yippie

Here are the @TroveMarkets badge holders (some have since been removed). These “gentlemen” (apparently for money and with minimal due diligence) were promoting this project for Hyperliquid community.

@HyperliquidX's IOC speed-bump mechanism has a flaw. Normally designed to protect makers in the interests of a more liquid market, it breaks down in periods of high activity. When blocks become full, pending modifies and cancels queue up for later blocks, so their latency increases. However, IOCs behave as though they have a separate blockspace dedicated for them, and their latency barely budges. You can see this in the lower left chart, showing latency of different order types during 19 activity bursts. The result is that under relatively modest load (25-30k tps), IOC + 8 bps (priority fee) orders can pick off resting liquidity before it has a chance to get out the way. Meanwhile, under higher load (35-40k tps), even IOCs without any priority fee can pick off resting liquidity. This, in my opinion, is antithetical to the ethos and design of the ALO and cancel prioritization mechanism and needs investigation by the team. It exists to reduce toxicity from HFT takers, and is breaking down precisely when most needed. It may also be exploitable. If IOCs really are insulated from the congestion affecting cancels and modifies, a malicious user could spam orders, delaying makers’ cancels while their own IOCs go through, and taking the liquidity left stale. One single example that occurred on AVAX today caused 1.3M$ of volume to be adversely selected for a total loss of ~13k$ over the subsequent 10 seconds. This affected us materially. Faced with such episodes of adverse selection, spreads and liquidity are undoubtedly worse than they could be otherwise. Would appreciate if anyone with a contact at HL could share this with the team.

ok fine, you want to know how i know none of you understood this? you keep saying "we all know this, you fucking moron. it's an RFQ model." oh, it's an RFQ model? RFQ stands for "request for quote" it does NOT imply that there is only one counterparty quoting. in fact, by default in most tradfi cases, there are many all it means is a customer asks for a quote, the middleware forwards that request to market makers, the market makers reply with a quote, and the customer picks the best one(s). the "middleware" here can be software or human brokers. in fact we used human rfq brokers all day long every day in options market making (where i learned to trade), since they had the largest orders. and guess what - it was malpractice (they have best execution duty) NOT to get quotes from multiple MMs in that scenario rfq absolutely has a use-case in markets, is appropriate and good, and variational seems to have built a highly profitable business around it but if you just parrot the "rfq model" line without understanding what that means, go back and read the docs. and then i would suggest reading about the risks related to a single party being counterparty to all trades on an entire platform. and then after that, if you still think it's a good idea to trade there, by all means

Just waiting for markets to open and I can close the puts

BTW this is the first time when Circle quickly froze stolen funds after a major exploit They did nothing after Bybit lost $1.5B, nothing for Drift but for Binance they had frozen $800M in 30 minutes Shows you how much they care about the space, if it wasn't Binance - they'd wait for a week and then freeze $31.21 USDC

TxFlow is Hyperliquid from Temu They forked Hyperliquid's Arbitrum bridge and changed the name. They copied HyperUnit too and forgot to change the name: txrelay[.]com literally says "Unit is the asset tokenization layer on TxRelay". The frontend, the API and the fees are Hyperliquid's. Even the slogan. The L1 is closed source, with Hyperliquid's naming on everything: TxCore, Tx-BFT, TIPs Hyperliquid is closed source too, but it has 27 validators that each post prices, and anyone can run a node to check them. TxFlow has 5 validators, all its own, nothing you can run, and one key that acts as the entire oracle. The same key sits on the bridge multisig So it's a centralized exchange secured by a 3/4 multisig. Their own audit says those keys "can propose arbitrary withdrawals" And the growth plan is KOLs shilling ref codes

CME Chairman: Hyperliquid Will Struggle to Enter the U.S. Market Without Addressing KYC Requirements On October 20, 2026, CME Group CEO Terry Duffy @CMEGroup said on Bloomberg's Odd Lots podcast @podcasts that Hyperliquid cannot shift all regulatory responsibility to users or deployers by claiming it merely provides the underlying infrastructure. He argued that the lack of know-your-customer checks, combined with high leverage and automatic liquidation mechanisms, could trigger cascading liquidations and disrupt markets. Platforms have a duty to oversee trading and ensure fair and orderly market participation. He stressed that Hyperliquid must comply with U.S. law if it wants to enter the U.S. market, adding that, in his view, the operating model proposed by its founder Jeff Yan raises multiple compliance issues.

Anthropic has filed an S-1 registration statement with the SEC related to its proposed IPO. Read more: anthropic.com/news/s1-sec Legal disclaimer: A registration statement relating to these securities has been filed with the SEC but has not yet become effective. These securities may not be sold, nor may offers to buy be accepted, prior to the time the registration statement becomes effective. This post does not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy these securities, nor shall there be any sale of these securities in any state or jurisdiction in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to registration or qualification under the securities laws of any such state or jurisdiction.

How many private jet videos and luxury cars did @cobie have to post before he became famous?

we've spent months with the cftc going through every core principle needed for our filing. our plan is to file next month, then the cftc will have up to 180 days to review. a clip of @vnovakovski on our 3Q investor update call