One major risk to hyperliquid:native that I rarely see discussed: a hack or protocol exploit Here what went wrong in the past, and what to be careful of: Dec '24 Addresses linked to Lazarus (North Korean hacking group) traded on the platform. This caused ~$250M net outflows (perception risk) Mar '25 A trader using 50x leverage opened a $200M position on Ethereum, then withdrew collateral, forcing a liquidation onto Hyperliquid's own MM vault. MM absorbed ~$4M loss; trader profited ~$1.86M; maximum leverage subsequently cut (mechanism design risk) Mar '26 The JELLY memecoin was manipulated, squeezed 400%+, forcing a losing short position onto MM. Peak unrealized loss of ~$12–13.5M before validators halted and delisted the market; MM's position was then settled at $0.0095/JELLY, leaving it with a final realized profit of ~$703K rather than a loss (Manipulation risk that exposed validator power to freeze the market) - five validators related to Hype foundation still control approximately 49% of staked HYPE (down from over 81% in early 2025), with the remaining roughly 51% spread across 22 independent operators. This concentration is sufficient to freeze and delist a market unilaterally: this is a governance risk Sep '25 Hyperdrive, a third-party lending app built on Hyperliquid's technology, suffered a router exploit. ~$782K drained. But this was an external app 2025–2026 Phishing / stolen-credential incidents. Individually $12K–$21M; user-side losses. But this was off protocol, cause by user security issues TLDR: So far, documented losses have involved compromised users, failures in market design or governance, or third-party apps, not a hack of Hyperliquid’s core protocol. Hopefully we can continue like that Hyperliquid