Bitget遭黑客攻击3.5亿美元，Hyperliquid创始人旧论重提
🚨 Jeff Yan’s Bitget Warning Is Back in the Spotlight
🚨 Jeff Yan’s Bitget Warning Is Back in the Spotlight
🚨 Jeff Yan 对 Bitget 的警告再次成为焦点
After Bitget’s reported ~$351.6M security incident, an old warning from Hyperliquid co-founder Jeff Yan is getting renewed attention.
在 Bitget 报告约 3.516 亿美元的安全事件后，Hyperliquid 联合创始人 Jeff Yan 的一条旧警告重新受到关注。
Yan previously criticized Bitget’s trading structure, alleging that the exchange could benefit from taking the other side of user flow and raising concerns around conflicts of interest.
Yan 此前批评了 Bitget 的交易结构，指控该交易所可能通过承接用户交易流获利，并提出了利益冲突方面的担忧。
His broader argument was simple: When an exchange controls the venue, custody and trading exposure, users have to trust the platform instead of being able to independently verify the system.
他的更广泛论点很简单： 当交易所控制交易场所、托管和交易敞口时，用户只能信任平台，而无法独立验证系统。
That’s where @HyperliquidX takes a very different approach.
@HyperliquidX 采取了截然不同的方法。
Hyperliquid is built around an on-chain trading infrastructure where positions, liquidations and market activity can be independently observed on-chain.
Hyperliquid 建立在链上交易基础设施之上，头寸、清算和市场活动都可以在链上独立观察。
The contrast matters.
这种对比很重要。
FTX showed the danger of trusting an opaque exchange with too many interconnected roles. Bitget’s latest incident is a reminder that custody and exchange infrastructure remain major points of failure in crypto.
FTX 展示了信任拥有过多交叉角色的不透明交易所的危险。Bitget 的最新事件提醒我们，托管和交易所基础设施仍然是加密领域的主要故障点。
To be clear, the current Bitget incident does not prove Yan’s previous allegations or establish that Bitget is insolvent.
需要明确的是，当前的 Bitget 事件并不能证明 Yan 之前的指控，也不能确立 Bitget 资不抵债的事实。
But it does bring the same question back: How much of an exchange’s risk can users actually verify for themselves?
但它确实将同一个问题带回了我们的视野： 用户实际上能自行验证多少交易所的风险？
That transparency is one of the core ideas behind Hyperliquid’s onchain model.
这种透明度是 Hyperliquid 链上模型背后的核心理念之一。
更进一步：量化金融体系
看懂新闻只是起点——沿量化金融路径，把它变成能交付的工程能力