Hyperliquid unveils lobbying arm ahead of U.S. elections – Details

ambcryptoPublicado a 2026-02-19Actualizado a 2026-02-19

Resumen

Hyperliquid, a leading perpetual DEX, has launched a lobbying group called the Hyperliquid Policy Center (HPC) ahead of the U.S. elections. Led by pro-crypto lawyer Jake Chervinsky, HPC aims to address regulatory challenges in DeFi and perpetual derivatives markets. The project is funding the initiative with 1 million HYPE tokens, worth approximately $29 million, to advocate for laws that protect users and builders. Founder Jeff Yan emphasized the importance of U.S. financial regulation in democratizing finance. Despite Hyperliquid's success—with over $1 billion in revenue and $4 trillion in trading volume—concerns exist about regulatory risks, including potential tax evasion or sanctions bypassing by traders. Analysts suggest the move may be a precaution against possible anti-crypto policies if Democrats regain congressional control, which could heighten regulatory scrutiny.

Hyperliquid, the popular perpetual DEX platform, has unveiled a lobby group ahead of the U.S elections.

In a statement, the lobby, Hyperliquid Policy Center (HPC), said that it seeks to “answer toughest policy questions facing perpetual derivatives and decentralized financial (DeFi) markets.”

It added,

“We will bridge the gap between law and next-generation market infrastructure.”

The project said it will unstake 1 million HYPE tokens to fund the advocacy outfit. As of the press time, that would translate to approximately $29 million.

Long-time pro-cryptocurrency lawyer and DeFi advocate, Jake Chervinsky, will lead HPC.

According to the project, the move could help set a smooth path forward and cover the regulatory risks from U.S regulators.

Commenting on the same, Hyperliquid Founder Jeff Yan said,

“Democratizing finance requires education and advocacy for laws that protect users and builders alike.”

He added,

“Global financial regulation will be shaped in the United States, and we must work to ensure that these new policies thoughtfully embrace the potential of the new financial system enabled by Hyperliquid.”

Community reactions

Hyperliquid has been live for about three years now. However, it is already outpacing incumbents like Binance and Coinbase on crypto perpetual markets and other metrics.

In fact, the platform has expanded to non-crypto assets that now account for over 30% of its overall trading volume.

With a cumulative revenue of over $1 billion and nearly $4 trillion in perpetual volumes, Hyperliquid has clearly become a crypto success story.

But beneath the growth story, there’s been speculation that most traders on the platform could be running a regulatory arbitrage for tax evasion or even bypassing sanctions.

For critics, these allegations could be a regulatory risk for Hyperliquid if the Department of Justice (DoJ) or the U.S Treasury comes knocking. In fact, Hyperliquid supporters agreed that the platform’s growth could be derailed either by the DoJ probe or a security breach.

Besides, the market is pricing an increasing chance of Democrats retaking control of Congress in the 2026 midterms.

If so, the previous anti-crypto movement may resurface and exacerbate Hyperliquid’s regulatory risk. And to some extent, this may partially explain the recent lobby move.

Ryan Scott, a trader and analyst, echoed a similar stance and added,

“It is clear why. Hyperliquid is not regulated or attached to any regulated entity. They are prepping for the Dems to come in and cause havoc.”

It remains to be seen whether the move will clear the perceived regulatory risk to the platform.


Final Summary

  • Hyperliquid has unveiled an advocacy arm, Hyperliquid Policy Center, to push for DeFi regulatory clarity ahead of the U.S elections.
  • Analysts believe the platform may be preparing for any changes at the Congress, especially if anti-crypto Democrats retake control.

Preguntas relacionadas

QWhat is the name of the lobbying group unveiled by Hyperliquid and what is its primary goal?

AThe lobbying group is called the Hyperliquid Policy Center (HPC), and its primary goal is to answer the toughest policy questions facing perpetual derivatives and decentralized financial (DeFi) markets, aiming to bridge the gap between law and next-generation market infrastructure.

QHow is Hyperliquid funding its new advocacy group and what is leading it?

AHyperliquid is funding the advocacy group by unstaking 1 million HYPE tokens, which is approximately $29 million at press time. It is being led by long-time pro-cryptocurrency lawyer and DeFi advocate, Jake Chervinsky.

QAccording to the article, what are the two main regulatory risks that could derail Hyperliquid's growth?

AThe two main regulatory risks are a potential probe by the Department of Justice (DoJ) or the U.S. Treasury, and a security breach on the platform.

QWhy does the article suggest that Hyperliquid's lobby move may be partially explained by the upcoming U.S. elections?

AThe market is pricing in an increasing chance of Democrats retaking control of Congress in the 2026 midterms. If this happens, the previous anti-crypto movement may resurface, exacerbating Hyperliquid's regulatory risk, which the lobby aims to address.

QWhat did trader and analyst Ryan Scott say about the reason for Hyperliquid's lobbying efforts?

ARyan Scott stated that Hyperliquid is not regulated or attached to any regulated entity and that they are preparing for the Democrats to come into power and 'cause havoc,' which explains the need for the lobby.

Lecturas Relacionadas

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

In mid-June, three seemingly independent industry events—the compliance-driven throttling of Fable 5, the open-sourcing of GLM-5.2, and the leaked release timeline for GPT-5.6—are pushing the global AI industry toward a watershed moment. These shifts signal a fundamental restructuring of the industry's underlying logic. First, **"usability" has substantially overtaken "advanced capabilities"** as the primary weight, pushing the global large language model (LLM) supply chain into a "dual-track" phase of controlled closed-source and local open-source coexistence. Second, **the competitive moats of closed-source giants are shifting**. Their technical focus is moving from "language intelligence" toward "spatial intelligence (world models)"—a domain heavily reliant on computing power. Third, faced with常态化 transnational compliance risks, **a "model-agnostic" decoupled design has become a survival necessity for application-layer developers to maintain business continuity.** The article details how Anthropic's Fable 5, despite its advanced engineering feats, was restricted for non-U.S. citizens within 72 hours of launch, highlighting how geopolitical compliance can instantly limit even the most advanced models. In response, the open-source camp, exemplified by Zhipu AI's MIT-licensed GLM-5.2, is gaining market share by offering stable performance improvements and significant cost advantages (up to 70% savings for enterprises), while achieving full adaptation with domestic semiconductor platforms. Meanwhile, closed-source leaders like OpenAI are pivoting. The anticipated GPT-5.6 reportedly shifts focus from language to spatial intelligence and world models, aiming to rebuild a generational gap in areas like 3D understanding, simulation, and industrial design that demand immense compute. The core conclusion is that the LLM supply chain's logic has changed. Enterprises must now evaluate infrastructure based on a composite of technical performance and policy compliance. For developers, complete reliance on a single closed-source API poses unacceptable risk. Implementing a truly model-agnostic architecture—enabling swift switches to compliant, locally deployable open-source alternatives—is no longer just good practice but a fundamental baseline for business continuity.

marsbitHace 51 min(s)

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

marsbitHace 51 min(s)

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

The article discusses the ongoing "token subsidy war" among AI giants like OpenAI and Anthropic, questioning whether it's nearing its end. It reveals that current AI subscription prices are heavily subsidized, with some plans offering tokens at up to 70 times the actual cost to attract and retain heavy users, especially developers and enterprises. This strategy mirrors past internet-era subsidy battles, but with a key difference: AI tokens lack "lock-in" effects. Unlike ride-hailing or food delivery apps, users can easily switch between AI providers as APIs become standardized, making it difficult for companies to raise prices post-subsidy. The piece highlights a structural asymmetry in the competition. Giants like Google, with massive advertising revenue, can afford to subsidize tokens indefinitely, akin to using "tokens as a weapon." In contrast, venture-backed companies like OpenAI and Anthropic face pressure to become profitable, especially as they approach IPO. The article cites Google Ventures founder Bill Maris, who suggests Google could slash token prices by 80%, putting immense pressure on competitors. Two potential endgames are presented: the "internet service" model (subsidize, monopolize, then raise prices) and the "utility" model (tokens become a standardized, low-margin commodity like electricity). Given the low switching costs, the latter seems more likely. The competition may not have a single winner but could instead accelerate AI's evolution into a foundational, infrastructure-level technology, akin to a public utility. For now, users continue to benefit from heavily subsidized token costs.

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

"Beyond the Pitch: The Profit Game Around the World Cup" The FIFA World Cup transcends being a sporting spectacle, evolving into a massive global arena for speculation and profit-seeking. The 2026 tournament has amplified this dynamic, creating a multi-layered ecosystem of financial opportunism alongside the football. **Prediction markets** have surged into the mainstream. Platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi saw trading volumes for World Cup contracts soar, attracting new users with their financial trading model and high-profile, chain-based wealth stories that overshadow traditional sports betting in terms of growth and narrative. However, **traditional sportsbooks** remain the dominant force, leveraging established user habits, legal markets, and comprehensive product offerings to handle the vast majority of speculative wagers, with projections suggesting record-breaking betting volumes. Capital markets also react. **"Concept stocks"** in countries like South Korea and Japan experience volatile price swings based on team performance and anticipated fan spending on items like chicken, beer, and viewing parties, effectively becoming a stock market reflecting fan sentiment. The **ticket resale market** has become a sophisticated arena for arbitrage. Prices fluctuate wildly based on team draws and star power, with sellers sometimes listing tickets they don't yet own in a practice akin to short-selling, while FIFA's own "Right to Buy" tokens add another layer of speculative trading. **Collectibles and merchandise** offer another avenue. Panini sticker albums, with their inherent scarcity and nostalgic value, can become high-value collectibles. Limited-edition or locally themed jerseys command significant premiums on secondary markets, and even counterfeit vendors profit from fans' desire for affordable match-day identity. The **cryptocurrency** space has seen a frenzy of speculative, unauthorized World Cup-themed meme coins on chains like Solana. These tokens, often exploiting team names and player imagery, experience extreme pump-and-dump cycles, creating stories of massive gains for a few early entrants and steep losses for many others. Finally, an entire industry thrives on **providing information and tools** to other speculators. Developers create platforms like SeatSidekick to track ticket inventory and prices, while paid Telegram groups and subscriptions sell betting tips and predictions, monetizing the widespread desire for an informational edge. In essence, the World Cup has become a compressed, global laboratory for speculation. While the games determine champions on the field, a parallel, complex network of financial transactions—spanning prediction contracts, bets, stocks, tickets, collectibles, crypto, and information services—settles its own scores in the global market.

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

This article explains the three primary methods for Codex to interact with a computer, each with distinct use cases, permission boundaries, and trust levels. **1. Computer Use:** This offers the broadest access, allowing Codex to visually control and interact with the graphical user interface of authorized macOS/Windows apps, system settings, and even iOS simulators. It's ideal for tasks lacking APIs or structured tools, such as operating legacy software or multi-app workflows. However, it's the slowest method and has the widest permission scope, requiring careful supervision for sensitive actions. **2. Chrome Extension:** This grants Codex access to the user's logged-in Chrome browser state, including cookies, profiles, and open tabs. It's best for tasks requiring user identity across websites like Gmail, LinkedIn, Salesforce, or internal dashboards. Its key advantage is multi-tab control for complex workflows. While more powerful for browser-based tasks than Computer Use, it carries higher sensitivity as actions are performed under the user's identity. **3. In-App Browser:** This is a browser isolated within the Codex thread, separate from the user's personal browsing data. It excels in web development and debugging scenarios—previewing local servers, testing responsive layouts, or annotating designs directly on the page. Its isolation is a strength for development but a limitation for tasks requiring login sessions. The core principle is to choose the narrowest, safest, and most structured interface for the task. Use plugins or MCPs first, resort to visual control (Computer Use) only for GUI-dependent tasks, employ the Chrome extension for identity-reliant browser work, and prefer the In-App Browser for isolated development. **Appshots** are clarified as a fourth, complementary tool for *inputting* context—capturing a screenshot of a window to point Codex to something—rather than a method for Codex to *act*. Together, this layered approach highlights a key to AI agent productization: not granting unlimited permissions, but constraining them within clear boundaries for specific tasks while preserving user oversight.

marsbitHace 3 hora(s)

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

marsbitHace 3 hora(s)

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片