Original title: A Difficult Personal Decision Original author: @TheWhiteWhaleV2 Compiled by: Peggy, BlockBeats Editor's Note: Following the 10.10 incident, the crypto industry underwent a painful but necessary period of self-reflection. When the failure of a centralized trading platform is enough to trigger a network-wide liquidation waterfall, how much pressure can the "decentralization" we trust withstand? The author of this article is a well-known trader with a long history of deep involvement in crypto trading and over 70,000 followers on the X platform, aiming to achieve $100 million in trading results. In August of this year, he publicly recorded total profits of $95 million on HyperLiquid, stating that if performance on other platforms is included, the total has "exceeded $100 million." Entering October, his career profit and loss remains positive, and he has "maintained eight-figure profits for the year." However, on October 10th, he experienced his first liquidation in a massive market-wide sell-off, losing approximately $62 million, a drawdown of about 62%. Even so, he emphasized that he was "still making a positive return" and continued to rebuild his position by selling HYPE tokens. He once publicly praised HyperLiquid founder Jeff Bezos as a "crypto Nobel laureate," but today he chose to leave HyperLiquid. In his view, this is not due to disappointment, but rather a shift in values. He calls on the industry to move from "protecting protocols" to "protecting users," and from celebrating zero bad debts to a truly meaningful risk buffer mechanism. After all, a mature financial system will never rely solely on "good luck" and "hope" as a last resort. The following is the original text: The protocol isn't dead, but the users are. I have made a personal decision: I will no longer trade on HyperLiquid. I want to emphasize the word "personal"—and it was an extremely difficult decision. I didn't ask anyone to follow me; I simply chose to continue acting in accordance with the changes in my values. Many people have witnessed the evolution of my thinking along the way. As human beings, we should evolve, reflect, let go of old frameworks, and build better new frameworks. And I know people often say not to develop an emotional attachment to a protocol. But HyperLiquid is different for me. Jeff created something the market desperately needed. He brought the issue of "structural fairness" into the spotlight, sparking a better discussion across the industry. He and the HL team deserve to leave their mark on crypto history. I sincerely hope they continue writing. But if you've followed me long enough, you'll know I'm an idealist, perhaps even overly so. I can't turn off that part of my brain: the part that sees things as they are and insists they "should" be. October 10th revealed the true nature of the industry to many newcomers. For those who had been there long enough, it served as a reminder that the ecosystem remains fragile and easily manipulated. Can a centralized trading platform trigger a global liquidation waterfall, briefly causing the prices of all protocols to plummet? This is not a "black swan" event; it's a design flaw. Let's briefly review the proceedings of that day: Binance used its own oracle—resulting in its stablecoin becoming unpegged. This triggered a small but manageable liquidation chain. The real chaos began when their API mysteriously went offline. Delta-neutral market makers suddenly couldn't hedge on major OTC exchanges. Unable to hedge, they had to remove quotes from CEXs and DEXs. Liquidity vanished, and prices plummeted instantly. And what about the industry as a whole? A chorus of celebration. "Zero bad debts!" "Perfect liquidation execution!" Great, the protocol isn't dead, but the users are. Protection protocols are important, that's obvious. But "protection protocols" are not the same as "protecting traders." If we want wider adoption, greater legitimacy, and for the crypto industry to continue to grow without being strangled by regulators, we must build genuine consumer protection at the systemic level. TradFi has circuit breakers, market maker obligations, and structural safety barriers. What does the crypto industry have? Hope. And a user manual: "Good luck!" So why did I leave HyperLiquid? Because I chose to support teams that proactively address these design flaws, rather than teams that merely observe the problems. I've spoken with Jeff and another member of Core 11. They don't seem to see this as part of the current roadmap. That's their choice, and I respect that. But it must be made clear that no one has a perfect solution, and there is no silver bullet. What matters to me is: who is moving towards a solution, rather than ignoring the problem. On October 10th, we lost so many people. Real lives were lost. Real families were destroyed. The reason is simply... a design flaw that allows a single entity to control global prices? The crypto industry can't sweep this under the rug. Protecting users shouldn't rely solely on "good luck." So the question becomes: who is actually building a protection mechanism to prevent the next "Binance-style disaster"? On Solana, I only found one. Drift's liquidation protection isn't magic, nor is it perfect, but it really exists. More importantly, it works. It checks: "Does the oracle price deviate from the 5-minute TWAP price by more than 50%?" If so, it temporarily suspends liquidation. This simple logic has saved many people. False breakouts were filtered out. Insurance funds provided a safety net in extreme situations. It was not a grand philosophical revolution, but a crucial step toward reason. I'm not as smart as Jeff, nor would I dare claim to know the best industry-grade solutions. But I am a user, and users vote with their money. The industry keeps repeating the same phrase: "Protection protocols protect traders." But that's not the whole story. A car without a driver isn't a complete system. Both are equally important, forming a beautiful symbiotic relationship. This article felt like a heartbreaking letter to me. It's not an ad for Drift. It's more like a heart-wrenching breakup. Not because the love is gone, but because you finally realize that you're going in different directions. HL will always be a part of my story. It will continue to be on my list of recommendations when people ask me where to trade. But now, it's time for me to move forward—towards my values, towards my ideals. With sincere gratitude, he said to Jeff and the team, "We will always have Paris."Original title: A Difficult Personal Decision Original author: @TheWhiteWhaleV2 Compiled by: Peggy, BlockBeats Editor's Note: Following the 10.10 incident, the crypto industry underwent a painful but necessary period of self-reflection. When the failure of a centralized trading platform is enough to trigger a network-wide liquidation waterfall, how much pressure can the "decentralization" we trust withstand? The author of this article is a well-known trader with a long history of deep involvement in crypto trading and over 70,000 followers on the X platform, aiming to achieve $100 million in trading results. In August of this year, he publicly recorded total profits of $95 million on HyperLiquid, stating that if performance on other platforms is included, the total has "exceeded $100 million." Entering October, his career profit and loss remains positive, and he has "maintained eight-figure profits for the year." However, on October 10th, he experienced his first liquidation in a massive market-wide sell-off, losing approximately $62 million, a drawdown of about 62%. Even so, he emphasized that he was "still making a positive return" and continued to rebuild his position by selling HYPE tokens. He once publicly praised HyperLiquid founder Jeff Bezos as a "crypto Nobel laureate," but today he chose to leave HyperLiquid. In his view, this is not due to disappointment, but rather a shift in values. He calls on the industry to move from "protecting protocols" to "protecting users," and from celebrating zero bad debts to a truly meaningful risk buffer mechanism. After all, a mature financial system will never rely solely on "good luck" and "hope" as a last resort. The following is the original text: The protocol isn't dead, but the users are. I have made a personal decision: I will no longer trade on HyperLiquid. I want to emphasize the word "personal"—and it was an extremely difficult decision. I didn't ask anyone to follow me; I simply chose to continue acting in accordance with the changes in my values. Many people have witnessed the evolution of my thinking along the way. As human beings, we should evolve, reflect, let go of old frameworks, and build better new frameworks. And I know people often say not to develop an emotional attachment to a protocol. But HyperLiquid is different for me. Jeff created something the market desperately needed. He brought the issue of "structural fairness" into the spotlight, sparking a better discussion across the industry. He and the HL team deserve to leave their mark on crypto history. I sincerely hope they continue writing. But if you've followed me long enough, you'll know I'm an idealist, perhaps even overly so. I can't turn off that part of my brain: the part that sees things as they are and insists they "should" be. October 10th revealed the true nature of the industry to many newcomers. For those who had been there long enough, it served as a reminder that the ecosystem remains fragile and easily manipulated. Can a centralized trading platform trigger a global liquidation waterfall, briefly causing the prices of all protocols to plummet? This is not a "black swan" event; it's a design flaw. Let's briefly review the proceedings of that day: Binance used its own oracle—resulting in its stablecoin becoming unpegged. This triggered a small but manageable liquidation chain. The real chaos began when their API mysteriously went offline. Delta-neutral market makers suddenly couldn't hedge on major OTC exchanges. Unable to hedge, they had to remove quotes from CEXs and DEXs. Liquidity vanished, and prices plummeted instantly. And what about the industry as a whole? A chorus of celebration. "Zero bad debts!" "Perfect liquidation execution!" Great, the protocol isn't dead, but the users are. Protection protocols are important, that's obvious. But "protection protocols" are not the same as "protecting traders." If we want wider adoption, greater legitimacy, and for the crypto industry to continue to grow without being strangled by regulators, we must build genuine consumer protection at the systemic level. TradFi has circuit breakers, market maker obligations, and structural safety barriers. What does the crypto industry have? Hope. And a user manual: "Good luck!" So why did I leave HyperLiquid? Because I chose to support teams that proactively address these design flaws, rather than teams that merely observe the problems. I've spoken with Jeff and another member of Core 11. They don't seem to see this as part of the current roadmap. That's their choice, and I respect that. But it must be made clear that no one has a perfect solution, and there is no silver bullet. What matters to me is: who is moving towards a solution, rather than ignoring the problem. On October 10th, we lost so many people. Real lives were lost. Real families were destroyed. The reason is simply... a design flaw that allows a single entity to control global prices? The crypto industry can't sweep this under the rug. Protecting users shouldn't rely solely on "good luck." So the question becomes: who is actually building a protection mechanism to prevent the next "Binance-style disaster"? On Solana, I only found one. Drift's liquidation protection isn't magic, nor is it perfect, but it really exists. More importantly, it works. It checks: "Does the oracle price deviate from the 5-minute TWAP price by more than 50%?" If so, it temporarily suspends liquidation. This simple logic has saved many people. False breakouts were filtered out. Insurance funds provided a safety net in extreme situations. It was not a grand philosophical revolution, but a crucial step toward reason. I'm not as smart as Jeff, nor would I dare claim to know the best industry-grade solutions. But I am a user, and users vote with their money. The industry keeps repeating the same phrase: "Protection protocols protect traders." But that's not the whole story. A car without a driver isn't a complete system. Both are equally important, forming a beautiful symbiotic relationship. This article felt like a heartbreaking letter to me. It's not an ad for Drift. It's more like a heart-wrenching breakup. Not because the love is gone, but because you finally realize that you're going in different directions. HL will always be a part of my story. It will continue to be on my list of recommendations when people ask me where to trade. But now, it's time for me to move forward—towards my values, towards my ideals. With sincere gratitude, he said to Jeff and the team, "We will always have Paris."