Gracy Chen警告：超液體設定了危險的先例

Bitget Gracy Chen對此做出了反應，並說：“儘管以大膽的視力為創新的分散交流，但超流動性的運作更像是離岸的[集中式交換]。”

Hyperliquid, a decentralised exchange, has closed the JELLY futures market and futures futures contracts following an exploit incident on March 26. The exchange stated that this comes after suspicious market activity in this market was recorded. According to the exchange, all the JELLY futures users have been reimbursed. These actions were approved by the small community of Hyperliquid validators, which showed contrast to the network’s supposed decentralisation.

在3月26日的剝削事件之後，Hyperliquid是一種分散的交易所，已關閉了果凍期貨市場和期貨期貨合約。該交易所表示，這是在記錄該市場可疑市場活動之後。根據交易所，所有果凍期貨用戶都已償還。這些行動得到了超流利驗證者的小社區的批准，這與網絡所謂的權力下放形成了鮮明對比。

This incident and Hyperliquid’s handling of it has drawn criticism from other industry figures. For instance, Bitget CEO Gracy Chen penned an opinion piece on Monday, in which she expressed her dissatisfaction with Hyperliquid’s handling of the March 26 exploit accident.

這一事件和超流動性的處理已引起其他行業人物的批評。例如，Bitget首席執行官Gracy Chen在周一發表了一篇意見文章，其中她對Hypliquid對3月26日的剝削事故的處理表示不滿。

Hyperliquid May Be Setting a Dangerous Precedent

超流動可能會設定危險的先例

In her post, Chen stated, “Despite presenting itself as an innovative decentralised exchange with a bold vision, Hyperliquid operates more like an offshore [centralised exchange]. This impression is further reinforced by the exchange's decision to close the $JELLY futures market and futures futures contracts.” She also added, “Hyperliquid may be on track to become FTX 2.0.”

陳在她的帖子中說：“儘管以大膽的願景表現出自己是一種創新的分散交流，但超流動性的運作更像是一個離岸的[集中式交換]。交換決定結束$ jelly Futures Market和Futures Futures Futures合同的決定進一步增強了這種印象。”她還補充說：“超流動可能會成為FTX 2.0。”

According to Chen, she does not accuse Hyperliquid of a specific crime but believes its actions damage the crypto space. She stated, “The decision to close the $JELLY market and force settlement of positions at a favorable price sets a dangerous precedent. Moreover, trust, not capital, is the foundation of any exchange, especially in the crypto space, and once lost, it’s almost impossible to recover.”

根據陳的說法，她沒有指責特定犯罪的超流動性，而是認為其行為會損害加密貨幣空間。她說：“決定以良好的價格關閉$果凍市場並以良好的價格解決職務的決定。此外，信任而不是資本是任何交易所的基礎，尤其是在加密貨幣領域，一旦丟失，幾乎是不可能康復的。”

The incident began with a trader depositing $7,167,000 on three different Hyperliquid accounts within five minutes of each other. He then used these accounts to place leveraged trades on an illiquid token, which was JELLY. The trader's aim was to liquidate as many long positions as possible in order to increase the value of Jelly-My-Jelly.

該事件始於一個交易者在五分鐘內在三個不同的超流利帳戶上存入7,167,000美元的交易者。然後，他使用這些帳戶將槓桿交易放在果凍的流動不足令牌上。交易者的目的是清算盡可能多的長位置，以提高果凍 - 我的果凍的價值。

This setup enabled "build up leverage in an attempt to drain funds from Hyperliquid," according to crypto intelligence firm Arkham, which closely follows blockchain activity. The trader was able to exploit the Hyperliquidity Provider Vault (HLP) by setting up the $4 million short position. This is because the short position was too large to be liquidated immediately, so it passed the system.

Crypto Intelligence公司Arkham表示，這種設置啟用了“建立槓桿作用，以試圖從超流利流失資金”。交易者能夠通過設置400萬美元的短職位來利用超流動提供者保險庫（HLP）。這是因為短位置太大而無法立即清算，因此它通過了系統。

However, Arkham noted that the trader was able to withdraw his collateral from the other two accounts, which were longs. This Hyperliquid JELLY exploit was stopped when all the accounts were locked to reduce-only orders. As such, the trader sold the token from the first account to limit his own losses.

但是，阿卡姆（Arkham）指出，交易者能夠從其他兩個帳戶中撤回其抵押品，這是渴望的。當所有帳戶被鎖定以減少訂單時，這種超流利的果凍漏洞被停止了。因此，交易者將令牌從第一個帳戶出售為限制自己的損失。

When the Jelly-My-Jelly's market was frozen and closed on the Hyperliquid, its value was around 0.0095. This is the same value as when the exploiter opened his short position, turning his profit to 0.

當果凍 - 我的jelly的市場被凍結並在超流油中關閉時，其價值約為0.0095。這與剝削者打開他的短期職位時的價值相同，將他的利潤變為0。

According to Arkham's report, the exploiter was only able to withdraw $6,260,000 of his funds. This leaves $1 million still remaining frozen, in addition to a $4,000 loss on the fees.

根據阿卡姆（Arkham）的報告，剝削者只能撤回6,260,000美元的資金。除了費用損失4,000美元外，這還留下了100萬美元，仍然剩下的凍結。

This has not been the first time this platform has grappled with exploiters, as recently, a similar incident happened. On March 12, $200 million in long Ether future contracts were liquidated by two whales. The incident caused roughly $4 million in damages for Hyperliquid; as such, the platform has increased the collateral requirement.

這並不是這個平台第一次與剝削者鬥爭，因為最近發生了類似的事件。 3月12日，兩隻鯨魚清算了2億美元的長期以太合同。該事件造成了大約400萬美元的超流動損失；因此，該平台增加了抵押要求。

However, as Bitget Gracy Chen stated, some community members are worried that this platform might trigger another FTX incident.

但是，正如Bitget Gracy Chen所說，一些社區成員擔心該平台可能會觸發另一個FTX事件。