The previous articles gave everyone an impression that I praised @ HyperliquidX. That's right, HL is indeed a model for being a "neutral exchange" in the transaction fee+repurchase model. But if judged from the perspective of Crypto Native, there are also many potential problems: 1) The dual chain architecture of HyperCore+HyperEVM has technical flaws. Currently, it only relies on deploying pre compiled contracts to synchronize states. However, strangely, the child blocks lack the transaction hash of the parent block, and the block finality state is also a black box. It feels more like a distributed database architecture than the strict understanding of blockchain. For example, without complete on chain state tracing, how to ensure that data state is tamper proof, without a standard block structure, it seems that only centralized nodes can be relied on for verification, and permissionless is basically impossible to achieve. This means that Hyperliquid will either completely expand its own ecosystem with new product forms, or as the complexity of the ecosystem increases, the accumulation of technology debt problems will trigger unknown black swans; 2) Due to the lack of open deployment of HyperCore, HyperEVM cannot truly be open sourced, which means that although many developers or project teams are trying to build applications within the HL ecosystem and connect with the entire EVM blockchain ecosystem. But since HL is not open source, everyone can only access it according to its pre compiled contract, and can only passively choose to trust its state data, which is not much different from traditional API interfaces. Once HL changes its rules, the entire ecosystem protocol will have to be adjusted accordingly. Essentially, everyone is deploying a "special edition protocol" within HL's ecosystem due to its high popularity. In the long run, there will be a lack of stickiness and the ecosystem will prosper and suffer together; 3) The most crucial issue is that HL's compliance problem was a deadlock from the beginning. In the previous cycle, when developing financial products, innovation was the first priority before embracing compliance, as was the case with AAVE, Uniswap, and others. However, HL's initial user base and funding came from its KYC free design, which made it successful but also caused trouble for its subsequent embrace of "compliance". Once HL wants to implement black box control to comply with regulations, its users and funds will inevitably be lost, and the compliance application ideas of other stacked ZK components are also constrained by its own black box problem of dual chain interoperability. Ah, it's like a dead end. So, don't be fooled by big players like Circle and Metamask rushing to integrate, once the regulatory trend changes, one by one, they will run faster than anyone else. The above. The Star Ocean of Hyperliquid is bound to expand and strengthen its trading chain ecosystem, but its unique variant architecture is also destined to pose scalability challenges in its future ecosystem. It depends on whether iterative improvement solutions in terms of technology can keep up. Whether to expose the problem more quickly and create a death spiral, or gradually improve the plan to silently resolve risks, remains to be seen.