do nothing: eat loss
complain: probability of refunds go up but likely looks bad
dont think too much about it, probably just a +ev move to disclose
As a delta-neutral fund, we farm funding rates across most markets, so we also had positions in the pre-market of $XPL (Plasma).
Our strategy was to short $XPL on Hyperliquid with isolated margin and a liquidation level about 2.1x above the entry price of $0.6, while going long $XPL on Bybit. We had executed similar trades multiple times without any issues.
On 26/08/2025, however, a manipulator bought up all available offers and pushed the price from $0.6 to $1.8 within 3–4 minutes, liquidating 85% of open interest - including our position. Even though we had additional margin available, this move was clearly not organic volatility but outright manipulation. We fully understand the risks of trading and accept responsibility for normal market fluctuations, but in this case the circumstances were extraordinary and far beyond typical volatility: both Bybit and Binance prices stayed at $0.6, and there was no time to react or add collateral.
This was not simply about a whale’s action, but about the mechanics of how it was possible to force the price up on Hyperliquid while other exchanges remained stable. Hyperliquid provided no backstops or safeguards to prevent this type of manipulation, and the manipulator deliberately chose Hyperliquid to execute this “trade” instead of Binance, Bybit or any other perp dex, which implemented open interest caps to protect their users from manipulation.
At the moment @HyperliquidX already announced that they will integrate external exchange prices into the mark price (the liquidation reference). During the incident, the mark price on Hyperliquid jumped to $1.8 while on other pre-market venues it stayed at $0.6. If external prices had been included from the beginning, nobody would have been liquidated, because the Hyperliquid price deviation from other exchanges would have been clear and corrected.
In the past, Hyperliquid refunded users in the $JELLYJELLY incident, recognizing that system flaws had unfairly harmed traders. The same logic applies here: loyal users shouldn’t bear the cost of bad mechanics and targeted manipulation.
I also want to emphasize that we have been using Hyperliquid since its TGE. We are very active and loyal users, as well as stakers on the platform. We strongly believe in Hyperliquid and have always supported it as part of the community. But if such events are ignored, it risks sending a message that regular users can be unfairly disadvantaged while whales act without consequence - a major red flag that would damage trust and negatively impact future activity.
@chameleon_jeff @iliensinc @xulian_hl @HyperFND

2.09萬
0
本頁面內容由第三方提供。除非另有說明,OKX 不是所引用文章的作者,也不對此類材料主張任何版權。該內容僅供參考,並不代表 OKX 觀點,不作為任何形式的認可,也不應被視為投資建議或購買或出售數字資產的招攬。在使用生成式人工智能提供摘要或其他信息的情況下,此類人工智能生成的內容可能不準確或不一致。請閱讀鏈接文章,瞭解更多詳情和信息。OKX 不對第三方網站上的內容負責。包含穩定幣、NFTs 等在內的數字資產涉及較高程度的風險,其價值可能會產生較大波動。請根據自身財務狀況,仔細考慮交易或持有數字資產是否適合您。


