXs like Aster or Hyperliquid before listing their perpetual contracts on centralized exchanges (CEXs). Whether on-chain Perp DEXs are becoming a "pre-testing ground" for new coin market making on CEXs has become a core topic of discussion within the industry. This potential structural change raises a series of unresolved questions: Is there an inherent correlation between on-chain liquidity quality and subsequent CEX open interest (OI) performance? Are there differences in on-chain deployment strategies among different types of projects? Has the participation logic and strategic focus of market makers undergone a systemic shift as a result? This report, combining derivatives data from CoinGlass and asset data from RootData, attempts to answer these questions from a data perspective, providing a reference for project teams, market makers, and exchanges. I. OI Performance Comparison: On-Chain Pre-Listing vs. Direct CEX Listing This analysis is based on CoinGlass's derivative open interest (OI) data from January 1st to May 20th, 2026, focusing on tokens newly listed in 2026. The research sample is divided into two categories: projects that were first listed on the Aster platform and subsequently listed on Binance, and projects that were directly listed on Binance without an Aster pre-listing stage, totaling 55 valid samples. To eliminate the interference of extreme outliers, this analysis uniformly uses the median as the core statistical metric. Furthermore, the OI data in this analysis represents the derivative open interest data corresponding to the Binance exchange nodes for both groups of tokens, thus comparing the differences in market liquidity and investor attention after the two types of projects are listed on leading exchanges. First-Day Performance: Looking at the first-day performance on Binance, the median initial investment (OI) for projects listed on Aster before Binance was $2.08 million, while the median for those listed directly on Binance was $298,900, with the former being 6.96 times the latter. This difference may reflect that projects with prior Aster listing experience tend to receive higher initial funding attention when listing on Binance. The exposure from the prior listing platform may have accumulated some early market buzz and user base for the project, resulting in better initial liquidity performance compared to projects listed directly. Peak Funding: In terms of peak funding, the median peak OI for projects listed on Aster before Binance reached $6.1619 million, while the median peak OI for those listed directly on Binance was $1.5716 million, with the former being 3.92 times the latter. This data comparison shows that projects listed earlier have a relatively higher scale of derivatives funding, which may be related to differences in market recognition resulting from prior market groundwork and initial project screening.Short-term Fund Retention: In terms of short-term fund retention, the median OI (Online Inquiry) for the Aster-Binance group after launch was $3.239 million within 7 days, while the median for the direct Binance group was $785,200, with the former being 4.13 times the latter. This indicates that projects launched earlier maintain better fund momentum within a week of launch, while projects launched directly experience a faster decline in popularity on the first day. This difference may be related to early user engagement and the degree of market consensus accumulation. Long-term Fund Resilience: Regarding long-term fund resilience, the median OI for the Aster-Binance group after launch was $3.0734 million within 30 days, while the median for the direct Binance group was $894,700, with the former being 3.44 times the latter. This shows that projects launched earlier have a certain advantage in long-term fund consensus, with a relatively slower decline in market enthusiasm, while projects launched directly are more prone to a rapid loss of fund momentum. Funding Growth Cycle: Looking at the funding growth cycle, the median time from listing on Aster first and then Binance to reaching peak activity was 27.00 days, while the median time for listing directly on Binance was 5.50 days, with the former being 4.91 times longer than the latter. This difference indicates that projects with a earlier listing have a longer funding growth cycle and a more gradual increase in popularity; projects with a direct listing experience a concentrated release of funding, reaching peak activity earlier, and may experience greater short-term funding fluctuations. The two models exhibit different funding performance characteristics. Based on the median OI data from 55 valid samples, during the observation period from January to May 2026, projects that listed on Aster first and then on Binance generally outperformed those that listed directly on Binance in terms of initial OI size, peak level, short-term retention, and long-term resilience after listing on Binance. This pre-launch strategy of listing on PerpDEX first and then on CEXs may have facilitated early market warm-up, user acquisition, and consensus building for new coins, positively correlated with their subsequent performance on leading CEXs. Note: This analysis is based on a single time period and OI indicator, with limited sample size and dimensions, and does not include fundamentals, team, market environment, or other factors. The conclusions only reflect phased characteristics and are not definitive judgments, requiring further verification with more data. II. Which types of projects prefer on-chain deployment? Based on RootData data, we compiled a sample of new coins in 2026 that were first listed on the Aster chain and then on any mainstream CEX. After excluding TradeFi tokens, we found that among these projects that were pre-launched on PerpDEX, AI, infrastructure, and DeFi were the absolute core groups, accounting for over 75% combined. Among them, AI projects accounted for nearly 30%, infrastructure projects for 25%, and DeFi projects for over 20%, representing the mainstream preference for projects with pre-launch on-chain deployment.In addition, projects in gaming, memes, and prediction markets have also opted for on-chain pre-launch strategies. These projects are all native blockchain projects, with their core value and development logic deeply integrated into the on-chain ecosystem. Early-stage projects generally have urgent needs such as contract testing, functional verification, community cold starts, and low-cost trial and error. The on-chain environment of Aster and others perfectly matches these needs, becoming a standard pre-launch path before listing on mainstream CEXs. III. Why is the main battlefield for market making shifting? The on-chain Perp DEX market is gradually evolving from a "supplementary trading venue" to a "warm-up layer" and "testing ground" for new coins entering the mainstream market. This shift is not an isolated phenomenon caused by the rise of a single platform, but rather the result of the combined effects of exchange risk control, market maker behavior, and the maturity of the on-chain market itself. On the one hand, CEX risk control continues to tighten, raising the threshold for new coins to directly list on the contract market. In March 2026, Binance explicitly prohibited profit-sharing and guaranteed return agreements for market makers, requiring projects to fully disclose the identity of market makers and contract terms, while also establishing a blacklist mechanism for violations. Subsequently, in May 2026, Bitget launched the "Market Integrity and Token Accountability Framework," focusing on monitoring abnormal transactions, on-chain data, and concentration of holdings, and granting the platform the authority to suspend trading and force delisting. HTX implemented a contract market maker elimination system starting in June 2026, downgrading or eliminating substandard market makers through monthly quantitative assessments. This means that new projects lacking real liquidity verification are naturally at a disadvantage in the risk control assessment system of CEXs. Compared to directly bearing the listing risk, exchanges prefer to first observe the project's real trading activity, holding structure, and price stability in the on-chain market. Market makers are also actively migrating to on-chain, and the "first battlefield" for new coin liquidity is changing. According to Kaiko monitoring, in Q3 2025, market makers' liquidity reserves on CEXs decreased by 47% year-on-year; TradingView data shows that in the first nine months of 2025, the average daily order volume of the top ten market makers on CEXs decreased by approximately $6.2 billion. Leading market makers such as Jump and Wintertermute have shifted over 30% of their liquidity to on-chain derivatives platforms like Hyperliquid and Aevo. This signifies that market makers are no longer using centralized exchanges (CEXs) as the starting point for deploying liquidity for new coins, but rather prefer to conduct trial runs, accumulate tokens, and set initial prices on-chain before expanding to centralized markets. Furthermore, and more importantly, the on-chain Perp DEX itself has grown to a scale sufficient to fulfill this role.According to CoinGlass data, in April 2026, Hyperliquid's open interest (OI) market share was approximately 6.8%, ranking seventh in the global perpetual contract market, surpassing some mainstream centralized exchanges (CEXs) and becoming the only decentralized derivatives platform to enter the top ten. When the trading depth, OI scale, and price discovery capabilities of on-chain Perp DEXs become comparable to some second-tier CEXs, it ceases to be merely a retail speculative market and begins to become a liquidity "pre-certified" venue recognized by project teams, market makers, and exchanges. Conclusions and Outlook: Based on sample analysis from January to May 2026, it is evident that new coins that first accumulate liquidity on on-chain Perp DEXs such as Aster before listing on mainstream CEXs show significantly better OI performance on the first day, first week, and throughout the entire cycle compared to projects directly listed on CEXs. The amplification of popularity and capital absorption advantages brought by on-chain pre-listing are particularly prominent. Projects that launch on the Perp DEX first primarily focus on native on-chain sectors such as AI, infrastructure, and DeFi, aligning with their core needs for early contract testing, community cold starts, and low-cost trial and error. Simultaneously, tightening risk control at CEXs, the migration of market makers to the blockchain, and the maturation of on-chain DEXs themselves are collectively driving on-chain pre-launch as a crucial industry benchmark. Looking ahead to the second half of 2026, the influence of on-chain Perp DEXs in the new coin issuance ecosystem is likely to continue to strengthen, with on-chain pre-launch potentially becoming a standard choice for more new coins, further reshaping the new coin issuance chain from blockchain to CEXs. The synergistic value of CoinGlass derivatives data and RootData asset tags will also provide project teams, exchanges, and market makers with more comprehensive decision-making references, driving on-chain data to become a crucial basis for coin listing evaluation and market-making strategies. Overall, the linkage between on-chain and CEXs will become increasingly close, but the industry landscape still faces the possibility of diverse changes, requiring continued tracking and verification with a broader sample size. [RootData]