A Whale that once had unrealized gains of nearly a hundred million exposes: Why are they no longer trading on HyperLiquid?

A well-known trader decided to leave HyperLiquid after the 10.10 incident, calling for the crypto industry to shift from protecting protocols to protecting users and establishing a real risk buffer mechanism. This article is adapted from @TheWhiteWhale's piece “V2 A Difficult Personal Decision,” organized, compiled, and written by BlockBeats. (Background: The future of Hyperliquid: HIP-3 and HyperStone) (Context: ERC-8021 proposal interpretation: Can Ethereum's developers replicate Hyperliquid's wealth creation myth?) The author of this article is a prominent trader deeply involved in crypto trading, with over 70,000 followers on the X platform, aiming to achieve a trading performance of $100 million. In August this year, his publicly recorded overall earnings on HyperLiquid had reached $95 million, and he stated that if the performance of other platforms was included, the total had “broken $100 million.” Entering October, his career profit and loss remained positive, with “eight-figure profits maintained throughout the year.” However, on October 10, he experienced his first-ever liquidation during a global clearing plummet, incurring a single loss of approximately $62 million, with a drawdown of about 62%. Even so, he emphasized that he was “still in positive earnings” and continued to rebuild his position through selling HYPE Tokens and other means. He had previously publicly praised HyperLiquid's founder Jeff as a “Nobel laureate of crypto,” but chose to leave HyperLiquid today. In his view, this was not disappointment but a shift in values. He called for the industry to transition from “protecting protocols” to “protecting users,” moving from celebrating zero bad debts to establishing a genuine risk buffer mechanism. After all, a mature financial system should not only rely on “luck” and “hope” as the last safety net. The original text is as follows: The protocol isn't dead, but the users are "I made a personal decision: I will no longer trade on HyperLiquid. I want to particularly emphasize the word “personal”—and it is a very difficult decision. I do not want anyone to follow me; I just choose to continue acting according to the changes in my values. Many people have witnessed the evolution of my thoughts along this journey. As human beings, we should evolve, reflect, let go of old frameworks, and build better new frameworks. And I know that people often say not to become emotionally dependent on a protocol. But HyperLiquid is indeed different for me. Jeff created something that the market desperately needed. He brought the issue of “structural fairness” into the spotlight, opening up better discussions for the entire industry. He and the HL team deserve to leave their mark in crypto history. I sincerely hope they continue to write it. But if you've followed me long enough, you also know that I am an idealist, perhaps even overly so. I cannot shut off that part of my brain: I can see things as they are now while always insisting on how they “should” be. October 10 made many newcomers see the truth of the industry. For those who have stayed long enough, it was just a reminder: this ecosystem is still fragile and still easily manipulated. Can a centralized trading platform trigger a global clearing waterfall, temporarily breaking the prices of all protocols? This isn't a “black swan;” it's a design flaw. A brief review of the process that day: Binance used its own Oracle Machine—resulting in a stablecoin depeg. This triggered a small but manageable clearing chain. The real chaos began when their API mysteriously went offline. Delta-neutral market makers suddenly could not hedge in the primary OTC market. Without the ability to hedge, they could only pull their quotes from CEX and DEX. Liquidity vanished, and prices plummeted instantly. And what about the entire industry? It was a celebration. “Zero bad debts!” “Liquidation perfectly executed!” Great, the protocol isn't dead, but the users are. Protecting protocols is important, that is obvious. But “protecting protocols” does not equal “protecting traders.” If we want broader adoption, higher legitimacy, and want the crypto industry to continue developing without being regulated into a chokehold, we must build genuine consumer protection from a systemic level. TradFi has circuit breakers, market maker obligations, and structural guardrails. What does the crypto industry have? Hope. And a manual: “Wish you good luck!” So why am I leaving HyperLiquid? Because I choose to support those teams that actively address these design flaws, rather than merely observe the problems. I have spoken with Jeff and another member of Core 11. They do not seem to think this is part of the current roadmap. That’s their choice, and I respect it. But it must be made clear that no one has a perfect solution, no silver bullet. What is important to me is: who is moving towards solutions rather than ignoring problems. On 10/10, we lost many people. Real lives ended. Real families were destroyed. The reason is simply… a design flaw that allows a single entity to control global prices? The crypto industry cannot sweep this under the rug. Protecting users shouldn’t rely solely on “luck.” So the question becomes: who is truly building protective mechanisms that can prevent the next “Binance-style disaster”? On Solana, I found only one. Drift's liquidation protection is not magic, nor is it perfect, but it truly exists. More importantly, it works. It checks: “Is the Oracle Machine price deviating from the 5-minute TWAP by more than 50%?” If so, it temporarily pauses liquidation. It's that simple logic that saved many lives. False breakouts are filtered out. The insurance fund covers extreme situations. It's not a grand philosophical revolution, but a key step towards rationality. I am not as smart as Jeff, nor do I dare to claim to know the best industry-level solution. But I am a user, and users vote with their own funds. The industry repeatedly states, “Protecting protocols is protecting traders.” But that is not the whole picture. A car without a driver is not a complete system. Both are equally important and form a wonderful symbiotic relationship. This article feels like a heartbreaking letter to me. It is not an advertisement for Drift. It feels more like a gut-wrenching breakup. Not because love is gone, but because you finally realize that you're both heading in different directions. HL will always be a part of my story. When others ask me where to trade, it will still be on my recommendation list. But now, it is time for me to move forward—towards my values, towards my ideals. And with sincere gratitude, I say to Jeff and the team: “At least we will always have Paris.” [Original link] Related reports Big Brother: The best practice after being liquidated is to naked swim; Hyperliquid account loses $13 million, not painful at all? The myth of 100% win rate whales ends; let's see how Hyperliquid's leveraged whales emptied themselves? Earning $5 million in six months; how did we construct an arbitrage “printing machine” on Hyperliquid? <A whale that once had unrealized gains close to 100 million explodes: why no longer trade on HyperLiquid?> This article was first published in BlockTempo.