Hyperliquid利用自己的清算机制来为delist $果冻代币，迫使该协议在造成1000万美元的巨额损失或暴露其集中式“紧急制动器”机制之间进行选择。

本文反映了作者的个人观点，并不一定代表吴莎的观点。一名交易者刚刚使用Hyperliquid自己的清算机制来对待协议本身，迫使该协议在承担巨额损失或暴露其集中式“紧急制动器”机制之间进行选择。

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.

一名交易者刚刚使用Hyperliquid自己的清算机制来对待协议本身，迫使该协议在承担巨额损失或暴露其集中式“紧急制动器”机制之间进行选择。

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.

在短短的两分钟内，一小组验证者迅速达成了“共识”，超越了市场价格，并强行将$果冻代币推送出来，$果冻代币在一小时内飙升了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.”

同时，Binance和OKX及时发布了永久合同，而Bitget的首席执行官表示，Hyperliquid“正处于成为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还质疑为什么Hyperliquid对市场操纵者采取了决定性的行动，但对使用被盗资金的朝鲜黑客视而不见。

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?

当交易所在对令牌上市发动战争时，验证者的投票速度比您大声喊叫“分散的”，谁在用犯罪打击犯罪，谁只是掩盖了灾难性的风险管理？

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

我们之前曾警告过，当朝鲜黑客探查其防御措施时，超流动性的安全问题。

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

今天情况并没有改善。尽管声称将16个验证者缩放并承诺提高安全性，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，交易者总是试图避免清算，但是此事件中的交易者主动创建清算，将超流动的清算机制变成了定时炸弹。

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

目标是Jellyjelly（$ Jelly），这是一个利基象征，市值仅为2000万美元，非常容易受到操纵。

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.

该策略充满了掠夺性的智慧：在多个连锁店上购买大量的景点，同时置于600万美元的巨大职位上。

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.

布局完成后，第二阶段开始：故意在各种交流中提高现货价格，以迫使一个人的短爆炸位置。

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.

由于$果冻的价格在一小时内飙升了429％，超级流动性的流动性池（HLP）自动接管了这种有毒的短而损失迅速飙升。

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.

这不仅是一项交易，而且是经过精心设计的财务斩首行动，迫使超级流动型迫切情况：如果允许$果冻继续上升，其全部2.3亿美元的资金池可能会面临清算或暴露在分散式贴面下隐藏的紧急干预机制。

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.

攻击精确地利用了四个主要漏洞：没有流动资产的实际位置限制，较弱的甲骨文操纵保护，自动遗传有毒位置以及缺乏断路器。

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

随着Hyperliquid的损失接近1200万美元，该协议终于取消了其王牌：紧急验证者投票，以强制性的Delist $ Jelly。

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

共识在两分钟内达成的，揭示了谁真正拥有权力。

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.

最后的侮辱：和解价格为0.0095美元，而市场价格仍在0.50美元左右，这将可能巨大的损失变成了700,000美元的利润。

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?

当发生危机时，加密协议比清算链更快地揭示了真相。当您可以快速重写市场价格时，它仍然是Oracle还是仅具有一些高级步骤的Excel电子表格？

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.

当超级流动性努力应对损失时，Binance和OKX似乎闻到了血液，并在正确的时间发起了$果冻的永久合同，进一步加剧了情况。

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

时机是可疑的。 Zachxbt指出，在袭击发生前，两个$果冻操纵器（0x20E8和0x67F）从Binance获得了资金。

Coincidence, or a carefully planned market assassination?

巧合，还是精心计划的市场暗杀？

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

用户指出，Binance联合创始人据称他回应了对超流动的特定请求，并说：“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首席执行官Gracy Chen公开批评了Hyperliquid对此事的处理是“不成熟，不道德和不专业的”，并说“超流动可能会成为下一个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：“两次交流刚刚联手公开攻击另一个交流，您仍然认为这个市场不是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.

对于超流动性而言，这个问题不再是权力下放与集中化，而是损失1200万美元或声誉。他们选择了后者，但是市场已经看到了。

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补充说：“他们现在只是在这样做，看着朝鲜黑客以被盗的辐射资金开设职位，这很烦人。”

Selective enforcement makes principle seem like pure self-protection.

选择性执行使原理看起来像纯粹的自我保护。

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

“民主在黑暗中死亡”，但对于超流动，民主从来没有存在。

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

所谓的“验证者聚集和投票”听起来很合理，但实际上，这只是一个节目。

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

只有少数验证者，两分钟，一致决定，没有讨论。

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.

验证者的持股揭示了真相 - 81％的炒作令牌由基金会的节点牢固地持有，这与应许的分散式乌托邦形成鲜明对比。

ValiaDAO, the so-called independent

Valiadao，所谓的独立