LinkenSphere

[LinkenSphere @happenity33]

@Tradermayne Happy Birthday Nek, have a good one! 🎂

[LinkenSphere @happenity33]

@blancxbt Merry Christmas Venetian 🎄

[jeff.hl @chameleon_jeff]

Hyperliquid’s fully onchain liquidations cannot be compared with underreported CEX liquidations

Hyperliquid is a blockchain where every order, trade, and liquidation happens onchain. Anyone can permissionlessly verify the chain’s execution, including all liquidations and their fair execution for all users. Furthermore, anyone can verify the solvency of the entire system in real time. Transparency and neutrality are key reasons that fully onchain defi is the ideal infrastructure for global finance.

Some CEXs publicly document that they dramatically underreport user liquidations. For example on Binance, even if there are thousands of liquidation orders in the same second, only one is reported. Because liquidations happen in bursts, this could easily be 100x under-reporting under some conditions. Source below.

Hopefully the industry will see transparency and neutrality as important features of the new financial system, and others will follow.

[Hyper Foundation @HyperFND]

Hypurr NFTs have been deployed on the HyperEVM.

Participants had the opportunity to opt in to receive a Hypurr NFT after the HyperEVM went live as part of the Genesis Event in November 2024. The HyperEVM launched in February 2025 as the general programmability interface to the Hyperliquid L1. The HyperEVM is not a standalone EVM. Rather, it allows developers to trustlessly tap into the liquidity on HyperCore. Read precompiles allow smart contracts on the HyperEVM to read L1 state, and the CoreWriter contract allows HyperEVM smart contracts to send actions on HyperCore. This two-way communication between Core and EVM secured by the same HyperBFT consensus protocol unlocks powerful new primitives. Many novel applications have been built on the HyperEVM exploring these possibilities, including LSTs, lending, and vault tokenization protocols.

The goal of the Hypurr NFT collection was to share a memento with those who believed in and contributed early on to Hyperliquid’s growth. Each NFT is unique and captures the different moods, hobbies, tastes, and quirks of the Hyperliquid community, as depicted by Hypurr.

There are a total of 4,600 NFTs in the collection. 4,313 NFTs went to Genesis Event participants, 144 went to the Hyper Foundation, and 143 went to core contributors, including Hyperliquid Labs, NFT artists, and other contributors.

Ownership and use of Hypurr NFTs are subject to the Hypurr NFT Terms and License available here: https://t.co/6oHgPdf7G9. Participants who opted in to receive a Hypurr NFT as part of the Genesis Event were screened according to the Foundation's risk-based program. In addition, clustering analysis was conducted to protect against sybil behavior and cap the total number of NFTs received by any given user.

Contract address: 0x9125E2d6827a00B0F8330D6ef7BEF07730Bac685.

To be clear: No action is required. You do not need to mint. The NFT collection has already been distributed. As always, beware of scams and impersonations.

[LinkenSphere @happenity33]

@TraderMagus Cascaded himself

[LinkenSphere @happenity33]

@Sakrexer @crypto_adair Burning is another form of airdrop for current holders no? Price will probably pump hard

[LinkenSphere @happenity33]

@sershokunin LFG

[LinkenSphere @happenity33]

Hyperliquid

[jeff.hl @chameleon_jeff]

Why transparent trading improves execution for whales

Throughout Hyperliquid’s growth, skeptics questioned the platform's ability to scale liquidity. These concerns have been resolved now that Hyperliquid is one of the most liquid venues globally. With Hyperliquid’s adoption by some of the largest traders in crypto, discussion has shifted to concerns around transparent trading. Many believe that whales on Hyperliquid are:
1) frontrun as they enter their position
2) hunted because their liquidation and stop prices are public

These concerns are natural, but the opposite is actually true: for most whales, transparent trading improves execution compared to private venues.

The high level argument is that markets are efficient machines that convert information into fair prices and liquidity. By trading publicly on Hyperliquid, whales give market makers more opportunity to provide liquidity to their flow, resulting in better execution. Billion dollar positions can have better execution on Hyperliquid than on centralized exchanges.

This post covers a complex line of reasoning, so it may be more compelling to start with a real-world example from tradfi to demonstrate this universal principle. After all, actions speak louder than words.

Example

Consider the largest tradfi ETFs in the world that need to rebalance daily. Examples include leveraged ETFs that increase positions when prices move favorably and decrease positions in the other direction. These funds manage hundreds of billions of dollars in AUM. Many of these funds choose to execute on the closing auction of the exchanges. In many ways this is a more extreme version of whales trading publicly on Hyperliquid:
1. These funds’ positions are known almost exactly by the public. This is true on Hyperliquid as well.
2. These funds follow a precise strategy that is public. This is not true on Hyperliquid. Whales can trade however they want.
3. These funds trade predictably every day, often in massive size. This is not true on Hyperliquid. Whales can trade whenever they want.
4. The closing auction gives ample opportunity for other participants to react to the ETFs’ flows. This is not true on Hyperliquid, where trading is continuous and immediate.

Despite these points, these ETF managers opt into a Hyperliquid-like transparency. These funds have full flexibility to make their flows private, but proactively choose to broadcast their intentions and trades. Why?

History of transparency in electronic markets

A complementary example is the history of electronic markets. As summarized above, markets are efficient machines that convert information into fair prices and liquidity. In particular, electronic trading was a step-function innovation for financial markets in the early 2000s. Prior trading occurred largely in trading pits, where execution quality was often inconsistent and spreads wider. With the advent of programmatic matching engines transparently enforcing price-time priority, spreads compressed and liquidity improved for end users. Public order books allowed market forces to incorporate supply and demand information into fairer prices and deeper liquidity.

The spectrum of information

Order books are classified by their information granularity. Note that L0 and L4 are not standard terminology, but are included here as natural extensions of the spectrum.
L0: No book information (e.g. dark pools)
L1: Best bid and offer
L2: Levels of the book with price, total size of level, and optionally number of orders in the level
L3: Individual anonymized orders with time, price and size. Some fields including sender are private
L4 (Hyperliquid): Individual orders with complete parity between private and public information

Each new level of order book granularity offers dramatically improved information for participants to incorporate into their models. Tradfi venues stop at L3, but Hyperliquid advances to L4. Part of this is necessity, as blockchains are transparent and verifiable by nature. However, I argue that this is a feature, not a bug.

Zooming out, the tradeoff between privacy and market efficiency spans the full spectrum from L0 to L4 books. On this scale, L3 books can be viewed as an arbitrary compromise, not necessarily optimal. The main argument against L4 books is that some strategy operators prefer privacy. Perhaps there is some alpha in the strategy that is revealed by the order placement. However, it’s easy to underestimate the sheer talent and effort going into the industry of quantitative finance, which backs out much of these flows despite anonymized data. It’s difficult to enter a substantial position over time without leaking that information to sophisticated participants.

As an aside, I believe financial privacy should be an individual right. I look forward to blockchains implementing privacy primitives in a thoughtful way in the coming years. However, it's important not to conflate privacy and execution. Rather than hand-in-hand concepts, they are independently important concepts that can be at odds.

How market makers react to information

One might argue that some privacy is still strictly beneficial. But privacy is far from free due to its tradeoff with execution: toxic flow can commingle with non-toxic taker flow, worsening execution for all participants. Toxic flow can be defined as trades where one side immediately regrets making the trade, where the timescale of "immediate" defines the timescale of the toxicity. One common example is sophisticated takers who have the fastest line of communication between two venues running toxic arbitrage taker strategies. Market makers lose money providing liquidity to these actors.

The main job of a market maker is to provide liquidity to non-toxic flow while avoiding toxic flow as much as possible. On transparent venues, market makers can categorize participants by toxicity and selectively size up to provide as a non-toxic participant executes. As a result, a whale can quickly scale into a large position faster than on anonymized venues.

Summary

Finally returning to the example of ETF rebalancing, I imagine the conclusion of rigorous experimentation confirmed the points above. Addressing the specific subpoints in the introduction:
1) A transparent venue does not lead to more frontrunning than private venues. Rather, traders with consistently negative short term markouts benefit by broadcasting their autocorrelated flow directly to the market. Transparent venues offer a provable way for every user to benefit from this feature.
2) Liquidations and stops are not “hunted” on transparent venues more than on private venues. Attempts to push the price on a transparent venue are met with counterparties more confident to take the mean reversion trade.

If a trader wants to trade massive size, one of the best things to do is tell the world beforehand. Though counterintuitive, the more information that is out there, the better the execution. On Hyperliquid, these transparent labels exist at the protocol level for every order. This enables a unique opportunity to scale liquidity and execution for traders of all sizes.

[方程式新闻 BWEnews 🏎️ @bwenews]

Binance EN: Binance Futures Will Launch USDⓈ-Margined HYPEUSDT Perpetual Contract

币安重要公告: 币安合约即将上线美元Ⓢ保证金HYPEUSDT永续合约
https://t.co/tdsfZ2F9Qp

$HYPE MarketCap: $10818M
(Auto match could be wrong, 自动匹配可能不准确)

[Coinbase International Exchange 🛡️ @CoinbaseIntExch]

We will add support for Hyperliquid perpetual futures on Coinbase International Exchange and Coinbase Advanced. The opening of our HYPE-PERP market will begin on or after 9:30 am UTC 5 JUN 2025. $HYPE

[LinkenSphere @happenity33]

@joshnomics Take care bro, condolences

[NMTD.HL @NMTD8]

Novogratz on CNBC talking about Hyperliquid today.

It's easy to understand and growing massively. They own $HYPE.

[jeff.hl @chameleon_jeff]

Excited to see the world's most popular stablecoin on Hyperliquid!

Enabling permissionless and fully customizable multi-chain assets was one of the key motivations for the HyperEVM. It's great to see the USDT0 and LayerZero teams provide a seamless and secure product for all Hyperliquid users.

Users can mint USDT0 from various source chains without needing to make a pit-stop on a required chain before bridging. Indeed, USDT0 is secured by the LayerZero protocol without need for a custom smart contract bridge.

From the builder's perspective, USDT0 highlights the power of the HyperEVM as a general-purpose interface into the entire Hyperliquid blockchain. USDT0 plugs into the HyperEVM as another EVM chain in its multichain network. The magic is that once the ERC20 tokens are minted on the HyperEVM, they are seamlessly composable with HyperCore without ever leaving Hyperliquid.

As HyperCore features expand to multiple collateral assets, they will apply to USDT0 as a first-class spot asset on HyperCore. At the end of the day, users get the best of both worlds: functionality on the full suite of Hyperliquid features and a secure, battle-tested omnichain onramp experience.

[LayerZero @LayerZero_Core]

Introducing Hyperbridge

Move your assets from any chain directly into @HyperliquidX

Starting with USDT0, USDe, PLUME, COOK, USR, and RLP

Bridge now at https://t.co/0kFMo4Pw5i, powered by LayerZero

[LinkenSphere @happenity33]

@Tradermayne Congrats! 🥳

[LinkenSphere @happenity33]

@Tradermayne Congrats!

[jeff.hl @chameleon_jeff]

The @HyperliquidX X account was compromised. Please do not click any links that it posts

Hyperliquid protocol itself is unaffected and funds are safe

[LinkenSphere @happenity33]

Hyperliquid

[jeff.hl @chameleon_jeff]

There's been a lot of discussion on Hyperliquid's margin design. I’ll address some flaws in the common arguments and explain Hyperliquid's first-principles based approach to improving the system. To my knowledge, this is the first such design in margining systems.

Perhaps other teams will find it useful for their own logic. Like good theories in physics, the best margining design is simple, canonical, explainable, and works in a wide variety of pathological scenarios.

1. The conclusion of some people has been that there needs to be a centralized force that detects and limits malicious behavior. This completely violates the purpose of defi and everything Hyperliquid stands for. This forces users back to a web2 world where the platform has the final say. True decentralized finance is worth it, even if it is 10x harder to build. Just a few years ago, no one believed DEX/CEX volumes would reach its ratio today. Hyperliquid is leading the charge here and has no intention to stop.

2. Some assume that copying approaches from CEXs will work in defi. The most common suggestion I've seen is per-address margin requirement fraction scaling with position size, as CEXs only offer higher leverage for smaller positions. However, this doesn't work to prevent manipulation attempts on a DEX because a sophisticated attacker can easily open positions on many accounts. Nonetheless, this will help somewhat reduce the impact of "organic whale" positions and is on the list of features to implement.

3. Another suggestion is to implement some features that severely limit usability of the platform in exchange for safety. For example, if unrealized pnl is not withdrawable, many attacks are not possible. Indeed, Hyperliquid pioneered isolated-only perps for illiquid assets which feature this safety mechanism. However, this change would have a crippling effect on funding arbitrage strategies, where unrealized pnl from Hyperliquid needs to be withdrawn to offset the loss on other venues. Real user needs are a top priority in system design.

4. There were also suggestions to innovate on design by having margin settings based on global parameters. However, liquidation prices need to be deterministic functions of price and position size. If global parameters such as open interest were added as inputs to margin requirements, users would lose confidence in the ability to use leverage at all.

So what's the answer? We all want defi, but a permissionless system must be robust to manipulation at all scales.

The answer lies in understanding the true problem with large positions: they are difficult to mark. The first order approximation of mark price times size breaks down when market impact approaches maintenance margin. It's impossible to accurately simulate market impact because book liquidity is a path-dependent function of time and actions of other participants. Without simulating market impact, it can be possible for liquidation to be a low-slippage way to exit at a price that is unfavorable to the liquidator.

Therefore, Hyperliquid's margining system update has the following desirable property: any liquidated position is either a loss relative to entry price, or at least a (20% - 2 * maintenance_margin_ratio / 3) = 18.3% loss relative to the last margin transfer out (using an example of 20x leverage). An organic 20x user who makes 100% return on equity after a 5% move will still be able to withdraw the majority of the pnl without closing the position. However, by introducing separate margin requirements between transfers and opening new positions, profitable manipulation attempts require moving the mark price almost 20%. This kind of attack is infeasible from a capital perspective.

Finally, I'd like to point out that the mark price problem also solves itself as market makers continue scaling up on Hyperliquid. It's quite possible that the trader yesterday could have lost money in aggregate. $1.8M pnl longing on Hyperliquid could have been more than offset when pushing the price on other venues, or using other accounts on Hyperliquid. HLP took over an undesirable position, losing $4M. The only market participants who definitely made money in aggregate are the market makers. With millions of dollars of pnl to be made in the span of minutes, it's becoming clear to sophisticated participants that Hyperliquid is one of the venues with the best flow. As liquidity improves, it will become more and more expensive to dislodge prices. So while the margining system improvements will go a long way, the allure of easy pnl attracting market makers will provide an independent source of robustness over time.

The future is decentralized.

Hyperliquid.

[LinkenSphere @happenity33]

Wtfffff?