Hyperliquid利用自己的清算機制來為delist $果凍代幣，迫使該協議在造成1000萬美元的巨額損失或暴露其集中式“緊急制動器”機制之間進行選擇。

本文反映了作者的個人觀點，並不一定代表吳莎的觀點。一名交易者剛剛使用Hyperliquid自己的清算機制來對待協議本身，迫使該協議在承擔巨額損失或暴露其集中式“緊急制動器”機制之間進行選擇。

A trader just used Hyperliquid’s own liquidation mechanism against the protocol itself, forcing the protocol to choose between taking a massive $12 million loss or exposing its centralized “emergency brake” mechanism.

一名交易者剛剛使用Hyperliquid自己的清算機制來對待協議本身，迫使該協議在承擔巨額損失或暴露其集中式“緊急制動器”機制之間進行選擇。

In just two minutes, a small group of validators quickly reached a "consensus", overriding the market price and forcibly delisting the $JELLY token, which had skyrocketed 429% in one hour.

在短短的兩分鐘內，一小組驗證者迅速達成了“共識”，超越了市場價格，並強行將$果凍代幣推送出來，$果凍代幣在一小時內飆升了429％。

Meanwhile, Binance and OKX launched perpetual contracts in a timely manner, while BitGet’s CEO said Hyperliquid is “on the path to becoming FTX 2.0.”

同時，Binance和OKX及時發布了永久合同，而Bitget的首席執行官表示，Hyperliquid“正處於成為FTX 2.0的道路上”。

In addition, ZachXBT also questioned why Hyperliquid took decisive action against market manipulators but turned a blind eye to North Korean hackers who used stolen funds.

此外，Zachxbt還質疑為什麼Hyperliquid對市場操縱者採取了決定性的行動，但對使用被盜資金的朝鮮黑客視而不見。

When exchanges are waging war over token listings, and validators are voting faster than you can shout “decentralize,” who is fighting crime with crime, and who is simply covering up disastrous risk management?

當交易所在對令牌上市發動戰爭時，驗證者的投票速度比您大聲喊叫“分散的”，誰在用犯罪打擊犯罪，誰只是掩蓋了災難性的風險管理？

We’ve previously warned of Hyperliquid’s security issues when North Korean hackers were probing its defenses.

我們之前曾警告過，當朝鮮黑客探查其防禦措施時，超流動性的安全問題。

The situation has not improved today. Despite claims of scaling to 16 validators and promises of enhanced security, the same fatal vulnerabilities remain.

今天情況並沒有改善。儘管聲稱將16個驗證者縮放並承諾提高安全性，但仍然存在相同的致命漏洞。

Usually traders always try to avoid liquidation, but the traders in this incident took the initiative to create liquidation, turning Hyperliquid’s liquidation mechanism into a time bomb.

通常，交易者總是試圖避免清算，但是此事件中的交易者主動創建清算，將超流動的清算機制變成了定時炸彈。

The target is JellyJelly ($JELLY), a niche token with a market cap of just $20 million that is highly susceptible to manipulation.

目標是Jellyjelly（$ Jelly），這是一個利基象徵，市值僅為2000萬美元，非常容易受到操縱。

The strategy is full of predatory wisdom: buying large amounts of spot longs on multiple chains, while simultaneously laying out a huge short position of $6 million.

該策略充滿了掠奪性的智慧：在多個連鎖店上購買大量的景點，同時置於600萬美元的巨大職位上。

After the layout is completed, the second stage begins: deliberately raising the spot price in various exchanges to force one's short position to explode.

佈局完成後，第二階段開始：故意在各種交流中提高現貨價格，以迫使一個人的短爆炸位置。

As the price of $JELLY soared 429% in one hour, Hyperliquid’s liquidity pool (HLP) automatically took over this toxic short and losses soared rapidly.

由於$果凍的價格在一小時內飆升了429％，超級流動性的流動性池（HLP）自動接管了這種有毒的短而損失迅速飆升。

This is not just a transaction, but a carefully designed financial decapitation operation that forces Hyperliquid into a desperate situation: if $JELLY is allowed to continue to rise, its entire $230 million pool of funds may face liquidation or expose the emergency intervention mechanism hidden under the veneer of decentralization.

這不僅是一項交易，而且是經過精心設計的財務斬首行動，迫使超級流動型迫切情況：如果允許$果凍繼續上升，其全部2.3億美元的資金池可能會面臨清算或暴露在分散式貼面下隱藏的緊急干預機制。

The attack precisely exploited four major vulnerabilities: real position limits without liquid assets, weak oracle manipulation protection, automatic inheritance of toxic positions, and lack of circuit breakers.

攻擊精確地利用了四個主要漏洞：沒有流動資產的實際位置限制，較弱的甲骨文操縱保護，自動遺傳有毒位置以及缺乏斷路器。

As Hyperliquid’s losses approached $12 million, the protocol finally pulled its trump card: an emergency validator vote to forcibly delist $JELLY.

隨著Hyperliquid的損失接近1200萬美元，該協議終於取消了其王牌：緊急驗證者投票，以強制性的Delist $ Jelly。

The consensus reached in two minutes revealed who really held power.

共識在兩分鐘內達成的，揭示了誰真正擁有權力。

The final insult: settlement at $0.0095, while the market price was still around $0.50, turned a potentially huge loss into a $700,000 profit in an instant.

最後的侮辱：和解價格為0.0095美元，而市場價格仍在0.50美元左右，這將可能巨大的損失變成了700,000美元的利潤。

When a crisis occurs, crypto protocols reveal the truth faster than a chain of liquidations. When you can quickly rewrite market prices, is it still an oracle or just an Excel spreadsheet with some advanced steps?

當發生危機時，加密協議比清算鏈更快地揭示了真相。當您可以快速重寫市場價格時，它仍然是Oracle還是僅具有一些高級步驟的Excel電子表格？

As Hyperliquid struggled to cope with the losses, Binance and OKX seemed to smell blood and launched the $JELLY perpetual contract at the right time, further exacerbating the situation.

當超級流動性努力應對損失時，Binance和OKX似乎聞到了血液，並在正確的時間發起了$果凍的永久合同，進一步加劇了情況。

The timing is suspicious. ZachXBT pointed out that two $JELLY manipulators (0x20e8 and 0x67f) received funds from Binance just before the attack.

時機是可疑的。 Zachxbt指出，在襲擊發生前，兩個$果凍操縱器（0x20E8和0x67F）從Binance獲得了資金。

Coincidence, or a carefully planned market assassination?

巧合，還是精心計劃的市場暗殺？

The user pointed out that Binance co-founder He Yi allegedly responded to a specific request for Hyperliquid, saying: "OK, got it."

用戶指出，Binance聯合創始人據稱他回應了對超流動的特定請求，並說：“好，得到它。”

BitGet CEO Gracy Chen publicly criticized Hyperliquid’s handling of the matter as “immature, unethical, and unprofessional,” and said that “Hyperliquid may be becoming the next FTX.”

Bitget首席執行官Gracy Chen公開批評了Hyperliquid對此事的處理是“不成熟，不道德和不專業的”，並說“超流動可能會成為下一個FTX”。

Wazz pointed out: "Two exchanges just teamed up to publicly attack another exchange, and you still think this market is not PvP?"

Wazz指出：“兩次交流剛剛聯手公開攻擊另一個交流，您仍然認為這個市場不是PVP？”

For Hyperliquid, the question was no longer decentralization vs. centralization, but losing $12 million or reputation. They chose the latter, but the market has seen through it.

對於超流動性而言，這個問題不再是權力下放與集中化，而是損失1200萬美元或聲譽。他們選擇了後者，但是市場已經看到了。

ZachXBT added: “It’s annoying that they’re only doing this now, having stood by and watched as North Korean hackers opened positions with stolen Radiant funds.”

Zachxbt補充說：“他們現在只是在這樣做，看著朝鮮黑客以被盜的輻射資金開設職位，這很煩人。”

Selective enforcement makes principle seem like pure self-protection.

選擇性執行使原理看起來像純粹的自我保護。

“Democracy dies in darkness,” but for Hyperliquid, democracy never existed.

“民主在黑暗中死亡”，但對於超流動，民主從來沒有存在。

The so-called “validators gathering and voting” sounds reasonable, but in reality it is just a show.

所謂的“驗證者聚集和投票”聽起來很合理，但實際上，這只是一個節目。

Just a handful of validators, two minutes, unanimous decision, no discussion.

只有少數驗證者，兩分鐘，一致決定，沒有討論。

The validators’ holdings reveal the truth — — 81% of HYPE tokens are firmly held by the foundation’s nodes, which is in stark contrast to the promised decentralized utopia.

驗證者的持股揭示了真相 - 81％的炒作令牌由基金會的節點牢固地持有，這與應許的分散式烏托邦形成鮮明對比。

ValiaDAO, the so-called independent

Valiadao，所謂的獨立