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

SharpLink CEO: How to Interpret Ethereum Developers Surpassing 1 Million?

SharpLink CEO reflects on the milestone of Ethereum surpassing one million historical developers, a figure unmatched in crypto. Based on Electric Capital data and observations from Asian developer hubs, the article argues that Ethereum’s true strength isn't raw speed, but where top builders choose to build long-term. The core advantage is a decade-deep ecosystem of standards, tools, liquidity, and culture. Of the over one million developers, about 232,000 were active in the past year, working on hard problems: protocol scalability (e.g., the upcoming Glamsterdam upgrade), synchronous composability across rollups, and post-quantum security preparedness. Ethereum’s defensibility stems from network effects beyond numbers: deep composability (the "financial Lego" of DeFi), the universal EVM/Solidity stack, credible neutrality (secured by ~900k validators), and its role as the trusted settlement layer for major institutions. The convergence of top researchers, a modular rollup ecosystem, and a culture of long-term thinking create a compounding advantage that is difficult to replicate. The conclusion is that Ethereum has consolidated its position as the default operating system for programmable finance and internet-native capital, attracting the builders who are architecting the next generation of financial infrastructure.

marsbit4 min fa

SharpLink CEO: How to Interpret Ethereum Developers Surpassing 1 Million?

marsbit4 min fa

SharpLink CEO: How to Understand Ethereum Developers Just Exceeded 1 Million?

SharpLink CEO reflects on the milestone of Ethereum surpassing 1 million historical developers, emphasizing that this figure represents the largest pool of technical talent ever assembled around an open, permissionless blockchain network. While approximately 232,000 developers remain active, the key question for the crypto industry is not which chain is fastest, but where the best builders choose to build long-term. Ethereum's advantage lies in a decade-long accumulation of infrastructure, standards, tools, liquidity, and a cohesive culture, making it the default operating system for programmable finance. This developer base is tackling complex challenges: the Glamsterdam upgrade aims to enhance scalability while preserving core principles; synchronous composability seeks to unify Rollup ecosystems; and significant efforts are underway for post-quantum security. Ethereum's deeper network effects stem from composability and shared standards (like the EVM and Solidity), creating a flywheel of more developers, tools, and liquidity. Three reinforcing strengths cement Ethereum's lead: credible neutrality (secured by ~900k validators), a modular architecture with interconnected Rollups, and a culture that attracts top researchers. The ecosystem is consolidating as the trusted coordination layer for internet-native finance, favored by large institutions valuing security and liquidity. The future of Ethereum is being built by this global community of founders and architects.

链捕手8 min fa

SharpLink CEO: How to Understand Ethereum Developers Just Exceeded 1 Million?

链捕手8 min fa

A Clod of Chinese Soil Chokes Two Japanese Giants

"Chinese Soil Chokes Japanese Giants" The production of a key electronic specialty gas, tungsten hexafluoride (WF6), vital for manufacturing AI chips, was halted by two leading Japanese producers—Kanto Denka and Central Glass. Their shutdown was not due to a technological failure but a sudden, critical shortage of a raw material they had long taken for granted: ultra-high-purity (6N-grade) tungsten powder, which is almost entirely sourced from China. Following a quiet Chinese export announcement in January 2026, tungsten powder shipments to Japan dropped to zero for months. Despite frantic efforts, Japanese companies found no viable alternative; imported powder was three times more expensive and lacked the required purity. Their existing stockpiles were exhausted by mid-2026. WF6 is essential for depositing tungsten into the microscopic contact holes of High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) chips, which are crucial for advanced processors like those from Nvidia. While Japanese firms had mastered producing ultra-pure WF6 gas, their entire supply chain relied on China's 6N tungsten powder—a dependency now revealed as a fatal vulnerability. China's dominance in this "soil" results from decades of painstaking R&D by companies like Xiamen Tungsten and China Tungsten & Hightech. They overcame immense technical hurdles, such as separating chemically similar molybdenum from tungsten, to achieve mass production of the world's purest tungsten powder. With their primary suppliers gone, Kanto Denka and Central Glass announced a permanent halt to WF6 production starting July 1, 2026. This immediately created a supply crisis for major semiconductor manufacturers like Samsung and SK Hynix, forcing them to urgently seek and certify new Chinese suppliers for WF6 itself. The reversal marks a dramatic shift: China has moved from exporting low-value raw materials to controlling the high-purity foundation of a critical global tech supply chain, upending a long-established industrial hierarchy.

marsbit39 min fa

A Clod of Chinese Soil Chokes Two Japanese Giants

marsbit39 min fa

From Identity Protocol to AI Gateway: How Ambitious Is World?

The article discusses Worldcoin's (WLD) evolution from a "proof of personhood" network to a potential identity infrastructure for the AI era. Initially focused on unique digital identities via iris scans, Worldcoin faced skepticism over real-world use cases. However, entering "The Simple Plan" Phase 3, it's shifting from token incentives to utility-driven growth. Key applications are emerging: enterprise solutions (e.g., deepfake verification with Zoom, Okta), consumer use cases (e.g., reducing bots on Tinder or in ticket sales), and notably, the AI Agent sector via AgentKit, which aims to establish trusted authorization between humans and AI agents. The author argues AI's proliferation makes authentic human identity a scarce and valuable resource. Worldcoin's strategy is now focused on key markets for network effects and developing self-service Orb hardware to scale sustainably. The launch of World ID 4.0 introduces a fee model for issuers/protocols, creating a potential revenue stream. In conclusion, WLD's rise reflects a market reassessment. Worldcoin's ambition is to become the foundational identity layer and crucial entry point for the coming AI Agent economy, moving crypto narratives beyond finance into verifiable human identity.

marsbit1 h fa

From Identity Protocol to AI Gateway: How Ambitious Is World?

marsbit1 h fa

Without Tencent, What's Left for Suiyuan?

The article centers on the crucial question posed in the title: what is Seyond Technology really worth if its dominant customer, Tencent, were to stop purchasing its AI chips? As the last of China's "Four AI Chip Dragons" to secure approval for a public listing, Seyond's IPO filing reveals a profound and controversial dependency. In 2025, 74.9% to over 80% of its revenue came from Tencent. The piece argues that this extreme customer concentration is not merely a vulnerability but a strategic outcome of China's AI industry evolution. It contrasts Seyond's path with its peers (Moore Thread, Biren Technology, and MetaX), noting that while others raced to market with ambitious stories, Seyond focused first on securing and delivering for a major client. Its explosive revenue growth—with Q1 2026 up 1474.85% year-on-year—is driven by concentrated orders from Tencent, which itself faces massive, escalating AI compute demands for products like its Yuanbao and Hunyuan models. The relationship is framed as a deliberate, symbiotic cultivation of a supply chain. As both a major shareholder (20.26%) and primary client, Tencent is actively fostering Seyond to build a controllable, stable alternative to NVIDIA, similar to how global tech giants historically nurtured key suppliers. The high switching costs—involving software stacks and deployed systems—create a deep "ecological moat" for Seyond within Tencent's ecosystem. The analysis positions the AI chip landscape in three tiers: NVIDIA as the global leader, Huawei's Ascend as the state-backed player, and commercial firms like Seyond competing for market orders. Seyond is increasingly seen as "Tencent's compute foundation," with its product roadmap closely aligned with the tech giant's needs. The conclusion is that the industry's metric for success is shifting from fundraising and technical specs to real orders, delivery capability, and ecosystem binding. Seyond's value, therefore, lies not just in its chips but in holding a massive, multi-year procurement order from China's largest internet company—a tangible asset arguably more telling than any technical whitepaper in the current climate. The core insight is that for domestic chips, the ultimate challenge isn't just catching up technologically with NVIDIA, but earning the trust, scenarios, and recurring orders from a major anchor client.

marsbit1 h fa

Without Tencent, What's Left for Suiyuan?

marsbit1 h 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.

214 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.

121 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.

115 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.