Is FDV Hyperliquid's $45 billion valuation reasonable?

I'd like to ask, what exactly is @HyperliquidX? If it's a pure Perp Dex application, a 45B FDV is already too high. If it's a new innovative L1, a 15B circulating market capitalization might even be underestimated? Even more confusing is, how should Hyperliquid's followers benchmark their expectations? 1) If we consider HL as a Perp Dex, and compare it to Perp Dex predecessors like dYdX and GMX, its valuation is already high. However, if we compare it to the valuation of on-chain Binance and other L1s like Solana and BNBChain, HL still has a lot of room for growth. Objectively speaking, although HL's current market share leadership on Perp Dex will certainly result in a premium valuation, the overall on-chain DEX market size is limited. Its valuation is already very high, comparable to products like @GMX_IO and @dYdX, which are close to or even exceed their peaks. However, if it is expected to be an on-chain Binance, I'm afraid only when we see a significant siphoning of traditional CEX exchange data indicators can we give a valuation comparable to BNBChain and other benchmarks? Obviously, the current market pricing is based on a balance between the two, and is more inclined towards the latter. However, this will lead to a significant misalignment of value benchmarks, especially for some pure Perp Dex followers who have not yet figured out what HL's valuation is based on, and have begun to benchmark it. This complete disregard for HL's technical architecture and rich, diverse ecosystem is absurd. 2) Hyperliquid's HyperBFT consensus, HyperCore and HyperEVM layered design, and redesigned on-chain high-frequency node matching engine—honestly, despite being criticized for centralization—do contain numerous innovative elements. Meanwhile, some of these imitators still employ the traditional "off-chain matching + on-chain settlement" technical service framework, most of which remain within the application scope of the existing Perp Dex platforms on L1 and L2, or even simply rebrand them as old wine in new bottles. Is it too hasty to dismiss previous platforms like dYdx and GMX based on this? And why should their valuations be compared to HL? In fact, if we take a calmer look, HL's true moat isn't purely the transaction data itself. HyperCore's high-frequency trading matching engine is one aspect, but HyperEVM's application ecosystem is the biggest draw. For example: Felix Protocol mints stablecoins based on HYPE collateral, using the interest income of $107M idle USDC to repurchase HYPE; Liminal Money offers a delta-neutral yield product with a 16% APY; others, such as the staking protocol built by Kinetiq and the lending ecosystem built by Hyperlend, have combined at least 40 or 50 ecological projects. This depth of ecosystem with atomic-level composability is the foundation that supports its current valuation sprint to Binance on the chain. These are clearly fundamental conditions that the followers lack. How can they support a "platform-level" valuation expectation simply by relying on farmed trading volume and an "application" itself? Furthermore, there's a very confusing valuation logic that's completely baffling: Hyperliquid is the No. 1 Perp DEX, aiming to dethrone CEX and become the on-chain Binance, while Aster is the No. 2 Perp DEX, aiming to defend Binance and become the new on-chain Binance created by the Binance family. But Binance is still there, so how can another on-chain Binance just appear out of thin air?