Hyperliquid’s validator concentration eases to 49% as Singapore flags platform
Foundation-run validators now hold under half of staked HYPE, but Singapore's regulator has added the exchange to its investor alert list.
Hyperliquid, the on-chain perpetuals venue now processing more than $200 billion a month in trading volume, has significantly reduced the concentration of its validator set even as Singapore’s Monetary Authority added the platform to its Investor Alert List in June. The dual development places renewed pressure on a question that has dogged the exchange since early 2025: who really controls the infrastructure behind roughly 70% of decentralised perpetuals trading.
Hyperliquid’s network has grown from four validators at launch, all operated by its own foundation, to 27 as of June, with expansion passing through 16, 21 and 24 nodes along the way. Registration is permissionless, with the active set determined by the size of staked HYPE behind each operator.
Concentration falls, but scale remains thin
The figure that has shaped much of the criticism dates to January 2025, when a node operator published a letter noting that five foundation-run validators controlled more than 81% of staked HYPE across a 16-node set. That number has continued to circulate in debate long after the network moved on.
As of this year, foundation-run validators hold approximately 49.3% of staked HYPE, with the remaining 50.7% distributed across 22 other operators. That marks a substantial shift from the 2025 baseline, though the absolute number of validators, 27, remains modest set against roughly 1,800 on Solana and hundreds of thousands of validators securing Ethereum.
Hyperliquid’s node software also remains closed, and its delegation programme applies identity checks to participants, features that critics argue sit uneasily with claims of full decentralisation for a venue generating on the order of a billion dollars a year in fees.
Jailing powers disputed
A separate criticism aired in June, when a prominent investor argued the network was not permissionless at all, pointing to validators clustered in a single building, closed-source node software, and a foundation capable of jailing operators and forcing upgrades on them.
Hyperliquid’s own documentation describes the jailing mechanism differently, as a peer-triggered process tied to latency and reliability failures rather than a discretionary foundation power, with no automatic slashing built into the system. Whether that documented process has been tested at scale, and whether it has ever been used to remove a validator for reasons beyond technical performance, remains the harder question underlying the dispute.
Singapore turns the debate into a regulatory matter
What changes the calculus for institutional observers is Singapore’s decision in June to place Hyperliquid on its Investor Alert List. The listing does not amount to a formal enforcement action, but it converts what had been a governance argument conducted largely among crypto-native commentators into a matter with direct legal and compliance consequences for firms operating in, or serving customers from, one of Asia’s principal financial hubs.
For a platform handling the majority of on-chain perpetuals flow, that regulatory attention is likely to matter more over time than the validator-count arithmetic itself. Exchanges and custodians assessing counterparty risk, and regulators elsewhere weighing similar alerts, will be watching whether Hyperliquid’s continued validator expansion and its disclosure practices around node software and jailing criteria keep pace with the scrutiny now being applied to it.
Read more: Solana’s stablecoin payments rail gains ground as ETF flows turn mixed
