杂种又回到了聚光灯下。 DEX本可以看到其流动性基金，其中包含用户的资金，完全清空。

Bybit最近证明了。但是，在超流动性的情况下，HLP是一个弱点，因为它不断暴露于市场操纵的尝试。

Two weeks after being manipulated by an experienced trader, Hyperliquid is back in the spotlight. DEX could have seen its liquidity fund, containing users’ funds, completely emptied. However, the lack of decentralisation can sometimes prevent the worst.

在被经验丰富的商人操纵后的两个星期后，Hyproliquid又重新成为了人们的关注。 DEX本可以看到其流动性基金，其中包含用户的资金，完全清空。但是，缺乏权力下放有时会阻止最坏情况。

The attack suffered by Hyperliquid

攻击遭受了混血

Hyperliquid’s success, which can be verified by its daily trading volumes, is all the more remarkable considering that DEX is still a very young protocol. This makes it still relatively untested and thus an ideal prey for manipulation attempts by some malicious traders. Only a fortnight ago, the platform suffered a loss of $4 million as a result of a large-scale leveraged manipulation of $300 million on Ethereum. With an ingenious strategy, a trader managed to cash in his profits through leverage, leaving Hyperliquid to handle the liquidation. It was a manoeuvre that required a cool head and a deep understanding of liquidation processes, as well as the workings of DEX itself. The latter is based on the Hyperliquid Liquidity Pool (HLP), an internal, mutualised liquidity fund into which users can deposit funds and receive rewards from fees collected by the protocol. This fund provides liquidity to DEX traders when needed, ensuring the stability of trading operations and also acting as a ‘safety buffer’ in case of liquidavision. However, this mechanism represents both a strength and a weakness for the protocol.

考虑到DEX仍然是非常年轻的协议，Hyperliquid的成功可以通过其日常交易量来验证。这使其仍然相对未经测试，因此是一些恶意交易者进行操纵尝试的理想猎物。仅在两周前，该平台由于对以太坊的3亿美元杠杆操作而损失了400万美元。通过巧妙的策略，交易员设法通过杠杆来兑现他的利润，使超流利处理清算。这是一种机动，需要一个凉爽的头部，并深入了解清算过程以及DEX本身的工作。后者是基于超级流动性池（HLP），这是一种内部的，共同化的流动性基金，用户可以在该基金中存入资金并从协议收取的费用中获得奖励。该基金在需要时向DEX交易者提供流动性，确保交易业务的稳定性，并在LiquidAvision的情况下充当“安全缓冲区”。但是，这种机制既代表了协议的强度又代表了弱点。

How the JELLY token was manipulated

如何操纵果冻令牌

Having funds available to protect users is generally a good thing, as Bybit recently demonstrated. However, in the case of Hyperliquid, the HLP is a weak point, as it is constantly exposed to attempts at market manipulation. On the face of it, no one would have any interest in challenging the HLP, as this would imply being liquidated. However, with well-planned strategies, it is possible to generate high profits while leaving the cash fund to handle the losses. Here’s what happened: a single attacker deposited over $7 million into three separate Hyperliquid accounts within minutes to manipulate the low market capitalisation memecoin JELLY (around $10 million before the attack). In summary, through address 0xde95, the trader opened a massive short position on JELLY (400 million tokens, or 40% of the total supply), while simultaneously opening long positions on other addresses. The trader then manually reduced the margin, self-liquidating and leaving the liquidity fund (HLP) to cover the losses. As a result, the protocol ended up with a latent loss of USD 12 million, as the price of JELLY had reached USD 0.05 at its peak. Meanwhile, through the newly created address 0x20e8, the same trader made multimillion-dollar profits from JELLY’s price increase and long positions, cashing in between $8 and $10 million.

正如Bybit最近所证明的那样，拥有可保护用户的资金通常是一件好事。但是，在超流动性的情况下，HLP是一个弱点，因为它不断暴露于市场操纵的尝试。从表面上看，没有人对挑战HLP有任何兴趣，因为这意味着要清算。但是，借助精心计划的策略，可以在离开现金基金来处理损失的同时产生高利润。发生的事情是：一名单一攻击者在几分钟内将超过700万美元存入了三个单独的超流利帐户中，以操纵低市值的纪念因果冻（袭击发生前约1000万美元）。总而言之，通过地址0xde95，交易员在果冻（4亿代币，占总供应量的40％）上开设了一个巨大的短职位，同时在其他地址上开设了长位置。然后，交易者手动降低了利润率，自我液化并离开流动性基金（HLP）以弥补损失。结果，该协议最终导致了1200万美元的潜在损失，因为果冻的价格在其顶峰时达到了0.05美元。同时，通过新创建的地址0x20E8，同一交易员从果冻的价格上涨和长位上获得了数百万美元的利润，赚取了8至1000万美元的赚钱。

The objective of the manoeuvre was clear:

机动的目标很明确：

Hyperliquid’s reaction and the debate on decentralisation

超流动的反应和关于权力下放的争论

Faced with the situation, Hyperliquid was forced to delist the JELLY token. If the price had risen further, the losses for HLP could have become critical. A relevant detail is that while HLP was more at risk, Binance and OKX both decided to list JELLY on their platforms. Gracy Chen, CEO of Bitget, even compared Hyperliquid to ‘FTX 2.0’, fuelling a Web3-style wave of panic. To limit HLP’s losses, Hyperliquid manually changed the price of its oracle on JELLY, lowering it from $0.05 to $0.0095. In doing so, DEX not only cancelled out HLP’s latent loss, but also posted a profit of $700,000. This decision triggered fierce criticism, with many questioning the true decentralisation of Hyperliquid. Indeed, the protocol was launched with an initial set of only four validators, later increased to sixteen, all selected directly by Hyperliquid.

面对这种情况，Hyproliquid被迫将果冻令牌脱颖而出。如果价格进一步上涨，那么HLP的损失可能会变得至关重要。一个相关的细节是，尽管HLP面临更大的风险，但Binance和OKX都决定在其平台上列出Jelly。 Bitget首席执行官Gracy Chen甚至将超流动性与“ FTX 2.0”进行了比较，从而加剧了Web3风格的恐慌浪潮。为了限制HLP的损失，Hypliquid手动将其在Jelly上的甲骨文价格更改为0.05美元降低到0.0095美元。在此过程中，DEX不仅取消了HLP的潜在损失，而且还取消了70万美元的利润。这一决定引发了激烈的批评，许多人质疑超流动的真正权力下放。实际上，该协议是使用只有四个验证器的初始集合启动的，后来增加到16个，全部由超流体直接选择。

Hyperliquid responded by stating that, given its young age, the protocol aims at progressive decentralisation, both for governance and for the code, which is currently still partially closed to the public.

Hyperliquid的回应是指出，鉴于其年龄较小，该协议旨在用于治理和守则，目前仍向公众部分关闭。

This episode raises broader questions about decentralised finance:

这一集提出了有关分散财务的更广泛问题：