Price Action Secrets: Sorceries and Spells

Where Token Prices Are Really Made;

Price action secrets reveal how markets make token prices, beyond the surface debate of “DEXs versus CEXs.”

The persistent framing of “DEXs versus CEXs” misses the real question shaping crypto market structure.

Market share does not equal price discovery.

Over the past year, DEX volumes have grown meaningfully. Price action secrets are often misread in this data. DefiLlama data shows sustained increases in aggregate DEX volume share during calm and trending regimes, particularly on major L2s and high-throughput chains. On the surface, this looks like a structural shift away from centralized venues.

Volume alone does not show where markets form prices.

It shows where traders execute trades.

Price discovery clears when markets force imbalances to resolve, not when passive flow accumulates.

Volume can migrate without discovery migrating

A large portion of DEX activity today is:

• routed flow,

• passive LP interaction,

• arbitrage execution,

• or hedged exposure.

These trades are typically price-taking, not price-setting. They clear against prices already established elsewhere. As a result, DEX share can rise materially while the marginal price remains anchored to a different venue.

The DEX volume data consistently shows that DEX activity expands most during:

• low realized volatility,

• stable funding regimes,

• and directional spot trends.

Those are precisely the conditions where discovery pressure is weakest.

Where Price Is Actually Decided

When volatility rises, the market reveals where price discovery lives.

CoinGlass data shows that during stress events:

• open interest contracts sharply, often by billions of dollars in notional,

• funding rates flip sign, indicating forced repositioning,

• and liquidation clusters print at discrete price levels.

These liquidation events are not secondary effects.

They finalize price through forced resolution.

The market adopts the price that survives after forced leverage unwinds as its reference point. Spot markets adjust to it. DEX pools re-center around it. Arbitrage enforces it.

In other words, perps don’t just reflect price.

They decide which price clears when markets repair balance sheets.

DEX growth and perps dominance can coexist

This is why the “DEX vs CEX” framing is misleading.

DEX usage can grow rapidly without displacing discovery. In fact, the two often rise together:

• DEXs absorb incremental participation and execution,

• perps concentrate conviction and risk.

DEX volume share are holding or increasing even as CoinGlass data shows derivatives open interest dominating notional exposure. That divergence tells you the system’s structure has not flipped, even if participation patterns have.

The key distinction does not separate centralized and decentralized venues. It is:

• venues that absorb flow, versus

• venues that force repricing under stress.

What would true discovery migration look like?

Price discovery would be migrating if, during volatility:

liquidation-driven moves originated on spot or DEX venues,

• derivatives followed rather than led,

• and open interest reacted after spot re-pricing, not before.

That is not what the data shows today.

Instead, liquidation cascades in perps still define inflection points, while spot and DEX volumes respond reactively.

A Clearer Framework for DEX and Perps

Rising DEX share should be read as:

• broader participation,

• better execution surfaces,

• and improved capital efficiency for spot exposure.

Readers should not treat it as evidence that discovery has moved.

Until markets warehouse, unwind, and reprice leverage at scale outside the derivatives layer, price discovery will continue to clear where forced risk lives.

The market isn’t choosing between DEXs and CEXs. It’s choosing where risk is allowed to accumulate.

And discovery follows risk.