Oak Security的一位專家解釋了果凍代幣漏洞的出了什麼問題，這使超流利交易所耗資1,063萬美元。

反應仍來自於造成超流動性（HYPE）用戶的損失1,063萬美元的利用。

An expert from Oak Security has explained what went wrong with the JELLY token exploit, which cost the Hyperliquid (HYPE) exchange’s users $10.63 million.

Oak Security的一位專家解釋了果凍代幣漏洞利用出了什麼問題，這使超流利（HYPE）交換用戶的用戶耗資1,063萬美元。

The reactions seem to have one thing in common, which is calling out Hyperliquid for its practices.

這些反應似乎有一個共同點，這呼籲其實踐過度液體。

Dr. Jan Philipp Fritsche, managing director at Oak Security, shared his analysis with crypto.news. According to Fritsche, the exploit wasn’t caused by a bug, but rather was a predictable failure, one that could pose a risk to other DeFi protocols as well.

Oak Security的董事總經理Jan Philipp Fritsche博士與Crypto.news分享了他的分析。根據Fritsche的說法，利用不是由錯誤引起的，而是可預測的故障，它也可能對其他Defi協議構成風險。

The JELLY exploit appears to be the result of a coordinated market manipulation by several users. Specifically, one trader opened a $5 million short position on JELLY, only to remove their margin. Hyperliquid was left holding the position, after which other traders coordinated a short squeeze.

果凍漏洞似乎是幾個用戶協調市場操縱的結果。具體來說，一位交易員在果凍上開了500萬美元的短職位，只是為了刪除其利潤。雜亂無章的位置留下了這個職位，然後其他交易者協調了短暫的擠壓。

“The attacker opened massive opposing positions in JELLY, knowing that one side would collapse and the other would cash out. Because payouts weren’t capped and risk wasn’t isolated, the protocol ate the loss—and the attacker walked away with millions,“ Dr. Jan Philipp Fritsche, Oak Security

“攻擊者在果凍中開設了大規模的對立立場，知道一方會崩潰，另一方將兌現。由於支出沒有被封蓋，風險沒有孤立，協議就吃掉了損失 - 攻擊者與數百萬人走開了，” Jan Philipp Fritsche博士，Oak Security，Oak Security，Oak Security。

Fritsche described the exploit as a “textbook example of unpriced vega risk”, a concept from traditional finance that refers to the implied volatility of an asset. He emphasized that many DeFi protocols still fail to account for this crucial risk metric.

弗里切（Fritsche）將漏洞描述為“無價Vega風險的教科書示例”，這一概念是指資產的隱含波動性。他強調，許多DEFI協議仍然無法說明這一關鍵風險度量標準。

Hyperliquid under fire for JELLY exploit

在果凍漏洞的火力下刺激性

This isn’t the first time industry figures have criticized Hyperliquid over the Jelly incident. Following the exploit, Bitget CEO Gracy Chen called the exchange’s practices “immature, unethical, and unprofessional,” warning that it could become FTX 2.0.

這並不是第一次對果凍事件批評超流動性的人。在漏洞利用之後，Bitget首席執行官Gracy Chen稱交易所的做法“不成熟，不道德和不專業”，警告說，它可能成為FTX 2.0。

Although Hyperliquid has pledged to compensate users affected by the exploit, the damage to its reputation may already be done. More importantly, the exploit has drawn attention to broader vulnerabilities in the decentralized finance sector.

儘管Hyperliquid已承諾補償受漏洞影響影響的用戶，但可能已經對其聲譽的損害造成了損害。更重要的是，利用引起了分散財務部門的更廣泛脆弱性的關注。

In 2024, DeFi exploits cost users $308.7 million in losses. That was more than rug pulls, which accounted for $192.9 million. Just days after the Jelly exploit, another DeFi protocol SIR.trading fell victim to another exploit, losing all of its total value locked of $355,000.

2024年，Defi利用用戶損失了3.87億美元。那不僅僅是地毯拉力，佔1.929億美元。在果凍漏洞利用後的幾天后，另一項defi協議先生。交易成為另一個漏洞的受害者，失去了其所有總價值鎖定為355,000美元。