DEX Wallet Comparison: OneKey for Hyperliquid vs dYdX vs GMX

Jan 26, 2026

Why “wallet choice” matters more for perps DEXs in 2026

Perpetuals trading has become one of the most competitive battlegrounds in DeFi: teams are moving beyond “smart contracts on a general-purpose chain” toward app-chains, custom execution, and hybrid UX (for example, faster order matching, cheaper execution, and smoother onboarding). Hyperliquid is a clear example of this shift, pairing an on-chain order book with an app-chain design and, more recently, an EVM environment that users can add to standard EVM wallets. You can see the network parameters (Chain ID 999 and the public RPC endpoint) in the project’s official documentation here.

This evolution changes what “the best wallet” means. It’s no longer just about holding tokens—it’s about:

How you connect (EVM vs Cosmos-style accounts)
How you bridge and deposit collateral
How often you sign transactions (every trade vs session keys / relayers)
How you protect yourself from phishing and malicious signatures
Whether you want hardware-isolated signing for high-value accounts

Below is a practical comparison of three popular perps venues—HL (HyperEVM / HyperCore), dYdX Chain, and GMX—through the lens of wallet UX, security, and “real trading flow”.

Quick positioning: what you’re actually connecting to

HL (HyperCore + HyperEVM): app-chain perps + native EVM environment

HL runs as its own high-performance L1 for trading, and the EVM side (“HyperEVM”) can be connected to by adding a custom EVM network (Chain ID 999) in your wallet. The official docs explain how to add the network and move assets between the trading side and the EVM side here.

dYdX Chain (v4): a Cosmos SDK sovereign chain with an on-chain order book

dYdX v4 is implemented as a standalone chain built on Cosmos SDK and CometBFT, with its own decentralized limit order book and matching design. The project’s documentation describes the chain model and how the order book/matching works here and in more detail on limit order book mechanics here.

User concern to note: dYdX’s docs also state that dYdX products/services are not available to persons or entities located in the U.S. or Canada (and other restricted categories). Always check the latest Terms and your local rules before attempting to use any frontend. Reference: the restriction notice appears in the official documentation pages such as this one.

GMX: perps on Arbitrum / Avalanche, plus a multichain “GMX Account” flow

GMX markets exist on Arbitrum, Avalanche, and Botanix, and you can trade directly from your connected wallet on those chains. GMX also introduced a “GMX Account” concept for deposits from other chains—where Arbitrum acts as the settlement chain and bridging is handled under the hood. This split is documented clearly here. GMX also offers multiple execution modes including Express and Express + One-Click trading, where signing patterns and gas handling differ; see the signing/mode breakdown here.

Wallet UX comparison (what it feels like day to day)

1) Connection model: EVM wallets vs Cosmos-style wallets

HL (HyperEVM): EVM connection model. If you can add a custom EVM network, you can connect. Network details (Chain ID / RPC) are published in the official docs here.
dYdX Chain: Cosmos SDK chain model. Wallet flows, addresses, and signing differ from EVM patterns. Architecture is described in the official docs here.
GMX: EVM wallet model on Arbitrum/Avalanche/Botanix, plus an optional “account” abstraction layer for multichain deposits described here.

Implication: If your stack is already EVM-first (multiple EVM networks, EVM tooling, EVM DeFi habits), HL and GMX tend to feel more “plug-and-play”. If you’re comfortable with Cosmos ecosystems and IBC-style thinking, dYdX Chain can be a natural fit.

2) Onboarding & collateral: where your funds start vs where trades execute

HL: The official onboarding guide highlights multiple ways to get collateral in (e.g., USDC/ETH routes and other supported deposits), and also notes you can trade using a normal DeFi wallet or email login—important for UX, but also something security-conscious users may evaluate carefully. See “How to start trading” in the docs here.
dYdX Chain: Collateral is on its own chain environment; bridging and chain-specific mechanics are part of the experience, and the chain runs its own matching design as described here.
GMX: If you’re on a chain where markets exist, you can trade directly from wallet funds. If not, the GMX Account flow bridges to Arbitrum as settlement (details and limitations are documented) here.

User reality: most “wallet frustration” comes from where the funds actually need to be (and what you must sign) rather than from the trading UI itself.

3) Signing frequency: every trade vs fewer confirmations

HL: Trading workflows commonly involve approvals/deposits and then active trading; exact signing patterns depend on the interface and product flow, but the “add network + transfer + trade” model is well defined in their onboarding docs here.
dYdX Chain: Orders and cancels are chain-native instructions; the order book design is described in the docs here.
GMX: GMX explicitly documents different modes:
- Classic (more on-chain transaction prompts)
- Express / Express + One-Click (off-chain message signing patterns, relayed execution, and different gas payment handling)
See the table in GMX docs here.

Security tradeoff: convenience features often mean different key/material risk (e.g., session keys, locally stored keys, or relayers). Power users should decide what they’re comfortable with per account size.

Where OneKey fits (and when it’s actually useful)

A practical way to think about the OneKey wallet in this comparison is: do you want hardware-isolated confirmation for high-value accounts while still keeping a modern multi-chain workflow?

From a capability standpoint, OneKey’s broader positioning is:

Multi-chain wallet support, including EVM chains and custom EVM networks (useful when adding emerging networks). The iOS App Store listing describes customized EVM network support and multi-chain coverage here.
An open-source posture (with public repositories) that security-focused users may appreciate for transparency and auditability here.
Ecosystem integrations that emphasize non-custodial trading workflows across EVM environments (example: ShapeShift’s integration page) here.

Best-fit scenarios by venue

HL (HyperEVM / HyperCore)

Best match if: you want to connect via an EVM-style wallet flow, add the HyperEVM network (Chain ID 999), and keep tighter control over signing for transfers and approvals. Official network configuration details are published here.
Why hardware helps here: app-chain perps can move fast; hardware confirmation reduces the chance you blindly sign a malicious approval/transfer during a rushed trading session.

dYdX Chain

Best match if: you’re comfortable with Cosmos-style accounts and the idea of interacting with a sovereign chain whose order book/matching is described in their docs here.
Important caveat: always confirm jurisdiction availability and access rules; dYdX’s documentation includes explicit restriction language (including U.S./Canada) here.

GMX

Best match if: you trade on Arbitrum/Avalanche markets directly, or you want the flexibility of the GMX Account flow (bridged settlement on Arbitrum) described here.
Extra consideration: if you enable faster modes (Express / One-Click), understand the signing method and key storage model documented by GMX here.

Side-by-side table (wallet-centric)

Category	HL (HyperCore + HyperEVM)	dYdX Chain (v4)	GMX (V2)
Chain model	App-chain + native EVM environment (Chain ID `999`)	Cosmos SDK sovereign chain	EVM deployments on Arbitrum/Avalanche/Botanix
Wallet type (typical)	EVM wallet (custom network)	Cosmos-style wallet/account	EVM wallet
Onboarding complexity	Medium (network + transfers; varies by collateral route)	Medium–High (chain-specific flow)	Low–Medium (direct if on supported chains; otherwise GMX Account)
Trading UX focus	Low-latency order book + app-chain design	Decentralized order book & matching design	V2 isolated markets + multiple signing modes
“Fewer prompts” options	Depends on interface/product flow	Depends on client implementation	Explicit modes: Classic vs Express vs Express + One-Click
Best for	Active perps traders who value speed + app-chain performance	Traders comfortable with Cosmos ecosystem and sovereign chain design	EVM-native traders who want flexible execution modes

Security checklist that matters more than “which DEX is best”

1) Treat approvals as high-risk

Most catastrophic losses still come from signing the wrong approval/permit on the wrong site. Hardware confirmation helps—but only if you verify domain + intent before approving.

HL’s own support guide highlights phishing risks (lookalike URLs, fake apps) and reminds users there is no official app store app—worth internalizing even if you use hardware signing here.

2) Separate accounts by risk level

Use one address for long-term funds and another for high-frequency trading. This reduces blast radius if you ever approve something malicious.

3) Understand “one-click” and “express” modes

These can be excellent UX—but they may shift the risk model (session keys, relayers, local key material). GMX documents exactly how its modes differ in signing and gas handling here.

Conclusion: choosing the right stack (and when to pick OneKey)

If your primary goal is speed + app-chain perps and you want an EVM-style wallet flow, HL’s HyperEVM model (Chain ID 999) is straightforward to add to compatible wallets, as shown in the official docs here. If you prefer a sovereign-chain design built on Cosmos SDK with a decentralized order book, dYdX Chain’s architecture is well documented here. If you want EVM-native perps with flexible signing modes and a multichain deposit path, GMX’s “Direct Wallet Trading” vs “GMX Account” split is clearly laid out here.

For traders who routinely move collateral, adjust margin, or interact with new networks, a hardware-first approach can be a meaningful upgrade—not because it makes you “invincible,” but because it forces an extra layer of intentionality at the exact moment most losses happen: signing. That’s where OneKey is most compelling: multi-chain coverage (including custom EVM networks) and an open-source posture that’s verifiable via public repositories here.