Suspicious buying and selling exercise led decentralized trade Hyperliquid to delist the Jelly-my-Jelly (JELLY) memecoin, with particulars of an exploit unraveling over the course of some days.
The decentralized finance sector has already seen historic exploits in 2025, because the house struggles with problems with oversight and safety. The Bybit hack noticed North Korean hackers get away with $1.4 billion in February alone.
The JELLY incident, wherein a whale exploited the Hyperliquid exchange’s liquidation parameters, getting away with tens of millions, is simply the newest exploit to rock the trade.
Observers roundly criticized Hyperliquid’s response to the brief squeeze, with one even evaluating it to the ill-fated FTX. Right here’s a take a look at how the incident unfolded.
Jelly token worth crashes forward of Hyperliquid exploit
Venmo co-founder Iqram Magdon-Ismail launched the JELLY token as a part of the JellyJelly Web3 social media venture. Following the launch on Jan. 30, the token worth crashed from $0.21 to only $0.01 some 10 days later.
Jelly-my-Jelly token worth misplaced most of its worth within the first two weeks of buying and selling. Supply: CoinMarketCap
Whereas the coin’s market cap initially boasted virtually 1 / 4 of a billion {dollars}, by March 26 it had a market cap of roughly $25 million.
A brief squeeze of JellyJelly
The brief squeeze on the JellyJelly token happened over the course of only a few hours on March 26. In keeping with a postmortem by Arkham Intelligence, that is the way it went down:
-
The exploiter deposited $7 million on three separate Hyperliquid accounts, making leveraged trades on the illiquid Jelly token.
-
Two accounts took $2.15 million and $1.9 million lengthy positions on JELLY, whereas the opposite took a $4.1 million brief place to cancel the others out.
-
As the worth of JELLYJELLY elevated, the brief place was liquidated, however it was too giant to be liquidated usually.
-
The brief place was handed to the Hyperliquidity Supplier Vault (HLP).
-
The exploiter in the meantime had a seven-figure PnL from which to withdraw. By this level, the worth of JELLY had pumped 400%.
-
The exploiter started to drag withdrawals however Hyperliquid quickly restricted their accounts. As an alternative of trying additional withdrawals, they started to promote their JELLY place.
Hyperliquid shuts down Jelly market
Because the dealer started to promote their remaining Jelly place, Hyperliquid shut down the marketplace for the token. In keeping with Arkham, the trade closed the market with Jelly at $0.0095, the worth at which the third account had entered its brief trades.
Hyperliquid introduced on X that it could delist perpetual futures buying and selling for the JELLY token, citing “proof of suspicious market exercise.”
Associated: Long and short positions in crypto, explained
The trade stated, “All customers aside from flagged addresses will probably be made entire from the Hyper Basis. This will probably be achieved routinely within the coming days based mostly on onchain information.”
It additional acknowledged the hit the HLP took when saddled with the lengthy positions however stated that the HLP’s optimistic web revenue was $700,000 during the last 24 hours: “Technical enhancements will probably be made, and the community will develop stronger because of classes discovered.”
Crypto observers criticize Hyperliquid
Some market observers weren’t very impressed with how Hyperliquid dealt with the state of affairs. The CEO of Bitget, Gracy Chen, wrote, “The best way it dealt with the $JELLY incident was immature, unethical, and unprofessional, triggering person losses and casting severe doubts over its integrity.”
She stated that the trade “could also be on monitor to grow to be FTX 2.0” and that the choice to shut the Jelly market and settle positions at a good worth “units a harmful precedent.”
Alvin Kan, chief working officer at Bitget Pockets, informed Cointelegraph that the Jelly meltdown was simply one other instance of how capricious hype-based worth motion will be.
“The JELLY incident is a transparent reminder that hype with out fundamentals doesn’t final […] In DeFi, momentum can drive short-term consideration, however it doesn’t construct sustainable platforms,” he stated.
The market will proceed to reveal tasks which are constructed on hypothesis, not utility, he concluded.
Arthur Hayes, the founding father of BitMEX, appeared to suggest that reactions to the Jelly incident had been overblown, writing on X, “Let’s cease pretending hyperliquid is decentralised. After which cease pretending merchants really give a fuck.”
Supply: Arthur Hayes
The trade had already taken motion concerning leveraged buying and selling earlier in March, growing margin necessities for merchants after its HLP misplaced tens of millions of {dollars} throughout a big Ether liquidation.
Associated: Hyperliquid ups margin requirements after $4 million liquidation loss
Nonetheless, Hayes may very well be proper — “degen” merchants who’re at peace with the danger of DeFi may eat the losses and proceed onward. Moreover, it doesn’t seem {that a} clear authorized framework for DeFi is coming anytime quickly, not less than not in the USA. There could also be no strain or oversight, apart from person reactions, to make “decentralized exchanges” change their methods.
The true irony of the exploit is that it appears everybody misplaced out — the trade, merchants, and even the exploiter.
In whole, the dealer deposited $7.17 million into their accounts however was solely capable of withdraw $6.26 million, with a steadiness of round $900,000 nonetheless remaining on their Hyperliquid accounts. If they can get the funds again, the exploit will price them round $4,000; if not, it may have price them virtually $1 million.
Journal: Arbitrum co-founder skeptical of move to based and native rollups: Steven Goldfeder
