Hyperliquid Policy Center Responds To ICE, CME’s Regulatory Pressure Push

bitcoinistОпубликовано 2026-05-15Обновлено 2026-05-15

Введение

Hyperliquid's policy center has responded to a regulatory push by major traditional exchanges CME and ICE, who are lobbying the CFTC to require the decentralized exchange to register. The exchanges expressed concerns that Hyperliquid's anonymous trading model and growing volume could allow market manipulation and affect price discovery in key industries like oil. Their primary demand is for Hyperliquid to register with the CFTC, which would mandate customer identification and trade surveillance. The Hyperliquid Policy Center, led by CEO Jake Chervinsky, publicly countered these claims as "unfounded." It argued that Hyperliquid's fully on-chain, real-time transaction record offers greater transparency than traditional venues, creating an "anti-manipulation shield" and providing clear data for regulators. The policy center also highlighted benefits like 24/7 trading, which reduces price gaps seen in traditional markets. While acknowledging that U.S. law isn't yet tailored for on-chain derivatives, the group pledged to continue engaging with policymakers. Some reports suggest CME's lobbying may be self-interested, coinciding with its own plans to expand 24/7 crypto trading products.

The Washington, D.C.-based policy team for decentralized exchange Hyperliquid (HYPE) has moved quickly to address a new regulatory pressure campaign described in a Friday report by Bloomberg.

CME Group and Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) are reportedly lobbying the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and US lawmakers to push for federal oversight of the platform, arguing that its current operating environment could be vulnerable to issues such as market manipulation and sanctions evasion.

CME And ICE Urge Hyperliquid CFTC Registration

The exchanges’ concerns, as framed in the reporting, center on how Hyperliquid trades and where those trades take place. CME and ICE reportedly worry that the platform’s growing trading volumes in crypto and commodity-linked markets could begin to affect price discovery in industries where benchmarks matter, including oil.

They argue that anonymous trading settings may allow actors with private information—or participants tied to insider or state-linked influence—to distort prices that are used across markets.

CME and ICE’s stated ask, per Bloomberg, is straightforward: Hyperliquid should register with the CFTC. That registration would typically require the platform to adopt customer identification programs and implement trade surveillance measures.

However, those requirements appear to clash with Hyperliquid’s current approach, which relies on an anonymous trading model by design.

In response, the Hyperliquid Policy Center (HPC), led by CEO Jake Chervisnky, pushed back publicly. On social media site X (formerly Twitter), the recently established organization affirmed the criticisms are “unfounded.”

The ‘Anti-Manipulation Shield’

The HPC argued that Hyperliquid offers a higher level of transparency than traditional venues precisely because it publishes a complete on-chain record of every transaction in real time.

In the policy center’s view, that level of visibility makes it a hostile environment for insider trading or price manipulation, while also giving regulators and law enforcement clearer material for surveillance, detection, and investigation.

The policy center also emphasized that Hyperliquid runs 24/7 trading, describing this as an efficiency upgrade rather than a disruption. Because trading is continuous, prices move even when conventional exchanges are closed, reducing the gaps and discontinuities that can occur between traditional market sessions.

The Hyperliquid Policy Center also said Bloomberg is broadly right about one key point: US law is not yet tailored to derivatives markets operating on public blockchains like Hyperliquid. The group said it plans to keep working with policymakers in Washington to bring on-chain markets inside the regulatory perimeter.

Other reporting, including a piece by The Defiant, has described the lobbying move as potentially self-interested. The report notes that CME is pursuing expansion of its own 24/7 crypto trading capabilities, including Bitcoin Volatility Futures scheduled to begin trading on June 1, and Nasdaq CME Crypto Index Futures—covering BTC, ETH, XRP, and other assets—set to launch on June 8.

The daily chart shows HYPE’s increased volatility over the past 24 hours along. Source: HYPEUSDT on TradingView.com

At the time of writing, Hyperliquid’s native token, HYPE, was trading at $44.60. This represented gains of 1.6% and almost 4% in the 24-hour and seven-day time frames, respectively.

Featured image created with OpenArt, chart from TradingView.com

Связанные с этим вопросы

QWhat are the main regulatory concerns that CME and ICE have raised about Hyperliquid?

ACME and ICE are lobbying the CFTC and US lawmakers to push for federal oversight of Hyperliquid, arguing that its current operating environment could be vulnerable to market manipulation and sanctions evasion. They specifically worry that its anonymous trading model could allow actors with private or insider information to distort prices that affect broader market benchmarks, like oil.

QHow does the Hyperliquid Policy Center (HPC) respond to the claim that its platform is vulnerable to manipulation?

AThe Hyperliquid Policy Center, led by CEO Jake Chervinsky, argues that the criticisms are unfounded. They contend that Hyperliquid offers higher transparency than traditional venues by publishing a complete, real-time on-chain record of every transaction. This visibility, they claim, creates a hostile environment for insider trading or manipulation and provides clearer material for regulators to surveil and investigate.

QWhat specific action do CME and ICE reportedly want Hyperliquid to take?

AAccording to the Bloomberg report, CME and ICE are urging Hyperliquid to register with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). This registration would typically require the platform to implement customer identification programs and trade surveillance measures, which clash with Hyperliquid's current anonymous trading model.

QWhat does the article suggest about the potential motivation behind CME and ICE's lobbying efforts?

AThe article, citing other reports like one from The Defiant, suggests the lobbying move may be self-interested. It notes that CME itself is expanding its own 24/7 crypto trading offerings, including new Bitcoin Volatility Futures and Nasdaq CME Crypto Index Futures set to launch in June, implying potential competitive motives.

QAccording to the Hyperliquid Policy Center, what is one key regulatory challenge for on-chain derivatives markets?

AThe Hyperliquid Policy Center acknowledges that U.S. law is not yet tailored to derivatives markets operating on public blockchains like Hyperliquid. The group stated it plans to continue working with policymakers in Washington to bring on-chain markets inside the existing regulatory framework.

Похожее

Seeking Alpha's Hot Article: Why Might the U.S. Stock Market Crash in June?

In a recent Seeking Alpha article, financial professor and analyst Damir Tokic argues that the US stock market may be poised for a significant crash in June 2026. The core thesis centers on a "mega-bubble" in equities, particularly within the technology sector, which has driven the S&P 500 to near-record valuations, with a Shiller P/E ratio exceeding 40—a level comparable to the 2000 dot-com bubble. Tokic identifies two primary catalysts for a potential collapse. First, he points to unsustainable market exuberance fueled by what he terms the "Trump Stimulus"—massive AI capital expenditure by tech giants, which he believes is politically driven and cannot last. Second, and more urgently, he highlights the escalating Iran war as a critical threat. The ongoing closure of the Strait of Hormuz has created a severe global energy supply crunch. Strategic petroleum reserves are projected to hit critically low operational levels by June, potentially causing oil prices to spike above $200 per barrel and triggering a severe, supply-driven inflationary shock. This scenario, Tokic warns, would force the Federal Reserve's hand. Despite currently maintaining a dovish bias, the Fed would likely be compelled to officially pivot to a hawkish stance at its June FOMC meeting to combat soaring inflation and bond yields. He contends that such a shift—or even a failure to act, which would destroy Fed credibility—could be the trigger that punctures the market bubble. The resulting downturn, he concludes, could rival the bear markets of 2000 and 2008, advising investors to prepare for a major correction.

marsbit10 мин. назад

Seeking Alpha's Hot Article: Why Might the U.S. Stock Market Crash in June?

marsbit10 мин. назад

AI PC Battle: Bet on the Toll Booth, Not the Camp

**Title:** The AI PC Battle: Don't Bet on Sides, Bet on the Tollbooth **Summary:** The AI PC competition is moving beyond simple "x86 vs. Arm" narratives. The core investment thesis should focus on identifying which players can sustain margins, cash flow, and pricing power throughout the upgrade cycle, rather than backing a particular architecture. The opportunity is analyzed in three layers: 1. **The Advanced Foundry Tollbooth:** TSMC is positioned to collect "tolls" regardless of which chip designer wins, due to its dominant ~70% share in advanced semiconductor manufacturing, which is essential for high-end AI PC chips. 2. **Compute & Platform Spillover:** AMD represents an offensive in the x86 CPU+GPU space, while NVIDIA leverages its GPU and CUDA software stack dominance. Both benefit from the demand for increased local AI compute. 3. **Architecture Diffusion & Turnaround Plays:** ARM and Intel offer potential for significant upside (elasticity), but investments here require stricter discipline due to higher execution risks and competitive challenges. The industry is transitioning from concept to shipment validation. While short-term forecasts for AI PC adoption have been revised down slightly due to tariffs and procurement delays, the long-term trend towards AI becoming a standard PC feature remains intact. The key driver for upgrade cycles will be whether compelling enterprise applications (e.g., privacy-sensitive computing, low-latency inference) emerge beyond consumer-focused features like meeting summarization. Investment strategy should prioritize companies with platform-level advantages and recurring revenue streams. TSMC offers high certainty as the foundational tollbooth. AMD presents a strong offensive play within the established ecosystem. ARM and Intel are higher-risk, higher-potential-reward turnaround bets. The report cautions against chasing short-term hype and emphasizes a disciplined, long-term approach focused on buying ecosystem strength and cash-flow certainty after market enthusiasm subsides. **Key Risks:** Underwhelming AI PC applications slowing upgrade cycles; slow improvement in Windows on Arm compatibility; macro/tariff impacts on PC demand; potential advanced node supply-demand mismatches affecting TSMC; high overall AI sector valuations making stocks vulnerable to a risk-off shift in markets.

marsbit24 мин. назад

AI PC Battle: Bet on the Toll Booth, Not the Camp

marsbit24 мин. назад

Ten-Thousand-Word Analysis: From $10 to $290, MRVL Wins the Entire AI Era by 'Not Making GPUs'

Marvell Technology's stock price surged from under $10 in 2016 to a record $290 in June 2026, fueled not by making GPUs, but by dominating AI infrastructure connectivity. This analysis argues the market misvalues MRVL as merely a smaller Broadcom in custom AI chips, overlooking its true, unique position. Marvell's core strength lies in enabling high-speed data flow for AI clusters through three interconnected businesses. First, it holds a commanding ~70% market share in high-speed optical DSPs (essential for data center light modules), a deep-moat business with accelerating growth. Second, its custom AI chip design business serves hyperscalers like AWS, Microsoft, and Google, with a significant revenue pipeline despite lower margins. Third, stable cash flows come from Ethernet switch chips and enterprise storage controllers. Together, they form a full-stack "AI data movement" platform. CEO Matt Murphy's transformative leadership since 2016, involving strategic divestments, key acquisitions (like Inphi for optical DSPs), and securing long-term agreements with major cloud providers, repositioned the company. A pivotal $2 billion strategic investment from NVIDIA in 2026 underscored Marvell's critical role in the AI ecosystem, particularly through collaborations like NVLink Fusion. While Marvell faces risks—including client concentration (losing the Amazon Trainium3 design), lower-margin business mix, competitive threats, insider selling, and complex supply chains—its fundamentals remain strong. The optical interconnect moat is widening with the acquisition of Celestial AI (photonics fabric), and financial metrics show accelerating revenue growth and operating leverage. With a PEG ratio suggesting undervaluation relative to its growth, the thesis is that the market undervalues Marvell's monopolistic position in AI "plumbing" while overemphasizing its competitive custom chip segment. The story transcends investing, symbolizing how in any complex system—from the internet to AI—the value of "connection" ultimately surpasses that of individual "nodes."

marsbit54 мин. назад

Ten-Thousand-Word Analysis: From $10 to $290, MRVL Wins the Entire AI Era by 'Not Making GPUs'

marsbit54 мин. назад

AI Relay Stations Spark Heated Debate on Zhihu: Behind Cheap Tokens, What Are Users Really Worried About?

A discussion on Zhihu about "AI relay stations" shifted the niche developer topic of "cheap tokens" into broader user awareness. Users moved beyond simply questioning the legitimacy of these services to focus on practical concerns: Where do cheap tokens truly come from? Is the model being accessed the real one? Can relay stations see prompts, code, and API keys? For occasional users, are the risks worth it? The core debate centered less on price and more on trust. A primary worry is model authenticity—the risk of "model swapping," where users paying for a premium model might be routed to a cheaper one, creating an information asymmetry. Others argued that cost comparisons matter; while cheaper than official pay-as-you-go APIs, relay stations may not be the lowest-cost option versus subscriptions, domestic models, or free tiers, making user needs assessment crucial. Speculation about token sources ranged from legitimate bulk discounts to gray-area methods like account sharing or exploiting regional pricing. This opacity makes risk assessment difficult for users. Data security emerged as a critical concern, especially for enterprise use. When processing sensitive information like code, contracts, or client data, the inability to verify a relay station's data handling, retention, or access policies poses significant compliance and confidentiality risks. The evolving consensus suggests relay stations can be used cautiously for low-sensitivity, disposable tasks (e.g., summarizing public info, simple translation). However, they should not be the default for sensitive, professional, or production workflows involving proprietary data, Agents, or automated systems. Recommendations include avoiding large prepayments, not relying on a single service, using test prompts to monitor quality, anonymizing data where possible, and keeping official channels as backups. Ultimately, the discussion framed tokens not just as a billing unit but as a measure of real cost encompassing price, model integrity, data security, and service stability. The popularity of relay stations highlights user demand for affordable access, but the debate underscores a key trade-off: the savings from cheap tokens may come at the price of trust, transparency, and control over one's data and AI experience.

marsbit1 ч. назад

AI Relay Stations Spark Heated Debate on Zhihu: Behind Cheap Tokens, What Are Users Really Worried About?

marsbit1 ч. назад

Торговля

Спот
Фьючерсы

Популярные статьи

Как купить PUSH

Добро пожаловать на HTX.com! Мы сделали приобретение Push Protocol (PUSH) простым и удобным. Следуйте нашему пошаговому руководству и отправляйтесь в свое крипто-путешествие.Шаг 1: Создайте аккаунт на HTXИспользуйте свой адрес электронной почты или номер телефона, чтобы зарегистрироваться и бесплатно создать аккаунт на HTX. Пройдите удобную регистрацию и откройте для себя весь функционал.Создать аккаунтШаг 2: Перейдите в Купить криптовалюту и выберите свой способ оплатыКредитная/Дебетовая Карта: Используйте свою карту Visa или Mastercard для мгновенной покупки Push Protocol (PUSH).Баланс: Используйте средства с баланса вашего аккаунта HTX для простой торговли.Третьи Лица: Мы добавили популярные способы оплаты, такие как Google Pay и Apple Pay, для повышения удобства.P2P: Торгуйте напрямую с другими пользователями на HTX.Внебиржевая Торговля (OTC): Мы предлагаем индивидуальные услуги и конкурентоспособные обменные курсы для трейдеров.Шаг 3: Хранение Push Protocol (PUSH)После приобретения вами Push Protocol (PUSH) храните их в своем аккаунте на HTX. В качестве альтернативы вы можете отправить их куда-либо с помощью перевода в блокчейне или использовать для торговли с другими криптовалютами.Шаг 4: Торговля Push Protocol (PUSH)С легкостью торгуйте Push Protocol (PUSH) на спотовом рынке HTX. Просто зайдите в свой аккаунт, выберите торговую пару, совершайте сделки и следите за ними в режиме реального времени. Мы предлагаем удобный интерфейс как для начинающих, так и для опытных трейдеров.

852 просмотров всегоОпубликовано 2024.03.29Обновлено 2026.06.02

Как купить PUSH

Обсуждения

Добро пожаловать в Сообщество HTX. Здесь вы сможете быть в курсе последних новостей о развитии платформы и получить доступ к профессиональной аналитической информации о рынке. Мнения пользователей о цене на PUSH (PUSH) представлены ниже.

活动图片