Author
Ahmed Balaha
Author
Share
Bitget CEO Gracy Chen posted on X on April 7, calling Hyperliquid ‘immature, unethical, and unprofessional’ – and branded the platform an overmarketed fake crypto DEX that poses ‘FTX 2.0’ risks to users. The post landed like a grenade on Crypto Twitter, igniting one of the sharpest CEX vs DEX exchanges the industry has seen in years.
This isn’t background noise. Hyperliquid has been pulling serious volume – consistently above $1B in daily perp trades, directly cannibalising the perpetuals business of mid-tier and top-tier centralised exchanges, including Bitget.
- The accusation: Gracy Chen, Bitget CEO, publicly called Hyperliquid an ‘overmarketed’ fake DEX on April 7, warning of systemic risks comparable to FTX and describing it as an ‘offshore CEX with no KYC/AML.’
- The trigger: Hyperliquid’s small validator set unanimously delisted the JELLY memecoin perp market on March 26 and force-settled positions at $0.0095 after an attacker used a $6M short to exploit the HLP vault – exposing the platform’s centralized emergency override capability.
- The structural critique: Chen argued that Hyperliquid’s mixed vaults expose all users to collective risk from individual manipulators, and that foundation-level intervention in open markets sets a ‘dangerous precedent.’
- The volume context: Hyperliquid’s HYPE token and platform growth represent a direct threat to CEX perp revenue – making Chen’s critique land somewhere between principled concern and competitive self-interest.
- Industry split: BitMEX co-founder Arthur Hayes echoed decentralization concerns but downplayed long-term damage; Hyperliquid’s community pushed back hard, accusing Chen of conflating valid critique with CEX protectionism.
- What’s next: Hyperliquid has flagged validator expansions and HLP upgrades post-JELLY; Bitget’s Q2 2026 volume numbers will tell whether the controversy moved any market share.
Discover: The Best Crypto Exchanges for Active Traders
What Chen Actually Said and Why It Hit a Nerve With Hyperliquid
Chen’s post was direct: Hyperliquid operates like an ‘offshore CEX with no KYC/AML’ dressed in DeFi branding, and the JELLY incident proved it. Her core charge – that the decision to close the JELLY market and force-settle positions ‘sets a dangerous precedent’ – targeted the exact mechanism Hyperliquid uses to separate itself from traditional finance: on-chain, non-custodial execution with validator consensus.
The JELLY incident on March 26 gave Chen’s critique its teeth. An attacker opened a $6M short on the newly listed JELLY memecoin perp – a token launched in January 2025 by Venmo co-founder Iqram Magdon-Ismail – then pumped the token’s on-chain price to trigger self-liquidation, threatening over $10M in losses for the HLP vault.
Hyperliquid’s validators responded by unanimously delisting the market and forcing settlement at $0.0095, shielding the vault but overriding open user positions in the process.
That intervention is the live evidence Chen is working with. Hyperliquid has built its brand – and its HYPE token valuation on the decentralization claim. Force-settling user positions via coordinated validator action isn’t what decentralized looks like. And Chen said so, loudly, with FTX in the headline.
Explore: The best pre-launch token sales with asymmetric upside potential
Why Bitget Is Really Swinging – and What Hyperliquid Crypto Has to Lose
The real story isn’t just executive-level beef. It’s volume. Hyperliquid has been consistently running $1B+ in daily perpetual volume – the core product category that CEXs, such as Bitget, depend on for fee revenue.
As centralized exchange dynamics shift and traders grow more comfortable with on-chain execution, every dollar that moves to Hyperliquid is a dollar not clearing through a CEX order book.
Chen’s timing matters. Her post came roughly two weeks after the JELLY incident gave her a concrete structural failure to point at.
That isn’t a coincidence, it’s the competitive calculus of a CEO watching market share migrate on-chain and identifying the moment the migration narrative cracks.
AP Collective founder Abhi had already detailed the $6M short self-liquidation tactic publicly; Chen amplified the structural critique to a broader audience with FTX-level stakes framing attached.
The HYPE token is also part of this. Hyperliquid’s native token had become a proxy bet on the platform’s continued volume growth and its positioning in the expanding DeFi infrastructure landscape. Attacking the platform’s decentralization credentials directly attacks the thesis behind HYPE’s valuation – and every holder in the community knows it.
Is Hyperliquid Actually Decentralized?
Hyperliquid runs on a purpose-built L1 using HyperBFT consensus, with on-chain order matching and a non-custodial settlement model via its HyperLiquidity Provider vault.
On paper, that’s meaningfully different from a CEX, no withdrawal risk, no opaque internal matching. But the validator set is small, permissioned, and operated by a tight group – and the Hyper Foundation retains emergency intervention capability that it exercised in the JELLY case without a community governance vote.
BitMEX co-founder Arthur Hayes stated the community should ‘stop pretending Hyperliquid is decentralized’ – echoing Chen’s framing from a less commercially conflicted position.
Hayes walked back the severity, later arguing that initial reactions overestimated the reputational damage and urged focus on the platform’s resilience.
But the structural question didn’t go away with his reassessment.
Discover: The Best Crypto Presales Live Right Now
