It is estimated that this pin on Hyperliquid will lose a lot of money. I don't know if there will be any compensation. In theory, users are not responsible, and the platform seems to be not responsible either. So where is the responsibility? The situation goes like this: Today in the pre-market of NXT in South Korea, SK Hynix, due to poor liquidity, saw its stock price drop by nearly 30% in an instant with an order of only 1 share sold for about $867, triggering a suspension of trading. And Hyperliquid's SKHYNIX token is created by http://trade.xyz The deployed SKHX perpetual contract will reference the Korean won price of SK Hynix common stock in the Korean market for its oracle price, and then convert it into US dollars based on the exchange rate. After abnormal trading occurred before the Korean market, the price was synchronously transmitted to the chain by the oracle, causing SKHX to drop by about 17.9% at one point, and a large number of high leverage long orders were immediately liquidated. So this is not a sudden problem with SK Hynix's fundamentals, but rather: thin pre market liquidity+an abnormally low transaction+direct transmission from oracle+concentration of high leverage positions on the chain: ultimately forming a cross market chain explosion. So whose problem is it? The initial abnormal price came from the pre market of NXT in South Korea; But whether on chain contracts should directly adopt the single transaction price during this extremely low liquidity period is a question that oracle and risk control design need to answer. Especially SKHX belongs to the HIP-3 third-party deployment market. According to the rules of Hyperliquid, the market deployment party is responsible for contract definition, oracle source, and specific parameters. That is to say, all responsibility cannot be simply attributed to the underlying Hyperliquid, let alone solely to the users. What everyone is most concerned about is whether users who have been liquidated can receive compensation? My judgment is: it is possible, but currently the probability is not high. If this transaction in the Korean market is ultimately deemed genuine and valid, and SKHX's oracle is completely updated according to established rules, then the platform is likely to consider the liquidation to have occurred normally, and it will be difficult for users to obtain compensation. But if it is later proven that: *The original transaction was an erroneous transaction and was revoked; *The oracle quoted an abnormal price that should not have been quoted; *Technical errors occur in data sources, exchange rate conversions, or marked prices; *The platform did not implement the promised abnormal price protection mechanism; So users will have more sufficient reasons to demand compensation, and the platform may also choose to partially compensate or use special funds to handle it. So the key is not whether the price has recovered later, but how the official ultimately determines: is this a real market fluctuation or an abnormal price that should have been filtered out? So you see, when trading so-called 'on chain stocks', what you buy is not real stocks, but a price mapping composed of a oracle, contract rules, and clearing system. When a $867 transaction can leverage positions worth billions of dollars, the real vulnerability may not be the market, but the entire price transmission mechanism. The risk still exists invisibly, even in places we cannot see.