2026-01-07 02:33:25

The community has recently been investigating a short address starting with 0x7ae4, suspecting that there is an underlying manipulator behind it. The Hyperliquid team responded—this address was actually left by a former employee who has already left.

According to the team, this employee had left Hyperliquid Labs in the first quarter of 2024. But this raises a more troubling question: if a former employee's account can still perform large-scale short operations after leaving, does this expose a certain level of centralization risk?

In simple terms, the community is asking—how strict is the project team’s control over on-chain funds and operational permissions? While this clarification dispels the suspicion of "behind-the-scenes manipulation," it also prompts a re-evaluation of what vulnerabilities Hyperliquid might still have in decentralized governance. Investors and community members are clearly waiting for a more in-depth explanation.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

13 Likes

Reward
13
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

Degen4Breakfast

· 01-09 20:24

Can former employee accounts still operate after half a year since departure? How decentralized is that? The accounts of departed employees haven't been frozen yet. Isn't that shooting oneself in the foot? Wait, are they trying to shift blame or are the security measures really that weak? So Hyperliquid's permission management is this level? I need to reconsider this project. This clarification actually makes people more uneasy...

View OriginalReply0

HashRateHermit

· 01-09 03:40

Can former employee accounts still short? Isn't this just a different way of saying rug pull? --- Wait, after leaving, the former employee's permissions weren't revoked. How unprofessional is that? --- So it turns out Hyperliquid is more centralized than I imagined. I laughed. --- This clarification is the same as no clarification at all, and it actually exposes more problems. --- I just want to know how many of these "former employee addresses" are still lurking around. --- Decentralized governance? Now that's the real joke. --- No wonder the community is so angry. Who can stand this kind of operation?

View OriginalReply0

SmartContractRebel

· 01-07 03:01

Can former employees still short sell their accounts? This is outrageous, the project team needs to explain properly. Permissions not revoked after an employee leaves—this is either a basic mistake or they simply don’t take it seriously. Hyperliquid claims to be decentralized, but their permission management is as centralized as it gets, which is a bit funny. Wait, this account hasn't been disabled after the employee left? What about security measures? It's again the former employee's fault, always shifting blame like this. When will they take permissions seriously? Is it true that someone who left in Q1 is still operating the account? Internal management is way too lax. So basically, it’s a trust issue after all—there’s no real decentralization. Is it common to not revoke permissions? Feeling a bit anxious.

View OriginalReply0

BearMarketGardener

· 01-07 02:52

Can former employees' accounts still operate freely after leaving? This is outrageous, it feels like the project's risk control is just a facade. --- Wait, the former employee Q1 already left, and he's still shorting? That's a pretty toxic move, it smells like an inside job. --- It's another centralized issue. It seems decentralization is just a joke... --- No, leaving such vulnerabilities unpatched is unacceptable. I'm starting to question HL's professionalism. --- So the core question is—who has the authority over our funds? It seems we still need to be more cautious. --- To be honest, this boils down to chaotic management. Clarifying things is pointless; we should first get the system sorted out. --- I can't quite understand why they wait until being exposed to come out with an explanation. That's really unprofessional. --- Former employees can short so aggressively? If the community hadn't uncovered it, we would have been kept in the dark. --- Scary, the permissions are so lax. I need to consider whether I should reduce my holdings. --- No matter whose account it is, being able to continue large transactions after leaving is a big problem. This needs a thorough investigation.

View OriginalReply0

TopBuyerBottomSeller

· 01-07 02:52

Can former employees' accounts still manipulate the market? This is outrageous, the permission management is so terrible it's really unbelievable. Former employees have already left but can still short the market, how careless can they be? I don't believe in any "clarifications." Wait, so how many of these ghost accounts are still active addresses? Thinking about it is truly terrifying. Really, exposing this kind of thing makes it feel like decentralization is just a joke. Three quarters after leaving, they can still operate large positions. How bad is Hyperliquid's risk control system? Why does it always feel like this? First hiding it, then being exposed and "clarifying," by then they've already taken a profit. That's why I don't dare to hold large positions. It's not that I don't trust the technology, but I just can't trust these people's professionalism.

View OriginalReply0