jakiro
Author: Haotian; Source: X, @tmel0211
The previous articles give you an impression, and I praise Hyperliquid all of them.That’s right, HL is indeed a role model in the transaction fee + repurchase model to be a “neutral exchange”.But if we judge from the perspective of Crypto Native, there are many potential problems:
1) The HyperCore+HyperEVM double-chain architecture has technical flaws, and currently only relies on deploying precompiled contracts to synchronize the state., but strangely, the child block lacks the transaction hash of the parent block, and the finality status of the block is also a black box.It feels more like a distributed database architecture than a blockchain that everyone understands strictly.
For example, without a complete on-chain state traceability, how to ensure that the data state is not tampered with, and without a standard block structure, it seems that it can only rely on centralized nodes for verification, and basically cannot achieve Permissionless.
This means that Hyperliquid will either completely expand its own ecosystem and strive for a new product form, or as the ecological complexity increases, the accumulation of technical debt problems will lead to unknown black swans;
2) Since HyperCore is not open to deployment, HyperEVM cannot be truly open to sourceThis means that although many developers or project parties try to build applications within the HL ecosystem and connect with the entire EVM blockchain ecosystem.
However, since HL is not open source, everyone can only access according to its precompiled contract, and can only passively choose to believe its status data.This is no different from the traditional API interface.
Once HL changes the rules, the entire ecological protocol must be adjusted accordingly.In essence, everyone is deploying a “special version of the agreement” in its ecosystem for the high popularity of HL. In the long run, it will lack stickiness and will prosper with the ecosystem.;
3) The most important thing is that HL’s compliance problem was a dead end. In the last cycle, financial products were innovated first and then embraced compliance. AAVE, Uniswap, etc. are all like this. HL’s initial users and funds came from its KYC-free design.This makes it happen and will also cause trouble for its subsequent embracing “compliance”..
Once HL wants to strengthen control to comply with its users and funds, it will inevitably be lost, and the compliance application ideas of other stacked ZK components are subject to the black box problem of double-chain interconnection.
Alas, it’s just a dead knot.So, don’t look at the big players such as Circle and Metamask who are rushing to integrate, once the regulatory direction changes, one by one will run faster than anyone else.
above.
Hyperliquid’s Star Sea must have become bigger and stronger in its transaction chain ecosystem, but its unique variant architecture is also destined. There are scalability problems in its subsequent ecology, which depends on whether the subsequent technical iteration improvement plans can keep up.
Should the problem be exposed to a death spiral faster, or should the plan be gradually improved to resolve risks quietly, and let it be.
