Trader James Wynn, known for high-leverage contract trading, lost $100 million in profit over the past month. Early in the morning, he posted on X that he opened a 40x long Bitcoin position, but this time the position value was only $18,737.66, which could be called a "tiny position". He wrote:
Left with one chip and one chair.
I went all in
Just two hours later, on-chain data showed he had already closed his position, losing about $70... Then he posted in the evening: "Every time I go long, they come to target me"... deciding to turn around and go short, truly resembling an inexperienced gambler.
However, as a player who once made huge profits on PEPE, and received $34,000 in rebates from HyperLiquid, it's hard to say if he truly risked his entire fortune, and he might just be trying to attract user attention.
Stating he didn't receive HyperLiquid advertising fees
Addressing community suspicions that his recent actions were essentially advertising for HyperLiquid, James Wynn posted earlier today:
I didn't receive a single cent from HyperLiquid.
I proactively contacted them twice, hoping to discuss cooperation, as I brought them significant attention. They expressed gratitude but said they never collaborate with anyone. This is somewhat reasonable, as they are a decentralized platform, operating differently from traditional exchanges.
I earned $34,000 through their referral system. Considering the number of registrations and trading volume I brought, this is incredibly low. Their referral system is really poor, other platforms are much better.
On the other hand, perhaps feeling the rewards from HyperLiquid were too small, he also stated that in his view, if Binance founder CZ could launch his own dark pool perpetual contract DEX, it would end HyperLiquid.
CZ has funds, connections, and a team that can create something on a completely different level. Just look at how he built Binance.
I hope this can stimulate HyperLiquid to upgrade itself, because they will soon be overtaken by stronger competitors.
CZ calls for developing dark pool DEX
CZ previously stated that the current DEX's open order book model, while increasing transparency, also makes large traders' orders easily exposed, potentially increasing slippage, front-running, and malicious liquidations. In a completely transparent market, even massive funds could become targets of coordinated attacks, he said:
"Even if you have a billion dollars, others might unite against you. For example, MEV attacks"
Drawing from traditional finance's "dark pool" method of reducing market impact for large trades, CZ's core suggestion is to build a similar-style DEX on-chain, especially for perpetual contracts. He proposed that such DEXs should not display order books, and even use zero-knowledge proofs or similar cryptographic techniques to hide smart contract deposit information until some time after the transaction is completed.
CZ stated:
"Now might be a good time for someone to launch an on-chain dark pool-style decentralized exchange (DEX) + perpetual contract platform. Specifically, this could involve not displaying order books, or even further, hiding deposit records in smart contracts, or at least delaying their display. Such a design could be implemented through zero-knowledge proofs (ZK) or similar cryptographic techniques."
