Because Binary options resolve to a fixed YES // NO typically at $1, the payoff is capped. So there's capped upside & less/different convexity. Vega, Gamma, & the other greeks also work differently for Binaries compared to Vanilla options (Derive) All of this pretty much makes Binaries an inferior product. The pay-offs aren't as good, they're not as capital efficient for hedging, there's not really a concept of vol buying/selling, and you cannot construct as mature expressions of the market as you can with vanilla options I think this alone explains a lot of the challenges we've seen in HIP-4 adoption (and challenges I expect lighter to have unless they incentivize these markets heavily). It is the case that perps are far simpler than options and it's easier to bootstrap liquidity, therefore they've had strong product market fit in crypto HOWEVER, binaries options sit in a weird place. You still have the liquidity problems of vanilla options (you have to support liquidity at many strikes at many expiries) but an overall weaker payoff structure. This disincentives the creation of deep liquidity. It's just kinda not worth it for the more pro-tail to institutional type of traders who use options for what their actually intended for (mature expressions of path & volatility +plus some yield strategies). TLDR: Binaries are like an ugly middle child The reason Hyperliquid & Lighter are starting with Binary options before moving to Vanilla options (if ever) is that the fact they resolve to the fixed $1 share amount, means they slot in easier into the existing risk & margin engines of the protocols. If you want to support true options then you need a risk engine built specifically with the convexity of options in mind rather than just linear returns like perps. I'm not an expert but everything I have learned so far & the experts I've talked to, are all adamant this would be a fundamental rewrite of risk engines and margining for Hyperliquid & Lighter - something I imagine both are reluctant to do, especially when they can still make a gazillion dollars by winning perps ^^ This also explains some of Crypto's centralized market structure as well. Binance & OKX have the most perps volume by a large margin, you'd expect them to also be leading in options but they aren't. The centralized options leaders are two entirely different exchanges Deribit and ByBit. Again, this is because market structure & risk engines are just a different thing for options. So we've seen the leaders in that space keep their lead despite well funded and talented competition. I don't think it's unfounded to believe that at least for the foreseeable future, Derive is in a position to keep it's lead and go toe-to-toe with the leading perps dexes at least in the domain of options. TLDR: same reason I don't see Derive being competition to HL or LIT perps (it's just a complimentary part of their product offering) - I don't see HL or LIT being competition to Derive options (it's just a complimentary part of their product offering All of this re-affirms why I'm so bullish on Derive ethereum:0xb1d1eae60eea9525032a6dcb4c1ce336a1de71be as they STILL have 90%+ of market share for onchain options premium (what people are actually willing to pay to use the product).