This is not hacking, but the oldest financial game—Big money + Thin liquidity = Stop hunting. This time it happens on-chain, clearly visible to everyone. This incident once again exposed the mechanism issues of @HyperliquidX: • Too many coins, the order book is too thin: Pre-listing Hyperps contracts have almost no depth, and large players can directly market buy/sell to blow up the whole scene. • Self-referencing price: Hyperps contracts have a "self-referencing price"; 3x leverage seems safe, but the actual market impact leverage is infinitely amplified. • No external anchor points, no circuit breakers, prices can deviate by 200% in just a few minutes. Ultimately, it still comes down to the order book model; if the order depth is insufficient, it equates to a wild goose chase. The reason why people don’t use wild goose chases is that large players can almost monopolize the price and insert needles at will. The perp model of Oracle + AMM at least uses decentralized oracles for redundancy cross-validation of multiple price feeds, preventing complete decoupling from other markets. In TradFi and CEX, this kind of stop hunting happens every day: Large players test the order book → continuously eat orders → force retail investors to stop loss → harvest. The difference is: in CEX, you can’t see the process, while in DeFi, you can see it all clearly; it’s just that the transparency on-chain makes everyone feel shocked. Transparency ≠ Fairness; transparency merely live-streams the entire process of "hunting" to you. On-chain positions, depth, and stop-loss points are all public, making it easier for those with intent to precisely design their "attack routes." But this also reminds me of what @cz_binance mentioned before about Privacy trading; the rules should be public, but traders should have the right to choose their own "visibility". Not disclosing trades may be a necessary option for the future. DeFi cannot rely solely on Transparency; it also needs to provide users with Privacy as a choice.