温馨提示：本站仅提供公开网络链接索引服务，不存储、不篡改任何第三方内容，所有内容版权归原作者所有
AI智能索引来源：http://www.bee.com/hi/61845.html
点击访问原文链接

“On-chain ownership” loses out to “front-end dominance”? Hyperliquid’s $500,000 token naming dispute. | Bee Network

进入原网站 导航首页
“On-chain ownership” loses out to “front-end dominance”? Hyperliquid’s $500,000 token naming dispute. | Bee Network Login ट्रेंडिंग न्यूज़ मीम लॉन्चपैड एआई एजेंट डेस्सी टॉपचेनएक्सप्लोरर न्यूबी के लिए 100x सिक्के मधुमक्खी खेल आवश्यक वेबसाइटें एपीपी अवश्य होना चाहिए क्रिप्टो हस्तियाँ डेपिन नौसिखिया आवश्यक ट्रैप डिटेक्टर बुनियादी उपकरण उन्नत वेबसाइटें एक्सचेंजों एनएफटी उपकरण नमस्ते, साइन आउट वेब3 यूनिवर्स खेल डीऐप मधुमुखी का छत्ता बढ़ता हुआ मंच विज्ञापन खोज अंग्रेज़ी रिचार्ज सिक्के लॉग इन करें डाउनलोड करना वेब3 यूनी खेल डीऐप मधुमुखी का छत्ता विज्ञापन घर•विश्लेषण•“On-chain ownership” loses out to “front-end dominance”? Hyperliquid’s $500,000 token naming dispute. “On-chain ownership” loses out to “front-end dominance”? Hyperliquid’s $500,000 token naming dispute.विश्लेषण3 महीने पहलेहाँव्याट 15,739 14 However, a recent dispute over “naming rights” has sparked considerable debate and disagreement within the community.

If you spend $500,000 to buy a token (Ticker) on Hyperliquid, would you assume it belongs to you? The Hyperliquid team recently demonstrated with their actions that it belongs to you on the blockchain, but is under their control on the web.

$MON, bought for $500,000, just vanished? The controversy originated in January of this year. At that time, Mon Protocol, the backer of the GameFi project Pixelmon, participated in Hyperliquid’s HIP-1 spot listing auction in order to attract the Hyperliquid community.

Here’s a brief explanation of Hyperliquid’s spot listing mechanism. Unlike centralized exchanges’ “listing fees” or “bribes,” HL uses a Dutch auction system for listing. This is a permissionless process where projects compete by paying gas fees (initially USDC, later HYPE) to secure listing status.

स्रोत: https://data.asxn.xyz/dashboard/hl-auctions

Mon Protocol spent approximately $500,000 to win the bid at a high price and successfully registered the $MON Ticker on the blockchain.

At the time, Hyperliquid was still in its early stages, and the spot bridging project Unit had not yet been launched. Apart from large-cap assets such as HYPE and PURR, other spot trading pairs generally lacked liquidity. Mon Protocol’s tokens performed almost identically to Rug after their launch.

Monad, a highly anticipated “top-tier project,” also has its token called $MON. However, when Monad was listed on Hyperliquid, an awkward situation arose: the Hyperliquid team directly modified the front-end display, forcibly renaming Mon Protocol to “MONPRO,” while Monad directly used the name “MON.”

Although on the blockchain, Pixelmon’s token code is still MON, and Monad is actually UMON, at the front end where users perceive it most directly, the “status” that Pixelmon bought for $500,000 was instantly stripped away.

User safety or traffic supremacy? This move quickly sparked a heated debate on Twitter. Trader Akku bluntly stated that the decision was “extremely disappointing.”

“Pixelmon spent $500,000 to buy something that the frontend can override at will, while Monad (or its closely related Unit) can get that visible name for free… Does this mean: you can buy code on the chain, but we decide what the frontend displays based on who we’re on good terms with?”

In response to the criticism, Hyperliquid’s core member xulian offered a very “Web2” explanation:

“The most important factor for front-end development is protecting users. A user buying the wrong token is bad for everyone. As far as I know, all major exchanges changed MON to MONPRO a few weeks ago. Auctions are on-chain gas fees, and the Mon Protocol team still owns the MON ticket. Any other front-end can name itself whatever it wants.”

This translates to: To prevent user confusion, we sacrificed the original Ticker owner’s display rights.

Another party involved in this incident, the Unit team (responsible for spot bridging of Monad tokens on HL) which has close ties to Hyperliquid, was also caught in the controversy because of acquiring this name. Unit member Shadow (0xmev) was forced to come out and clarify:

“The protocol and the app are two different things. Hyperliquid Labs has the final say on the app. It’s clear: one project (Mon Protocol) failed to attract buyers from the Hyperliquid community, and its price went to zero; the other is a high-profile, high-volume project (Monad). Labs felt that giving the name to the latter was a better presentation choice.”

Community Deep Fryer While the official explanation is logically sound (the front-end does indeed belong to Hyperliquid Labs), the community is not convinced from an emotional and business ethics standpoint.

Akku countered that the initial marketing of the spot auction led everyone to assume that “spot listing = front-end display,” and now playing word games by saying “on-chain only” is nothing short of a marketing scam. He believes that if Monad doesn’t want conflict, it should change its name itself instead of depriving early adopters of their rights.

Ramen’s viewpoint represents the sentiments of the majority of onlookers:

“To avoid confusion, showing $MON to Monad might be correct, but forcing a name change after someone has paid $500,000 is wrong. A refund seems to be the best course of action.”

Of course, there are also voices defending HL. Users aaalex.hl and altoshi insist that “the protocol is not the same as the front end” and that “Hyperliquid is a business, not a charity,” arguing that as long as the on-chain contract remains unchanged, it does not violate the principle of decentralization.

Arrogance is a byproduct of success. Hyperliquid did nothing wrong. They do indeed have absolute control over the hyperliquid.xyz domain and have the right to adjust the display logic for user experience. Monad’s size and popularity far exceed Pixelmon’s. Giving the MON code to Monad not only serves the platform’s interests but also protects unsuspecting users from buying illiquid tokens with the same name.

This seemingly reasonable “arbitrary decision” actually makes some ecological builders feel uneasy.

Absolute right of interpretation Another story revealed by Shadow, a team member of Unit, in his reply is perhaps more thought-provoking than the name change itself:

“We built the entire brand (tradexyz) from scratch precisely because we had no influence over Labs’ front-end decisions. They ultimately decided to launch HIP-3 on their official front-end immediately after we finished and announced the entire project—which effectively destroyed the competitive advantage we had spent a lot of time building. But we won’t complain about it; we will move on.”

If even “core” systems like Unit are at risk of being “leeched” by the official front-end team, how can small projects with no background find a sense of security in such an ecosystem?

A rigid approach Hyperliquid’s “arrogance” towards capital is a major factor in its winning over the community’s fervent support. They rejected investment from top VCs, refused to pay listing fees to CEXs, and insisted on fair distribution.

But as Akku pointed out, even refunding the auction fees from back then, or reaching some kind of compensation agreement with the Pixelmon team beforehand, would have made the whole thing much more dignified. The current approach not only hurts early supporters (even if it’s a failed project), but also sends a message that “whoever is bigger is right.”

Hyperliquid remains one of the best Perp DEXs on the market, and its technical prowess is undeniable. However, after reaching the top, how to avoid becoming the “autocratic giant” it once sought to disrupt is perhaps a question the Hyperliquid team needs to consider.

Water can carry a boat, but it can also capsize it. The “arrogance” that the community prefers is the unyielding spirit in the face of power, not the willfulness in the face of rules.

यह लेख इंटरनेट से लिया गया है: “On-chain ownership” loses out to “front-end dominance”? Hyperliquid’s $500,000 token naming dispute.Recommended Articles

Related: 24-Hour Hot Cryptocurrencies and News | Ministry of Commerce: China and the US will simultaneously suspend some tariffs 1. Popular cryptocurrencies on CEXs Top 10 CEX trading volumes and their 24-hour price changes: BTC: -0.42% ETH: -1.46% SOL: -3.61% BNB: -2.59% DOGE: -3.55% ASTER: -7.86% XRP: -3.27% SUI: -6.39% ZEC: -0.05% PEPE: -6.7% 24-hour gainers list (data source: OKX): LQTY: +13.4% VRA: +9.46% FLM: +7.81% PRCL: +6.86% SD: +6.22% NC: +6.08% BERA: +5.51% ASTER: +5.4% PROVE: +5.18% ETHFI: +5.17% 24-hour cryptocurrency stock gainers list (data source: msx.com ): AMZN: +9.49% RGTI: +8.63% GOOGL: +3.43% AAPL: +2.99% NFLX: +2.11% CSCO: +1.99% SQQQ: +1.02% ADBE: +0.92% ASML: +0.88% MU: +0.86% 2. Top 5 trending on-chain memes (data source: GMGN ): KITKAT WILCO NYSE TRUMP NEO Headlines Ministry of Commerce: China and the US will simultaneously suspend some tariffs and control measures for one year. The Ministry of Commerce announced that…

# विश्लेषण# एक्सचेंज# मार्केट# टोकन© 版权声明सरणी 上一篇 Can the 40 billion Bitcoins that Qian Zhimin took away be returned to China? 下一篇 Privacy Coin Sector Research Report: Can the Privacy Coin Sector Usher in a Long-Term Bull Market with Structural Growth? 相关文章 Bitget Report: Earnings Season Frenzy – Analyzing the Explosive Growth in Demand for Tokenized US Stocks 6086cf14eb90bc67ca4fc62b 16,724 16 Complete market review and order placement within two minutes. How does Pump.fun live streaming reshape the trading scen 6086cf14eb90bc67ca4fc62b 22,648 6 SOL Guards’ Crisis of Faith: The Fundamentals Are Invincible, So Why Are Prices “Flat”? 6086cf14eb90bc67ca4fc62b 16,771 What is TICS token? How does Qubetics achieve a closed loop of multi-chain ecology? 6086cf14eb90bc67ca4fc62b 25,249 4 TGE को Binance Wallet पर लॉन्च किया गया है, CUDIS थ्री हॉर्सेस को एक साथ लॉन्च किया गया है, और क्रिप्टो हेल्थ ट्रैक ने एक नई शुरुआत की है। 6086cf14eb90bc67ca4fc62b 28,056 2 Reinventing RWA: A comprehensive analysis of BlueX 6086cf14eb90bc67ca4fc62b 24,568 कोई टिप्पणी नहीं टिप्पणी करने के लिए आपको लॉगिन होना होगा! तुरंत लॉगइन करें कोई टिप्पणी नहीं... नवीनतम लेख Did Jane Street “Manipulate” BTC? Decoding the AP System, Understanding the Power Struggle Behind ETF Creation and Redemption Pricing 11 घंटे पहले 437 Stop Comparing Bitcoin to Gold—It’s Now a High-Volatility Software Stock 11 घंटे पहले 555 Matrixport Research: $25 Billion Gamma Unwinding Imminent, Liquidity Yet to Return Behind the Rebound 11 घंटे पहले 533 ERC-5564: Ethereum’s Stealth Era Has Arrived, Receiving Addresses No Longer ‘Exposed’ 11 घंटे पहले 470 Hong Kong Regulatory Green Light: Asseto Enables DL Holdings to Achieve Compliance for Two RWA Business Implementations 11 घंटे पहले 508 लोकप्रिय वेबसाइटेंTempoLighterजीएआईबीग्लाइडरप्लांकरेल्सबीसीपोकरवूई Bee.com दुनिया का सबसे बड़ा Web3 पोर्टल भागीदारों कॉइनकार्प बिनेंस कॉइनमार्केटकैप कॉइनगेको कॉइनलाइव कवच बी नेटवर्क ऐप डाउनलोड करें और वेब3 यात्रा शुरू करें सफेद कागज भूमिकाएँ सामान्य प्रश्न © 2021-2026. सर्वाधिकार सुरक्षित।. गोपनीयता नीति | सेवाओं की शर्तें बी नेटवर्क ऐप डाउनलोड करें और वेब3 यात्रा शुरू करें दुनिया का सबसे बड़ा Web3 पोर्टल भागीदारों CoinCarp Binance CoinMarketCap CoinGecko Coinlive Armors सफेद कागज भूमिकाएँ सामान्य प्रश्न © 2021-2026. सर्वाधिकार सुरक्षित।. गोपनीयता नीति | सेवाओं की शर्तें खोज खोजइनसाइटऑनचेनसामाजिकसमाचार उत्तर: एयरड्रॉप शिकारी डेटा विश्लेषण क्रिप्टो हस्तियाँ ट्रैप डिटेक्टर हिन्दी English 繁體中文 简体中文 日本語 Tiếng Việt العربية 한국어 Bahasa Indonesia اردو Русский हिन्दी

智能索引记录