Denials, wallet attribution, and governance optics
Hyperliquid has pointed to a single wallet and a former employee as the source of suspicious activity, stating that address 0x7ae4c156e542ff63bcb5e34f7808ebc376c41028 is not tied to current staff and that the individual involved was terminated in Q1 2024. The company’s defense hinges on attributing the activity to a non-current actor and framing the issue as isolated rather than systemic. It also cited an internal rule banning team members from trading HYPE derivatives and referenced on-chain USDC balances to argue it remains solvent.
The platform further rejected claims that trading volumes were manipulated, attributing such reports to confusion over testnet-only code. A separate denial came from former BitForex CEO Garrett Jin, who said he was not involved in any $150M trade linked to the token. Hyperliquid’s rebuttal strategy is to contest both the “who” and the “how,” disputing insider links and disputing that volume signals reflect mainnet manipulation. Accusations of a high-leverage “whale” trade and speculative attempts to tie the activity to public figures—including claims involving Donald Trump Jr. and alleged White House insiders—remain unsubstantiated within the materials Hyperliquid has responded to.
On governance, the validator proposal under consideration would burn 37 million HYPE tokens currently held in the Assistance Fund, permanently removing them from circulation. Hyperliquid describes the tokens as already inaccessible and argues the burn would improve tokenomics by shrinking supply, increasing scarcity, and improving the risk-to-reward profile for long-term holders. The proposed burn is being marketed as a clean, auditable tokenomics intervention that reduces circulating supply without relying on new incentives or discretionary distributions.
Some coverage has cited a materially different figure—nearly 10 billion HYPE—as the candidate burn amount, but Hyperliquid’s disclosed proposal specifies 37 million tied to the Assistance Fund. The vote is scheduled to end on December 24. The discrepancy in reported burn size elevates the importance of precise, on-chain verifiability and consistent disclosure as the vote concludes.
Taken together, Hyperliquid’s denial and the pending burn vote define the near-term narrative: operational integrity claims on one side, and a major supply-side governance action on the other. The immediate market read-through is whether governance execution and transparent attribution can offset reputational risk from unresolved allegations.