Bitget CEO Gracy Chen Slams Hyperliquid's Handling of Recent Exploit as "Immature, Unethical, and Unprofessional"

The drama surrounding Hyperliquid's recent exploit continues to escalate as Bitget CEO Gracy Chen weighs in with sharp criticism.

Bitget CEO Gracy Chen has launched a scathing critique of Hyperliquid for its handling of the recent exploit incident. The drama unfolded with claims of $JELLY token manipulation on Hyperliquid, resulting in reported seven-figure losses for traders.

In a strongly worded Twitter post, Chen described Hyperliquid’s response as immature, unethical, and unprofessional, adding that it prioritized the platform over the traders.

Her harsh critique also touched upon Hyperliquid's decision to force-settle $JELLY positions at favorable prices, which Chen said sets a dangerous precedent for decentralized exchanges.

Chen went on to compare Hyperliquid's operational structure to an offshore centralized exchange (CEX) due to its lack of KYC/AML protocols, which she argued are crucial for preventing illicit activity.

Chen went on to compare Hyperliquid's operational structure to an offshore centralized exchange (CEX) due to its lack of KYC/AML protocols, which she argued are crucial for preventing illicit activity.

Moreover, she highlighted flaws in Hyperliquid's product design—such as mixed vaults that may expose users to several types of systemic risks and unrestricted position sizes that can be used for leveraged market manipulation.

The Bitget CEO warned that these vulnerabilities, if left unaddressed, could make Hyperliquid susceptible to further attacks, potentially putting it on track to become, as she put it, “the next catastrophic failure in crypto.”

During the rant, Gracy Chen went as far as to compare Hyperliquid to the infamous bankrupt exchange FTX: “Hyperliquid may be on track to become FTX 2.0”, she said.

However, despite some of Chen’s criticisms being valid, the majority of the cryptocurrency community appeared to disagree, or at least found the comments distasteful, since she was talking about a direct competitor.

“If protecting thousands of people from a bad actor is unethical, you have your priorities in the wrong place,” one user remarked.

“If protecting thousands of people from a bad actor is unethical, you have your priorities in the wrong place,” one user remarked.

Others argued that Bitget, in a similar scenario, would likely have delisted the token too.

Critics also suggested that Hyperliquid's actions demonstrated responsible decision-making during a volatile situation. Certainly, the backlash highlighted a divide in how the community perceives exchange responsibilities, with some prioritizing proactive measures over claims of centralization risks.