Market Manipulation: Hyperliquid And Binance Splash In The JELLY Case

The wounds left by the collapse of FTX are not yet healed, and already, its specter haunts the crypto universe again. This time, the spotlight is on Hyperliquid, the issuer of the flamboyant HYPE token. A case of manipulation surrounding the JELLY token has just sent chills down the spine, awakening painful memories of unregulated finance.

Hyperliquid shaken by the loss of 13.5 million: the JELLY crypto becomes a nightmare

The scenario seems written to disturb. On Hyperliquid, a crypto trader opens a short position of 6 million dollars against the JELLY token, freshly listed. Until then, nothing unprecedented in the world of perpetual contracts. But the story takes a turn when the trader, in a gesture as cynical as it is effective, triggers their own liquidation by artificially pumping the token’s price. The consequence? A chasm of 13.5 million dollars for the platform’s “vault”.

In a statement published on X, Hyperliquid acknowledges its faults:

We take responsibility for what happened and are working to improve our risk management systems. The loss of the vault has been covered. This should never have happened.

A welcome clarity, but insufficient to stifle the unease. The crypto community is grumbling. Doubt settles in. How can a platform supposed to symbolize the future of decentralized finance fall for such blatant traps? To this question, no code audit will respond.

This is a question of governance, vigilance, and unfulfilled promises. And already, some investors speak of a “mini FTX disguised as a DEX.”

Binance in turmoil: between risky crypto listings and evasion strategy

The JELLY affair does not stop at the borders of Hyperliquid. Binance, the crypto market giant, has also found itself in the storm. The JELLY token had been listed shortly before the affair exploded. Two communication posts were then hastily deleted. Simple crisis management or disguised panic?

No one responds, and the silence resonates as an admission.

Gracy Chen, CEO of Bitget, did not mince words:

The delisting of JELLY without explanation is a red alert. Centralized or decentralized platforms owe transparency and accountability to their community.

The comparison with FTX does not take long to flourish, with troubling elements:

• JELLY saw its value soar brutally from $1.2 to over $2.80 in just a few hours.
• More than 6 million dollars were placed in high leverage short positions, specifically targeting this token.
• A spectacular orchestrated liquidation trapped the protocol, revealing a blind spot in risk management.
• Binance, after promoting the project, retracted without an official comment.

The crypto trader behind the squeeze is now in the red, with an estimated loss of over 1 million dollars.

In an ecosystem where trust is the rarest commodity, the slightest misstep goes viral. And the Binance platform, already under the watchful eye of regulators, did not need this new episode to undermine its reputation.

The JELLY affair acts here as a revealer. What was to be just another memecoin becomes the fuse of a global controversy.

In the crypto universe, memory is vivid and recent scars

It only takes a misplaced tweet, a poorly managed crypto, or a security lapse for the crypto universe to tip over. Investors’ memory is short but vivid. And the wounds left by FTX still bleed. For the JELLY affair does not just evoke a mistake. It evokes a structural flaw, a blind spot that technology alone cannot fill.

Hyperliquid, despite a hybrid architecture praised for its speed, suffers from a more insidious evil: a cruel lack of developers and validators to keep pace with a growing ecosystem. Without manpower to enhance security, audit smart contracts, and evolve the protocol, promises unravel.

Some observers are already comparing the affair to a remake of FTX, with differences in scenery but similarities in substance:

• A centralization of decisions masked under the label of decentralization.
• Tokens listed hastily, without analyzing the robustness of the projects.
• Late responses and awkward silences when the crisis erupts.
• A risk management still relying on blind trust in a few key developers.

We thought we had learned the lessons. We thought projects would have strengthened their defenses. But here the flaw opens again, gaping, in a jelly token that has become too slippery for crypto control.

Hyperliquid, propelled by a still-performing HYPE crypto and an attractive technical architecture, remains under the spotlight. But will it avoid disaster? In a world where bugs, betrayals, or absences of developers can tip everything over, a single spark is enough to ignite the fire.