Gracy Chen警告：超液体设定了危险的先例

Bitget Gracy Chen对此做出了反应，并说：“尽管以大胆的视力为创新的分散交流，但超流动性的运作更像是离岸的[集中式交换]。”

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日的剥削事件之后，Hyperliquid是一种分散的交易所，已关闭了果冻期货市场和期货期货合约。该交易所表示，这是在记录该市场可疑市场活动之后。根据交易所，所有果冻期货用户都已偿还。这些行动得到了超流利验证者的小社区的批准，这与网络所谓的权力下放形成了鲜明对比。

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.

这一事件和超流动性的处理已引起其他行业人物的批评。例如，Bitget首席执行官Gracy Chen在周一发表了一篇意见文章，其中她对Hypliquid对3月26日的剥削事故的处理表示不满。

Hyperliquid May Be Setting a Dangerous Precedent

超流动可能会设定危险的先例

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.”

陈在她的帖子中说：“尽管以大胆的愿景表现出自己是一种创新的分散交流，但超流动性的运作更像是一个离岸的[集中式交换]。交换决定结束$ jelly Futures Market和Futures Futures Futures合同的决定进一步增强了这种印象。”她还补充说：“超流动可能会成为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.”

根据陈的说法，她没有指责特定犯罪的超流动性，而是认为其行为会损害加密货币空间。她说：“决定以良好的价格关闭$果冻市场并以良好的价格解决职务的决定。此外，信任而不是资本是任何交易所的基础，尤其是在加密货币领域，一旦丢失，几乎是不可能康复的。”

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.

该事件始于一个交易者在五分钟内在三个不同的超流利帐户上存入7,167,000美元的交易者。然后，他使用这些帐户将杠杆交易放在果冻的流动不足令牌上。交易者的目的是清算尽可能多的长位置，以提高果冻 - 我的果冻的价值。

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，这种设置启用了“建立杠杆作用，以试图从超流利流失资金”。交易者能够通过设置400万美元的短职位来利用超流动提供者保险库（HLP）。这是因为短位置太大而无法立即清算，因此它通过了系统。

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，交易者能够从其他两个帐户中撤回其抵押品，这是渴望的。当所有帐户被锁定以减少订单时，这种超流利的果冻漏洞被停止了。因此，交易者将令牌从第一个帐户出售为限制自己的损失。

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.

当果冻 - 我的jelly的市场被冻结并在超流油中关闭时，其价值约为0.0095。这与剥削者打开他的短期职位时的价值相同，将他的利润变为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.

根据阿卡姆（Arkham）的报告，剥削者只能撤回6,260,000美元的资金。除了费用损失4,000美元外，这还留下了100万美元，仍然剩下的冻结。

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.

这并不是这个平台第一次与剥削者斗争，因为最近发生了类似的事件。 3月12日，两只鲸鱼清算了2亿美元的长期以太合同。该事件造成了大约400万美元的超流动损失；因此，该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所说，一些社区成员担心该平台可能会触发另一个FTX事件。