Market Cap: $2.1773T -4.14%
Volume(24h): $113.037B 39.30%
  • Market Cap: $2.1773T -4.14%
  • Volume(24h): $113.037B 39.30%
  • Fear & Greed Index:
  • Market Cap: $2.1773T -4.14%
Cryptos
Topics
Cryptospedia
News
CryptosTopics
Videos
Top News
Cryptos
Topics
Cryptospedia
News
CryptosTopics
Videos
bitcoin
bitcoin

$64426.275079 USD

-3.96%

ethereum
ethereum

$1793.025282 USD

-5.24%

tether
tether

$0.999493 USD

0.05%

bnb
bnb

$590.176397 USD

-4.18%

usd-coin
usd-coin

$0.999903 USD

0.01%

xrp
xrp

$0.956416 USD

-2.81%

solana
solana

$70.390953 USD

-6.30%

tron
tron

$0.307252 USD

-1.68%

hyperliquid
hyperliquid

$65.400630 USD

-5.44%

zcash
zcash

$897.603019 USD

-0.85%

monero
monero

$489.783944 USD

-7.62%

dogecoin
dogecoin

$0.057896 USD

-7.24%

unus-sed-leo
unus-sed-leo

$9.119479 USD

-1.58%

chainlink
chainlink

$9.104602 USD

-4.60%

cardano
cardano

$0.150431 USD

-7.46%

Cryptocurrency News Articles

An expert from Oak Security has explained what went wrong with the JELLY token exploit, which cost the Hyperliquid exchange $10.63 million.

Apr 04, 2025 at 02:49 am

Reactions are still mounting from an exploit that cost Hyperliquid (HYPE) exchange’s users $10.63 million in losses.

An expert from Oak Security has explained what went wrong with the JELLY token exploit, which cost the Hyperliquid exchange $10.63 million.

An expert from Oak Security has explained what went wrong with the JELLY token exploit, which cost the Hyperliquid (HYPE) exchange’s users $10.63 million.

The reactions seem to have one thing in common, which is calling out Hyperliquid for its practices.

Dr. Jan Philipp Fritsche, managing director at Oak Security, shared his analysis with crypto.news. According to Fritsche, the exploit wasn’t caused by a bug, but rather was a predictable failure, one that could pose a risk to other DeFi protocols as well.

The JELLY exploit appears to be the result of a coordinated market manipulation by several users. Specifically, one trader opened a $5 million short position on JELLY, only to remove their margin. Hyperliquid was left holding the position, after which other traders coordinated a short squeeze.

“The attacker opened massive opposing positions in JELLY, knowing that one side would collapse and the other would cash out. Because payouts weren’t capped and risk wasn’t isolated, the protocol ate the loss—and the attacker walked away with millions,“ Dr. Jan Philipp Fritsche, Oak Security

Fritsche described the exploit as a “textbook example of unpriced vega risk”, a concept from traditional finance that refers to the implied volatility of an asset. He emphasized that many DeFi protocols still fail to account for this crucial risk metric.

Hyperliquid under fire for JELLY exploit

This isn’t the first time industry figures have criticized Hyperliquid over the Jelly incident. Following the exploit, Bitget CEO Gracy Chen called the exchange’s practices “immature, unethical, and unprofessional,” warning that it could become FTX 2.0.

Although Hyperliquid has pledged to compensate users affected by the exploit, the damage to its reputation may already be done. More importantly, the exploit has drawn attention to broader vulnerabilities in the decentralized finance sector.

In 2024, DeFi exploits cost users $308.7 million in losses. That was more than rug pulls, which accounted for $192.9 million. Just days after the Jelly exploit, another DeFi protocol SIR.trading fell victim to another exploit, losing all of its total value locked of $355,000.

Original source:crypto

Disclaimer:info@kdj.com

The information provided is not trading advice. kdj.com does not assume any responsibility for any investments made based on the information provided in this article. Cryptocurrencies are highly volatile and it is highly recommended that you invest with caution after thorough research!

If you believe that the content used on this website infringes your copyright, please contact us immediately (info@kdj.com) and we will delete it promptly.

Other articles published on Nov 15, 2026