TLDR
- Hyperliquid faced criticism over network centralization and validator selection
- Platform currently operates with 16 validators
- Critics raised concerns about closed-source code and limited API access
- Company denied allegations of selling validator seats
- Hyperliquid committed to making code open-source once stable
Hyperliquid, a decentralized finance platform known for its perpetuals trading and Layer 1 blockchain, has responded to mounting concerns about its network structure and validator selection process.
The platform, which currently operates with 16 validators, faced public scrutiny after community members raised questions about its level of decentralization and operational transparency.
In a detailed response posted on social media platform X, the Hyper Foundation directly addressed allegations that validator seats were being sold to participants. The foundation firmly denied these claims, stating that all validator selections were based solely on testnet performance metrics.
Hyperliquid is constantly iterating and improving, all in service of its mission to bring all finance onchain. The community has played a crucial role in the ecosystem’s growth, and feedback is taken seriously.
Recently, some misconceptions have emerged regarding validators.…
— Hyperliquid (@HyperliquidX) January 8, 2025
The controversy gained attention following a viral letter by Kam Benbrik, which highlighted several perceived issues with the platform’s infrastructure. Among the primary concerns were the platform’s closed-source code, dependence on a single API, and what some viewed as insufficient validator incentives.
Taylor Monahan, a MetaMask security researcher known as Tayvano on X, added weight to the discussion by commenting on the broader implications of these issues for network security and decentralization.
That’s a lot of Single Points of Failure. 😳 https://t.co/RzpyhmTNIt
— Tay 💖 (@tayvano_) January 8, 2025
The platform’s current validator count of 16 represents a starting point, according to the Hyper Foundation. Officials stated that this number is expected to increase as the network expands and matures.
Addressing the closed-source code criticism, Hyperliquid defended its current approach as necessary for maintaining optimal performance. However, the foundation made a public commitment to transition to open-source once the code reaches a stable state.
The platform’s single-binary system, another point of contention, was defended by the foundation as an essential component for maintaining the high performance levels required for their financial services.
Critics have called for Hyperliquid to implement more transparent validator selection processes to compete effectively with other major Layer 1 blockchains in the market.
The foundation’s response included details about future decentralization efforts, including plans for a delegation program aimed at broadening participation in the network.
Community feedback has centered on three main areas: code transparency, validator selection processes, and network decentralization levels. Each of these points received specific attention in the foundation’s response.
The platform’s development team emphasized their focus on maintaining stable operations while working toward greater decentralization, presenting it as a gradual process rather than an immediate transition.
Technical specifications for validator participation remain based on testnet performance metrics, with the foundation maintaining that this approach ensures network reliability and security.
The delegation program, once implemented, will allow for increased community participation in network operations while maintaining operational standards.
Recent updates from the foundation indicate ongoing work to address these concerns while maintaining the platform’s core trading and blockchain functions.
