超級流動的價格漲幅幾乎造成了1200萬美元的保險庫損失，以索拉納的模因硬幣果凍的精神錯亂

分散的交換超級流動性在巨大的價格之後將基於Solana的Meme Coin Jellyjelly（Jelly）脫穎而出後，成為頭條新聞。

Decentralized exchange Hyperliquid has come under scrutiny after delisting Solana-based meme coin JELLY following a dramatic price surge that nearly caused a $12 million vault loss. The incident has sparked heated debates on market manipulation, DeFi governance, and the true nature of decentralization.

在巨大的價格漲幅幾乎造成了1200萬美元的保險庫損失之後，分散的交換超級流動性在將基於索拉納的模因硬幣果凍中脫穎而出後，受到了審查。該事件引發了有關市場操縱，辯護治理和權力下放的真實本質的激烈辯論。

The scenario unfolded on March 26, when a trader opened a massive $6 million short position on JELLY using 20x leverage. Subsequently, the trader began buying large quantities of JELLY in the spot market, incrementally increasing the token’s price by a staggering 400–500%.

該方案於3月26日展開，當時一名交易者使用20倍槓桿在果凍上開設了600萬美元的短職位。隨後，交易者開始在現貨市場上購買大量果凍，從而逐步將令牌的價格提高了400-500％。

This unexpected rally had dire consequences for Hyperliquid’s Hyperliquidity Provider (HLP) vault, which was left with an unrealized loss of nearly $12 million. If the price had continued to rise, it could have led to the complete liquidation of the vault, potentially bankrupting the exchange.

這次意外的集會對Hyproliquid的超流動性提供商（HLP）保險庫造成了可怕的後果，該保險庫留下了近1200萬美元的未實現損失。如果價格繼續上漲，它可能會導致保險庫的完全清算，從而使交易所破產。

To avert further losses and potential liquidation, Hyperliquid’s validators intervened, voting to delist the JELLY perpetual futures contracts and perform a force-settlement at a fixed price of $0.0095 per token. This move neutralized the manipulative strategy and ultimately resulted in a net gain of $703,000 for the platform.

為了避免進一步的損失和潛在的清算，超流動的驗證者進行干預，投票通過果凍永久性期貨合約，並以固定價格為0.0095美元的固定價格進行武力解決。此舉中和操縱策略，最終導致該平台的淨收益為703,000美元。

However, while this action ultimately saved Hyperliquid, it also brought criticism regarding the platform’s governance and decision-making process. Some traders, such as Spelli, recognized the necessity of Hyperliquid’s actions in managing risk, highlighting the fact that the actions of a few should not burden the majority.

但是，儘管這一行動最終挽救了超流動，但它也引起了對平台的治理和決策過程的批評。一些交易者，例如Spelli，認識到超流動性在管理風險方面採取行動的必要性，強調了少數人的行動不應負擔大多數的事實。

Others, like Gracy Chen, CEO of cryptocurrency exchange Bitget, slammed the decision as “immature, unethical, and unprofessional.” Chen went on to criticize the actions of Hyperliquid’s validators, comparing them to those of centralized exchanges like FTX before its collapse.

其他人，例如加密貨幣交易所Bitget的首席執行官Gracy Chen將這一決定猛烈抨擊為“不成熟，不道德和不專業”。陳繼續批評超流動驗證者的行為，將其與ftx這樣的集中交流的驗證者進行了比較。

This criticism suggests that while Hyperliquid presents itself as a decentralized platform, its decision-making process may be centralized after all.

這種批評表明，雖然超流動性將自己作為一個分散的平台，但其決策過程畢竟可能是集中的。

The incident also drew criticism from Arthur Hayes, co-founder of BitMEX, who questioned the level of decentralization within Hyperliquid. As Hayes pointed out, if validators can step in and force-settle positions at their discretion, then the platform may not be as decentralized as it claims.

該事件還引起了Bitmex聯合創始人亞瑟·海斯（Arthur Hayes）的批評，他質疑超流動性內部的權力下放水平。正如海斯指出的那樣，如果驗證者可以自行決定介入並實行固定位置，那麼該平台可能不會像聲稱的那樣分散。

Following the incident, Hyperliquid’s native token, HYPE, saw a sharp decline of 15%, as investors reacted to the unfolding controversy. The event has brought a new perspective to the challenges that DeFi platforms face in maintaining a balance between market integrity, risk management, and the principles of decentralization.

事件發生後，由於投資者對不斷發展的爭議做出了反應，Hyplliquid的本地令牌炒作急劇下降了15％。該活動為Defi平台在保持市場完整性，風險管理和權力下放原則之間的平衡方面面臨的挑戰帶來了新的觀點。

This case study also highlights the risks of low-liquidity tokens being manipulated through leveraged positions. For DeFi platforms to thrive, they need stronger safeguards against such strategies while maintaining transparency and trust.

該案例研究還強調了通過槓杆位置操縱低流動性令牌的風險。為了使Defi平台蓬勃發展，他們需要在保持透明度和信任的同時，需要更強大的保護措施。

As the cryptocurrency industry continues to evolve, Hyperliquid’s handling of the JELLY incident serves as a critical case study. Whether this will erode confidence in the platform or push it toward refining its governance remains to be seen. One thing is clear: the fine line between decentralization and intervention in DeFi is becoming more complex than ever.

隨著加密貨幣行業的不斷發展，Hypliquid對果凍事件的處理是一個關鍵案例研究。這是否會侵蝕平台的信心，還是將其推向完善其治理尚待觀察。一件事很清楚：權力下放和DEFI干預之間的細線變得比以往任何時候都變得更加複雜。