Where Did the $362 Million Go? Hyperliquid Counters FUD, A Decentralization Route Debate Behind the Reconciliation

marsbitPubblicato 2025-12-24Pubblicato ultima volta 2025-12-24

Introduzione

A technical report published on December 20, 2025, accused Hyperliquid, a decentralized exchange, of multiple severe issues—including insolvency and a "God mode backdoor"—claiming it was a centralized platform disguised as a blockchain. Hyperliquid issued a detailed response refuting the claims. The most serious allegation—a $362M shortfall in user funds—was debunked. The discrepancy arose because the accuser overlooked native USDC on HyperEVM during Hyperliquid’s transition from an L2 to an independent L1. Total reserves across Arbitrum and HyperEVM matched user balances. Other accusations were partially addressed: some code was testnet-related, limited broadcast nodes were an anti-MEV measure, and chain freezes were part of upgrade procedures. However, Hyperliquid did not fully respond to claims about unqueryable governance proposals and a lack of a cross-chain "escape hatch" for withdrawals. The exchange also compared itself to competitors like Lighter and Aster, criticizing their reliance on centralized sequencers and lack of transparency, while highlighting its own fully on-chain state verification. Additionally, Hyperliquid addressed community concerns about insider trading, attributing significant short selling to a former employee. The incident underscores broader challenges in DeFi transparency as protocols grow more complex, emphasizing the crypto mantra: "Don’t trust, verify."

On December 20, 2025, a technical article titled "Reverse Engineering Hyperliquid," published on blog.can.ac, directly deconstructed Hyperliquid's binary files through reverse engineering, accusing it of nine serious issues ranging from "insolvency" to a "God Mode backdoor." The article bluntly stated:

"Hyperliquid is a centralized trading platform disguised as a blockchain."

In response to the FUD, the official Hyperliquid team issued a lengthy reply. Perhaps this was not merely a simple refutation of rumors but also a declaration of war regarding "who truly possesses decentralized trading infrastructure." While the official response successfully clarified the fund security issues, it left intriguing "gaps" in some sensitive areas of decentralization.

Where Did the $362 Million Go? The Audit Blind Spot Under the "Dual Ledger" System

The most damaging accusation was that user assets within the Hyperliquid system were $362 million short compared to the on-chain reserves. If true, this would mean it was a "chain-based FTX" operating on fractional reserves.

However, upon verification, this was a misinterpretation due to information asymmetry caused by an "architecture upgrade." The auditor's logic was: Hyperliquid reserves = USDC balance on the Arbitrum cross-chain bridge. Based on this logic, they checked the cross-chain bridge address and found the balance was indeed less than the total user deposits.

Hyperliquid responded that it is undergoing a complete evolution from an "L2 AppChain" to an "independent L1." During this process, asset reserves have become a two-track system:

The accuser completely ignored the native USDC on HyperEVM. According to on-chain data (as of the time of writing):

· Arbitrum cross-chain balance: 3.989 billion USDC (verifiable on Arbiscan)

· HyperEVM native balance: 362 million USDC (verifiable on Hyperevmscan)

· HyperEVM contract balance: 59 million USDC

Total solvency = 3.989B + 0.362B + 0.059B ≈ 4.351B USDC

This figure completely matches the Total User Balances on HyperCore. The alleged "$362 million gap" is precisely the native assets that have already migrated to HyperEVM. This is not a disappearance of funds but a transfer of funds between different ledgers.

Checklist of 9 Accusations: What Was Clarified? What Was Avoided?

Clarified Accusations

Accusation: "CoreWriter" God Mode: Accused of being able to print money out of thin air and misappropriate funds.

Response: Officially explained that this is an interface for L1 to interact with HyperEVM (e.g., staking), with restricted permissions and no ability to misappropriate funds.

Accusation: $362 million funding gap.

Response: As described above, it was due to not accounting for Native USDC.

Accusation: Undisclosed lending protocol.

Response: Official pointed out that the spot/lending function (HIP-1) documentation is publicly available and in a pre-release stage, not secretly operating.

Acknowledged Accusations with Reasonable Explanations

Accusation: Binary file contains code to "modify trading volume" (TestnetSetYesterdayUserVlm).

Response: Acknowledged existence. Explained as testnet (Testnet) residual code used to simulate fee logic; the mainnet nodes have physically isolated this path, making execution impossible.

Accusation: Only 8 broadcast addresses can submit transactions.

Response: Acknowledged. Explained as an anti-MEV (Maximal Extractable Value) measure to prevent user transactions from being front-run. Committed to implementing a "multi-proposer" mechanism in the future.

Accusation: The chain can be "plannedly frozen" with no revocation function.

Response: Acknowledged. Explained as a standard process for network upgrades (Upgrade), requiring a full network pause to switch versions.

Accusation: Oracle price can be instantly overwritten.

Response: Explained as a system security design. To liquidate bad debt promptly during extreme volatility (like 10x), the validator oracle indeed does not have a time lock.

Missing / Vague Responses

In our review, two accusations were not directly addressed or fully resolved in the official response:

Accusation: Governance proposals are unqueryable. Users can only see that voting occurred, but the on-chain data does not contain the specific text content of the proposals.

Response: The official did not address this point in the long post. This means Hyperliquid's governance remains a "black box" for ordinary users—you can only see the results, not the process.

Accusation: Cross-chain bridge has no "escape hatch." Withdrawals could be censored indefinitely, and users cannot force withdrawals back to L1.

Response: Although the official explained that locking the bridge during the POPCAT incident was for safety, it did not refute the architectural fact of "no escape hatch." This indicates that at the current stage, the inflow and outflow of user assets highly depend on the permission of the validator set, lacking the anti-censorship forced withdrawal capability of L2 Rollups.

"Throwing Shade" at Competitors

The most interesting aspect of this incident is that it forced Hyperliquid to show its cards, giving us an opportunity to re-examine the landscape of the Perp (Perpetuals)赛道. The official response unusually "threw shade" at competitors, targeting Lighter, Aster, and even industry giant Binance.

It stated, "Lighter uses a single centralized sequencer, and its execution logic and zero-knowledge (ZK) circuits are not public. Aster uses centralized matching and even offers dark pool trading, which can only be achieved with a single centralized sequencer and an unverifiable execution process. Other protocols that include open-source contracts lack a verifiable sequencer."

Hyperliquid unabashedly categorized these competitors as relying on a "Centralized Sequencer." The official emphasized: on these platforms, no one except the sequencer operator can see the complete state snapshot (including order book history, position details). In contrast, Hyperliquid attempts to eliminate this "privilege" by having all validators execute the same state machine.

This wave of "throwing shade" might also stem from Hyperliquid's concerns about its current market share. According to DefiLlama's trading volume data for the past 30 days, the market has shown a tripartite balance of power:

· Lighter: Trading volume $232.3 billion, temporarily leading,约占 26.6%.

· Aster: Trading volume $195.5 billion,位居第二,约占 22.3%.

· Hyperliquid: Trading volume $182.0 billion,位居第三,约占 20.8%.

Facing the trading volume of latercomers Lighter and Aster surpassing its own, Hyperliquid attempts to play the "transparency" card—meaning "although I have 8 centralized broadcast addresses, my entire state is on-chain and verifiable; while you can't even check yours." However, it is worth noting that although Hyperliquid's trading volume is slightly lower than the top two, it呈现碾压态势 in terms of Open Interest (OI).

Public Sentiment Response: Who is Shorting HYPE?

Beyond technical and fund issues, the community is also highly concerned about recent rumors that HYPE tokens were allegedly shorted and dumped by "insiders." In response, a Hyperliquid team member gave a定性回应 on Discord for the first time: "The shorting address starting with 0x7ae4 belongs to a former employee." This individual was once a team member but was fired in early 2024. The personal trading behavior of this former employee is unrelated to the current Hyperliquid team. The platform emphasized that it currently implements extremely strict HYPE trading restrictions and compliance reviews for all在职 employees and contractors, strictly prohibiting insider trading using their positions.

This response attempts to downgrade the accusation of "team misconduct" to "personal behavior of a former employee." However, regarding the transparency of token distribution and unlocking mechanisms, the community might still expect more detailed disclosure.

Don't Trust, Verify

Hyperliquid's clarification tweet can be considered a textbook example of crisis PR—relying not on emotional output but on data, code links, and architectural logic. It did not stop at proving its innocence but instead went on the offensive, strengthening its brand and advantage of "full state on-chain" by comparing competitor architectures.

Although the FUD was disproven, the profound thought left for the industry by this incident is far-reaching. As DeFi protocols evolve towards independent application chains (AppChain), architectures become increasingly complex, and asset distribution becomes more fragmented (Bridge + Native). The traditional method of checking balances by "looking at the contract balance" has become ineffective.

For Hyperliquid, proving "the money is there" is only the first step. How to gradually transfer the permissions of those 8 submission addresses while maintaining the advantages of high performance and anti-MEV, truly achieving the transition from "transparent centralization" to "transparent decentralization," is the necessary path to becoming the "ultimate DEX."

For users, this incident once again confirms the iron law of the crypto world: don't trust any narrative, verify every byte.

Domande pertinenti

QWhat was the core accusation made in the 'Reverse Engineering Hyperliquid' blog post regarding user funds?

AThe blog post accused Hyperliquid of having a 362 million USDC shortfall, suggesting it was operating as a fractional-reserve exchange with user assets not fully backed by on-chain reserves.

QHow did Hyperliquid explain the alleged 362 million USDC discrepancy in its reserves?

AHyperliquid clarified that the 'missing' 362 million USDC was not a shortfall but was part of the native USDC balance on its new HyperEVM chain, which the accuser had failed to account for in their audit. The total reserves across Arbitrum and HyperEVM matched user balances.

QWhich two specific accusations did the article note were not fully addressed or resolved in Hyperliquid's official response?

AThe two accusations were: 1) Governance proposals are unqueryable (users cannot see the proposal text, only the voting result), and 2) The cross-chain bridge has no 'escape hatch' (users cannot force a withdrawal to L1, making withdrawals reliant on validator approval).

QWhat key competitive advantage did Hyperliquid claim over its rivals Lighter and Aster in its response?

AHyperliquid claimed its key advantage is transparency through 'full state on-chain,' arguing that while it uses 8 broadcast addresses, its entire state (like order book history) is publicly verifiable, unlike competitors it accused of relying on opaque, centralized sequencers.

QAccording to the article, what was Hyperliquid's explanation for the address that was shorting its HYPE token?

AHyperliquid stated that the address shorting HYPE belonged to a former employee who had been fired in early 2024 and that this was a personal trading action unrelated to the current team, which operates under strict trading restrictions.

Letture associate

The Trillion-Yuan Market Cap 'Yi Zhong Tian': Who is the True Value King?

The article analyzes the three leading Chinese optical module companies, collectively nicknamed "Yi Zhong Tian": Xinyisheng, Zhongji Innolight, and TFC Optical Communication. It evaluates their "cost-performance" not by current stock price, but through three lenses: PEG ratio (growth vs. valuation), earnings quality, and premium/discount for certainty. Xinyisheng shows the most attractive PEG ratio and high profitability, but its valuation reflects discounts for risks like high customer concentration and reliance on overseas markets. Zhongji Innolight, the most expensive, commands a premium for its market leadership, dominant share in key products like 800G/1.6T modules, and higher earnings certainty, though it faces geopolitical risks. TFC Optical, as an upstream component supplier ("water seller"), has the highest gross margin and bets on the long-term CPO/NPO architecture trend, but trades at a high valuation with more stable, less explosive growth. The core argument is that while these companies dominate module assembly, the true profit pool and technological moat lie upstream in laser and switch chips, currently controlled by U.S. firms like Lumentum and Coherent. The long-term "cost-performance" for these Chinese leaders hinges on whether the domestic industry, exemplified by companies like Yuanjie Technology, can successfully move up the value chain into high-power laser chips. Otherwise, their high growth may remain confined to the lower-margin assembly segment.

marsbit9 min fa

The Trillion-Yuan Market Cap 'Yi Zhong Tian': Who is the True Value King?

marsbit9 min fa

Has the Crypto Market Bottomed? Here's What Institutions Think

The crypto market is in a period of significant debate, with leading institutions offering differing views on whether a bottom has been reached. Three prominent firms have published detailed analyses: * **Galaxy Digital** argues Bitcoin has **not yet bottomed**. Their analysis of 13 historical indicators across six dimensions (valuation, profit-taking, miner pressure, etc.) shows only four are fully met. They project a potential bottom range between $30k and $54k. * **NYDIG** states a bottom is **possible but not likely**. While metrics are close to historic bear market extremes, they note the absence of a classic panic-selling event. They also suggest increased institutional adoption may have structurally altered the market cycle, potentially leading to a shallower downturn. * **Standard Chartered Bank** asserts the **bottom has already occurred** at around $59k. They cite two key factors: potential US-Iran diplomatic progress and the anticipated SpaceX IPO, which they believe absorbed capital and caused ETF selling pressure that is now subsiding. They forecast a year-end price target of $100k. Despite the surface-level disagreement, the reports share critical common ground more valuable for long-term investors: 1. All three believe the market bottom will form **within this year**. 2. All agree the current price is **closer to the bottom than to previous highs**. 3. All maintain a **bullish long-term outlook** for Bitcoin and a new cycle. The core takeaway is that while the exact bottom price ($40k, $50k, or $60k) is debated, the consensus is that a bottom is imminent. For long-term holders, the primary focus should not be pinpointing the absolute low, but on the future potential for prices to reach $100k, $200k, or higher. The fundamental thesis for Bitcoin—sovereign debt accumulation, inflation, declining trust in centralized institutions, global digitization, and improved accessibility—remains intact and is arguably strengthening. The overall landscape is viewed as more favorable than in previous crypto winters.

marsbit19 min fa

Has the Crypto Market Bottomed? Here's What Institutions Think

marsbit19 min fa

The 'Chip' Challenge and Breakthroughs in China's Optical Industry Chain

China's Photonics Industry: Bottlenecks and Breakthroughs In the global AI race, computing chips dominate the narrative, but the underlying bottleneck increasingly defining the scale of AI clusters is light—or more specifically, optical connectivity. Optical modules, which translate electrical signals to light and vice versa, are crucial for connecting thousands of GPUs in AI data centers, preventing data congestion and ensuring efficient model training. High-speed modules (800G, 1.6T) are now standard, with performance hinging on advanced DSP (Digital Signal Processor) chips. This is where a critical dependency lies. Two US giants—Marvell and Broadcom—collectively dominate over 90% of the high-end DSP chip market. Chinese optical module leaders like Zhongji Innolight and Eoptolink rely on these chips to manufacture modules for overseas AI customers, primarily in North America. While this creates a supply chain vulnerability, complete decoupling is difficult. Marvell derives over half its revenue from Greater China, and the US firms depend on Chinese partners for chip packaging and optical components. The risk from laser chips (e.g., from Lumentum), another key component, is considered more manageable due to multiple global suppliers and faster progress in domestic alternatives from companies like YOFC and Accelink. To mitigate risks, China's industry is pursuing a multi-pronged strategy: diversifying supply chains and locking in long-term orders; fostering a domestic market ecosystem to adopt homegrown DSPs from firms like Huawei HiSilicon and CETC; accelerating R&D in high-speed DSPs and advanced packaging; and investing in next-gen technologies like silicon photonics and Co-Packaged Optics (CPO) to reduce reliance on discrete DSPs. The ultimate solution lies not in short-term博弈 but in persistent advancement of domestic high-end chip R&D and manufacturing. While challenges remain in performance, certification, and ecosystem building, China's vast domestic market and manufacturing base provide a crucial buffer, buying time for the industry to achieve greater technological independence.

marsbit33 min fa

The 'Chip' Challenge and Breakthroughs in China's Optical Industry Chain

marsbit33 min fa

Behind SpaceX's $2 Trillion Market Cap: Why Does Musk Always Have the Next Move Planned?

On June 12th, SpaceX debuted on the Nasdaq, reaching a valuation that briefly touched $2 trillion. This marked the culmination of a 24-year journey from its founding in 2002, driven by Elon Musk's frustration at the high cost of buying rockets. The company's path was defined by early failures, with its first three Falcon 1 launches ending in explosions before a successful 2008 flight opened the era of commercial spaceflight. Key to its model was a fixed-price NASA contract, incentivizing cost reduction. SpaceX mastered rocket reusability, first achieving a Falcon 9 landing in 2015, which drastically cut launch costs. This enabled its profitable Starlink satellite internet constellation, envisioned years before reusability was proven, to create an internal market for frequent launches. Similarly, the next-generation Starship rocket was in development long before its first flight, with its business case evolving from Mars colonization to supporting the emerging concept of in-orbit data centers for AI—a story now central to its valuation. The company's recent IPO, a reversal of its long-standing "no IPO" stance, is funding this ambitious "space-based compute" vision. While major tech players like Google, Blue Origin, and others are investing heavily, significant technical and cost hurdles remain. Ultimately, SpaceX's history is one of creating its own demand: first with Starlink and now with space-based AI compute, betting that its next rocket will enable its next giant market.

marsbit36 min fa

Behind SpaceX's $2 Trillion Market Cap: Why Does Musk Always Have the Next Move Planned?

marsbit36 min fa

USDe Circumvents GENIUS Act Yield Ban: How Synthetic Dollars Became Crypto's Most Successful Gray Area?

In drafting the GENIUS Act, Congress prohibited licensed payment stablecoin issuers from paying interest or yield to holders—a rule that forced changes for USDC. However, Ethena's USDe, a rapidly growing "yield dollar," operates outside this regulation. USDe is a delta-neutral synthetic dollar backed by crypto collateral and hedged perpetual futures positions, generating yield from funding rates rather than traditional reserves. Because it doesn't fit the legal definition of a payment stablecoin, the GENIUS Act's restrictions do not apply. USDe's supply peaked above $14 billion in 2025, making it a top-three dollar-denominated crypto asset. Its model carries distinct risks, notably dependence on sustained positive funding rates and vulnerability during market deleveraging events, as seen in a brief depeg in October 2025. Regulatory approaches differ: Germany's BaFin banned USDe sales, viewing it as an unregistered security, while U.S. institutional capital, like Janus Henderson, has embraced it for treasury management. The GENIUS Act defined and regulated payment stablecoins but left synthetic dollars like USDe in a gray area. The unresolved question is whether future regulations will address this category or if yield will continue migrating to undefined spaces.

marsbit38 min fa

USDe Circumvents GENIUS Act Yield Ban: How Synthetic Dollars Became Crypto's Most Successful Gray Area?

marsbit38 min fa

Trading

Spot

Futures

Articoli Popolari

Cosa è ATWO

I. Introduzione al ProgettoArena Two è una piattaforma interattiva decentralizzata che consente ai fan di svolgere un ruolo attivo e tokenizzato nei risultati degli eventi in tempo reale. A differenza dei modelli di trasmissione tradizionali che riducono i fan a spettatori passivi, Arena Two sfrutta la tecnologia blockchain per consentire ai fan di votare direttamente in tempo reale e influenzare i risultati sul campo.II. Informazioni sul TokenNome del token: ATWO(Arena Two)III. Link CorrelatiSito web：https://arenatwo.com/Esploratori：https://basescan.org/token/0x499D35eBE6cEe9B2Ac35Fd003fcBbeeB9CFc7B32Twitter：https://x.com/arenatwoXNota: L'introduzione al progetto proviene dai materiali pubblicati o forniti dal team ufficiale del progetto, che è solo a scopo di riferimento e non costituisce consulenza sugli investimenti. HTX non si assume responsabilità per eventuali perdite dirette o indirette derivanti.

216 Totale visualizzazioniPubblicato il 2026.05.18Aggiornato il 2026.06.02

Come comprare ATWO

Benvenuto in HTX.com! Abbiamo reso l'acquisto di Arena Two (ATWO) semplice e conveniente. Segui la nostra guida passo passo per intraprendere il tuo viaggio nel mondo delle criptovalute.Step 1: Crea il tuo Account HTXUsa la tua email o numero di telefono per registrarti il tuo account gratuito su HTX. Vivi un'esperienza facile e sblocca tutte le funzionalità,Crea il mio accountStep 2: Vai in Acquista crypto e seleziona il tuo metodo di pagamentoCarta di credito/debito: utilizza la tua Visa o Mastercard per acquistare immediatamente Arena TwoATWO.Bilancio: Usa i fondi dal bilancio del tuo account HTX per fare trading senza problemi.Terze parti: abbiamo aggiunto metodi di pagamento molto utilizzati come Google Pay e Apple Pay per maggiore comodità.P2P: Fai trading direttamente con altri utenti HTX.Over-the-Counter (OTC): Offriamo servizi su misura e tassi di cambio competitivi per i trader.Step 3: Conserva Arena Two (ATWO)Dopo aver acquistato Arena Two (ATWO), conserva nel tuo account HTX. In alternativa, puoi inviare tramite trasferimento blockchain o scambiare per altre criptovalute.Step 4: Scambia Arena Two (ATWO)Scambia facilmente Arena Two (ATWO) nel mercato spot di HTX. Accedi al tuo account, seleziona la tua coppia di trading, esegui le tue operazioni e monitora in tempo reale. Offriamo un'esperienza user-friendly sia per chi ha appena iniziato che per i trader più esperti.

122 Totale visualizzazioniPubblicato il 2026.05.18Aggiornato il 2026.06.02

Cosa è ZEST

I. Introduzione al Progetto1. Cos'è Zest Protocol?Zest Protocol è un protocollo di prestito nativo di Bitcoin costruito su Stacks Layer 2 che consente agli utenti di guadagnare rendimento con BTC o di prendere in prestito asset collaterizzando BTC. I contratti intelligenti del protocollo sono scritti nel linguaggio Clarity, operano interamente on-chain e sono open-source, con un design ispirato a Aave v3. Zest è attualmente il più grande protocollo DeFi su Stacks, con oltre 800 BTC depositati e un TVL massimo che supera i 100 milioni di dollari. Nel maggio 2026, il protocollo ha ulteriormente introdotto i Bitcoin Collateral Vaults, estendendo le capacità di prestito da Stacks alla rete principale di Bitcoin. Questo consente agli utenti di prendere in prestito stablecoin senza spostare BTC dalla rete Bitcoin, abilitando prestiti in custodia autonoma.2. Come Funziona Zest Protocol?Zest Protocol è composto da due mercati. Il mercato di Stacks è costruito su Aave v3, consentendo agli utenti di depositare asset come sBTC, STX e USDC per guadagnare rendimento o prendere prestiti sovra-collaterizzati. Il LTV massimo predefinito è del 50% (70% per sBTC). Il mercato di Bitcoin opera attraverso i recentemente lanciati Bitcoin Collateral Vaults. Gli utenti prendono in prestito stablecoin bloccando BTC in vaults di custodia autonoma sulla catena di Bitcoin. Il collaterale rimane sulla rete principale di Bitcoin durante l'intero processo, e gli utenti mantengono la custodia a meno che la posizione non venga liquidata.3. Chi Ha Fondato Zest Protocol?Tycho Onnasch (Co-Fondatore): Laureato all'Università di Oxford. Coinvolto nella ricerca e nei finanziamenti per la Stacks Open Internet Foundation. Ex Manager presso Trust Machines e Fondatore di Deedmob. Profilo LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/tychokoonnasch/.Fernando Foy (Co-Fondatore): Ha precedentemente lavorato nella consulenza IT presso Objectif Emploi. Profilo LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/fernando-foy/.Emil E. (Co-Fondatore): Ha un Master in Fisica dall'Università di Warwick. Ex Partner Ingegneristico presso Trust Machines, Sviluppatore Full-Stack per progetti Web3 e Data Scientist presso HSBC. Profilo LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/emil-e-49771a145/.Dettagli sul Finanziamento: Nel maggio 2024, Zest Protocol ha annunciato il completamento di un round di finanziamento seed da 3,5 milioni di dollari guidato da Tim Draper, con la partecipazione di Binance Labs, Flow Traders, Trust Machines e altri.4. Tokenomics di $ZEST$ZEST è il token nativo di Zest Protocol con un'offerta totale fissa di 1 miliardo di token e senza meccanismo inflazionistico.Comunità (27,83%): Utilizzato per airdrop e incentivi per gli utenti;Sviluppo dell'Ecosistema (24,82%): Utilizzato per liquidità, partnership, marketing, listing su exchange, ecc.;Investitori (22,35%): Sostegno alle parti investitrici che hanno supportato lo sviluppo iniziale di Zest Protocol;Team (25%): Allocato per i contributori principali.Piano di Vesting: I token del Team e degli Investitori sono soggetti a un periodo di lock-up di 1 anno seguito da 3 anni di sblocco lineare.5. Cronologia delle Pietre Miliari Chiave2022: Zest Protocol è ufficialmente fondato.Marzo 2024: Completato l'audit di sicurezza e lanciato il mercato di prestiti di Stacks sulla mainnet.Nel febbraio 2026, viene lanciato il Mercato Stacks V2, introducendo i Gruppi di Rischio.Nel maggio 2026, sono stati introdotti i Bitcoin Collateral Vaults e un prototipo operativo della mainnet è ora disponibile. Questo consente agli utenti di utilizzare BTC in custodia autonoma sulla L1 di Bitcoin come collaterale per prendere in prestito stablecoin su catene EVM, ponendo fine a bridging, wrapping e custodia di terze parti. Questo rollout è diviso in due fasi. Fase 1: Utilizza transazioni pre-firmate per limitare il movimento di BTC; Fase 2: Utilizza BitVM per la verifica. II. Informazioni sul TokenNome del token: ZEST (Zest Protocol)III. Link CorrelatiSito web: https://www.zestprotocol.com/Esploratori: https://bscscan.com/token/0x5506599c722389a60580b5213ea1da60d64754a1Twitter: https://twitter.com/ZestProtocolNota: L'introduzione del progetto proviene dai materiali pubblicati o forniti dal team ufficiale del progetto, che è solo a scopo di riferimento e non costituisce consulenza per gli investimenti. HTX non si assume responsabilità per eventuali perdite dirette o indirette risultanti.

117 Totale visualizzazioniPubblicato il 2026.05.19Aggiornato il 2026.06.02

Discussioni

Benvenuto nella Community HTX. Qui puoi rimanere informato sugli ultimi sviluppi della piattaforma e accedere ad approfondimenti esperti sul mercato. Le opinioni degli utenti sul prezzo di A A sono presentate come di seguito.