Hyperliquid Event PR Review: After Technical Hemostasis, How Should Brand Trust Be Repaired?

Author: Nomos Labs

On March 26, the decentralized derivatives trading platform Hyperliquid faced a sudden test of trust.

A price manipulation action led by whale accounts triggered abnormal fluctuations in the $JELLY perpetual contract, putting the platform's liquidity pool (HLP) at a potential risk exposure of up to $200 million. A few hours after the crisis erupted, Hyperliquid quickly decided to delist the relevant contracts through a vote by the validator committee and promised to automatically fully compensate non-violating users from the foundation.

Image source: Internet

Although the incident has temporarily come to a close, a more pressing question arises: When a platform that emphasizes "decentralized governance" chooses centralized decision-making and asset compensation in the face of risk, is its underlying governance logic, brand PR strategy, and risk control system mature enough? Is it sufficient to support its sustainable development during periods of extreme volatility?

From response speed to external statements, and from mechanism transparency to user communication methods, Hyperliquid's crisis response path provides a living "practical sample" for Web3 projects. We attempt to review this incident from the perspective of public relations and operations, aiming to answer a core question: Technical crises can be quickly stemmed, but how should brand trust be repaired?

I. Initial Crisis Response: Quick Loss Control and Emotional Reassurance

1. Timely Hemostasis, Control Risk Spread

Unlike some past projects that responded "slowly" during crises, Hyperliquid demonstrated a relatively mature crisis response, quickly seizing the "golden time" for public relations:

Hyperliquid simultaneously announced an official statement on Twitter and Telegram, indicating that the governance committee quickly intervened and delisted the involved assets, showcasing the platform's unified stance on "stabilizing the overall situation." In reference to the 2022 Solend incident, where the Solana lending protocol sought to take over whale account assets, sparking community controversy over the principle of "decentralization." In contrast, Hyperliquid completed emergency decision-making through on-chain governance processes, achieving a certain balance between operational compliance and efficiency.

Image source: Internet

2. Automatic Compensation, Avoid User Back-and-Forth

Hyperliquid promised to fully compensate non-violating users from the foundation and adopted an "automatic compensation" approach to reduce user anxiety and communication costs. This handling method is not common in DeFi protocols and, to some extent, reflects Hyperliquid's attempt to prioritize user protection and bridge the trust gap with ordinary traders.

A similar "bottom-line" strategy was seen when OptiFi proactively compensated all user asset losses after unexpectedly shutting down its mainnet contract in 2022, demonstrating that a straightforward acknowledgment of mistakes can effectively help projects regain trust.

3. Public Data, Build Processing Confidence

Although the announcement disclosed that "HLP losses were approximately 700,000 USDC within 24 hours," this number, while significant, was quickly verified, and the event's truth was communicated with specific data to convey the signal that "losses are controllable." This can be seen as a positive example of "proving with facts."

In contrast to the highly asymmetric information and data concealment during the FTX collapse, this transparency of information can serve as a moat for brand credibility. After all, standing firm and correcting mistakes is also a form of "loss control."

Image source: Nomos Labs

II. Risk Control Warning Failure, Governance Signals Ambiguous: Systemic Weaknesses Under Crisis

1. Delayed Risk Identification, Lack of Warning Mechanism

Essentially, this crisis stemmed from whales using position leverage and spot price linkage mechanisms to create market fluctuations without significant restrictions, exposing the platform's blind spots in monitoring trading behavior and position risk warnings. Although this is different from contract vulnerabilities or flash loan attacks, it similarly reflects the general weakness of DeFi platforms in building on-chain risk control systems.

Similar to the 2021 CREAM Finance incident, which suffered a flash loan attack due to a lack of real-time risk control models, this also confirms the industry's inadequacy in "actively identifying risks." The construction of risk control systems remains an "unsolved problem" for most DeFi protocols.

2. Ambiguous Mechanisms and Governance Black Box: Why Are User Concerns Hard to Alleviate?

Although Hyperliquid made a compensation promise at the first opportunity, the key details disclosed in its announcement were clearly insufficient. How is compensation calculated? What on-chain data is the screening logic based on? Does the source of funds have sustainability? These points, which should have been clarified immediately, were handled ambiguously, leading to secondary anxiety among users. Affected by the liquidation of the $JELLY token, the platform experienced a net outflow of USDC of $184 million in a single day.

Meanwhile, the platform emphasized that "the decision to delist contracts was made through validator voting," but did not simultaneously disclose the voting mechanism, participating nodes, and governance processes, causing some users to question whether its "decentralized governance" was merely a formality. Especially in the case where the handling results were out but the process was unseen, users were left without a clear answer to the core question of "who has the authority to make decisions."

Image source: Telegram

3. When Doubts Come from Peers, Decentralized Trust Faces New Challenges

In addition to user concerns, Bitget CEO Gracy also publicly stated that Hyperliquid could potentially become FTX 2.0, even likening it to a "mirror image of centralized platforms," pointing out risks such as insufficient position limits, lack of risk control models, and mixed use of insurance pools in its product architecture.

These voices reflect a new round of questioning in the industry regarding "governance and power boundaries": When decentralized platforms face systemic risks, is it necessary to establish a "red line mechanism"? Does the project team possess sufficient professional capability to complete the risk control closed loop without undermining openness?

III. From Compensation to Reflection: A Crisis Awakens the Bottom-Line Awareness of Web3

Hyperliquid's rapid loss control and compensation mechanism certainly prevented the situation from spiraling out of control, but the "operational value" it truly brings goes far beyond a set of emergency plans. On the contrary, this incident is forcing Web3 projects to re-examine: In a market dominated by decentralized narratives, when a crisis truly arises, can the platform bear the responsibility boundaries that match its vision?

The widespread discussion sparked by this turmoil is not because of "whether the compensation is sufficient," but because it touches on the most sensitive issues for users: Who has the authority to decide the rules? Is the compensation fair? Should risk control have been warned earlier? And these are not simple questions that can be clarified by just "writing a process."

Image source: Internet

Compared to a rigid crisis SOP, Web3 users care more about whether you are willing to speak from the user's perspective at the first opportunity. Are you brave enough to disclose the complete process, accept questioning, and open governance? Can you let the community know that their assets are not entrusted to a "faceless entity," but to a platform that truly has the right to express and choose?

This is not a race about "speed of compensation," but a marathon about "mechanism trust." Hyperliquid has submitted its first response paper, but true brand repair begins only after this response.

In Conclusion: The Real Test Begins After the Crisis

Hyperliquid's shortcomings in risk identification mechanisms, governance transparency, and information disclosure rhythm have been magnified. Currently, the "first phase" of crisis response has been completed, and what truly affects the future direction is the depth of handling in the "second phase."

How to fulfill compensation? How to upgrade risk control? How to make governance more transparent? The answers to these questions will determine Hyperliquid's long-term positioning in users' minds.

In the Web3 environment, where everything is transparent, there are many nodes, and community voices are extremely sensitive, "not making mistakes" is a luxury, but "how to respond after making mistakes" is the core capability that determines whether a project can survive in the long term.

To some extent, Hyperliquid's recent turmoil is a "practical test" for the entire DeFi narrative. The test is not only about technical architecture but also about governance resilience and public relations capability.

Disclaimer: All images, data, and information used in this article are sourced from the internet for reference only. If there are any copyright issues, please contact us in a timely manner, and we will take appropriate action. The views, data, and analyses in this article represent the author's personal opinions and do not constitute any investment advice. All statistical data is sourced from public channels, and although we strive to ensure the accuracy of the information, we do not guarantee its completeness and timeliness. Readers are advised to make their own judgments and verifications.