在巨大的短職位引發了市場範圍內的震動之後，高流動性[Hype]在果凍（Jellyjelly（Jelly）期貨中脫穎而出。

一名交易員開設了一個600萬美元的短缺，並以20倍的槓桿作用，然後購買了果凍現場以強制清算。價格飆升了400-500％，將清算人保險箱推向未實現的損失。

On March 26, Hyperliquid [HYPE] delisted JELLYJELLY (JELLY) Futures after a massive short position triggered a market-wide shakeout, leaving the liquidator vault with a $12 million unrealized loss and a potential for total liquidation if JELLY’s price continued to rise.

3月26日，超級流動性的[炒作]在巨大的短職位引發了市場範圍內的震動之後，使Jellyjelly（Jelly）的期貨脫穎而出，如果果凍的價格繼續上漲，則清算人保管庫造成了1200萬美元的未實現損失，並有可能進行全面清算。

However, the validator committee intervened quickly, performing a forced settlement of JELLY at $0.0095, which resulted in a net gain of $703,000 for the vault from the $10.63 million loss that was initially reported.

但是，驗證者委員會迅速介入，強迫定居果凍的果凍為0.0095美元，從最初報導的1,063萬美元虧損中，保險庫的淨收益為703,000美元。

This move saved the liquidator vault from potential bankruptcy, which would have occurred if the token's price reached a level that integrated a $150 million market cap for JELLY.

這一舉動使清算人保管庫免於潛在的破產，如果令牌的價格達到了為果凍的1.5億美元市場上限整合的水平，那將會發生這種情況。

Follow the DeFi Harvest on Twitter for more crypto news and updates.

在Twitter上關注Defi Harvest，以獲取更多加密新聞和更新。

As the vault bled, another wallet, 0x20e8, entered a long position worth $8.2 million as the liquidations unfolded and exited within minutes, securing $8 million in profit.

隨著金庫的流血，另一個錢包0x20E8進入了一個長位置，價值820萬美元，因為清算在幾分鐘內展開並退出，獲得了800萬美元的利潤。

This pattern isn't new, as a similar exploit occurred with BERA in February.

這種模式並不是什麼新鮮事物，因為二月份的貝拉（Bera）發生了類似的利用。

According to Arkham, wallet 0xde95 sold JELLY spot to exert upward pressure, incrementally driving the vault deeper into risk.

根據阿卡姆（Arkham）的說法，錢包0xde95出售了果凍斑點以施加向上的壓力，從而逐漸將保險庫帶入風險。

Since March 22, five wallets linked to the attacker have acquired 10% of the token's supply, which in some way hints at on-chain patterns that suggest deliberate coordination.

自3月22日以來，與攻擊者相關的五個錢包已經收購了令牌供應的10％，這在某種程度上暗示了暗示有意協調的鍊子模式。

At the beginning of the year, JELLY's market cap hovered between $10 and $20 million, rendering it susceptible to manipulation with even modest capital.

在今年年初，果凍的市值徘徊在10到2000萬美元之間，使其容易受到以謙虛資本的操縱。

To put it in perspective, shifts of $4-8 million in the token's spot price altered the market cap by over 400%.

從角度來看，令牌價格的轉移4-8萬美元的變化使市值更改了400％以上。

Data from Birdeye shows that trading volume on the platform surged by 1,852%, reaching $170 million for the day, while transaction count jumped by 997%, with 272,000 trades recorded.

Birdeye的數據表明，該平台的交易量飆升了1,852％，當天達到1.7億美元，而交易數量躍升了997％，並記錄了272,000個交易。

Active trader count also saw a significant increase of 961%, and liquidity remained stable at $2.99 million.

積極的交易者數量也顯著增加了961％，流動性穩定為299萬美元。

However, sell volume outweighed buy volume by a slight margin, with $85 million in sells compared to $84 million in buys, which suggests manipulation rather than organic demand.

但是，賣出數量超過買入數量的略微利潤率，售價為8500萬美元，而購買量為8400萬美元，這表明操縱而不是有機需求。

On-chain links revealed that five wallets connected to the original whale now hold 10% of JELLY's total supply, which equates to approximately $1.9 billion in tokens acquired between March 22 and the day of the incident.

鏈上的鏈接顯示，與原始鯨魚相關的五個錢包現在佔Jelly總供應量的10％，這相當於3月22日至事件當天獲得的代幣約為19億美元。

Beyond the direct wallet connections, the activity on the JELLY token page showcases a massive explosion in transaction counts and volume, which is an indicator of the market activity that went into the price movements.

除了直接的錢包連接之外，果凍代幣頁面上的活動展示了交易數量和數量的巨大爆炸，這是價格變動中市場活動的指標。

This level of market activity cannot occur by chance, especially not within a single day.

這種水平的市場活動不能偶然發生，尤其是在一天之內。

This incident has brought to light the speed at which Hyperliquid's validator committee can respond to pressing issues, which in turn raises further questions about the governance model of the exchange.

該事件揭示了超流動驗證者委員會可以回應緊迫問題的速度，這反過來又提出了有關交易所治理模型的進一步問題。

Critiquing Hyperliquid's decision-making process, Gracy Chen, CEO of cryptocurrency exchange Bitget, expressed her views on X.

加密貨幣交易所Bitget的首席執行官Gracy Chen批評了Hypliquid的決策過程，他對X表示了看法。

Despite presenting itself as an innovative decentralized exchange with a bold vision, Hyperliquid operates more like an offshore centralized exchange.

儘管以大膽的願景為創新的分散交流，但Hyplyid的運作更像是離岸集中式交易所。

— Gracy Chen (@GracyChen__)

- Gracy Chen（@gracychen __）

Drawing comparisons to past collapses, Chen warned that Hyperliquid may be on track to become FTX 2.0.

陳的比較與過去崩潰的比較，警告說，超流動可能會成為FTX 2.0。

Her comments followed a post by an X user, who highlighted the rapid changes in the HYPE token price, which dropped by 22% as validators voted on the proposal to delist JELLY.

她的評論在X用戶的帖子之後，該帖子強調了炒作代幣價格的快速變化，隨著驗證者對Delist Jelly的提案進行投票，該帖子下降了22％。

Chen further criticized the decision to force-settle JELLY as immature, unethical, and unprofessional, highlighting the long-term consequences of undermining market trust.

Chen進一步批評了將果凍強迫為不成熟，不道德和不專業的決定，強調了破壞市場信任的長期後果。

The decision to close the $JELLY market and force-settle positions at a favorable price sets a dangerous precedent. Trust—not capital—is the foundation of any exchange … and once lost, it’s almost impossible to recover. A truly decentralized exchange would prioritize community consensus.

決定以優惠的價格關閉$果凍市場和固定位置的決定設定了危險的先例。信任 - 不是資本 - 是任何交流的基礎……一旦迷失，幾乎不可能恢復。真正的分散交流將優先考慮社區共識。

— Gracy Chen (@GracyChen__)

- Gracy Chen（@gracychen __）

Clearly, the validator vote mirrored actions taken by centralized exchanges when faced with extreme market pressure or a large-scale liquidation that threatens the stability of the exchange.

顯然，驗證者的投票反映了集中式交易所所採取的行動，面對極端的市場壓力或威脅交易所穩定的大規模清算。

Arthur Hayes, on the other hand, focused on the contradiction between the protocol's branding and its actions.

另一方面，亞瑟·海斯（Arthur Hayes）著重於協議的品牌及其行動之間的矛盾。

"DeFi dreamers will say it’s the best thing since sliced bread. I’m not so sure. Hyperliquid is a so-called ‘decentralized exchange’ or DEX, and it's designed to be

“ Defi Dreamers會說這是自切麵包以來最好的事情。我不確定。超流動是所謂的'分散交流'或DEX，它的設計為