Jinger 🐉

Hey Mavians! Remember those late nights farming Ruby and grinding through matches? GOOD NEWS: We're recognizing your efforts. 🔥 LIMITED-EDITION NFTs ARE COMING — ON DEMAND. NO MASS PRE-MINT. This isn’t a gift. It’s recognition — based on your real activities: 💎 Ruby earnings 🎮 Games played 💸 In-game purchases 🔁 DAEP transactions 🕹 Nexira games' participation All you need to do now: ✅ Follow @NexiraDAEP ✅ Keep doing the above as much as you can. Wait for our signal. 👀 Reserved strictly for our true die-hard Mavians. 👉 nexira.ai/reward-central #Mavia #HoM #EarnedNotGiven #RewardCentral #Nexira

I’ve been a Hyperliquid maxi for a long time, and HL still remains my largest position in Web3. But a recent decision by the team has been extremely disappointing to see. Earlier this year, @monprotocol acquired the $MON ticker on HL for ~500k: x.com/monprotocol/st… The rationale was that CEX interactions were frustrating, and the Pixelmon team wanted to align with a fully decentralized venue. The token ultimately didn’t gain much traction on HL (very low volume, practically a waste in hindsight), but at least the team had secured an immutable asset. Fast forward to Monad’s launch, and suddenly the MON ticker on Hypercore now refers to Monad, not Pixelmon. So I checked with the Pixelmon team assuming they must have sold the ticker. Turns out they didn’t. Hyperliquid simply changed the frontend names: Pixelmon is now shown as “Monpro” on UI (but still $MON on-chain). Monad is shown as “Mon” on UI (but is actually $UMON on-chain). So technically the ticker is immutable, but from a consumer perspective the actual UI identity has been reassigned. And realistically, no one cares what the ticker is on-chain when the UI shows something else. If this isn’t effectively a ticker grab, what is it? Pixelmon paid 500k for something that the frontend can override at will, while Monad (or rather @unitxyz, who is clearly closer to the HL team) gets the visible name without paying for it. To be clear, this doesn’t materially affect Pixelmon’s future. But on principle, it’s wildly disappointing. Is this the ethos Hyperliquid wants to stand for? Centrally aligned players first? What message does this send to smaller teams who choose HL because they believed “listings without fuss” meant UI consistency and fairness? Are we now saying: “You can buy the on-chain ticker, but we’ll decide the visible name depending on who we talk to”? Tagging @chameleon_jeff @iliensinc because this seems like a serious breach of HL’s own stated values, and I’m not sure whether this decision was fully acknowledged at the top. For clarity: Pixelmon ($MON): 0x622cf551933f19f9136303dcab56488c Monad ($UMON): 0x58dae745c8c5fed4012f35ef39829c2d Frontend: This requires an explanation imo and its not about this particular case but more problematic for the overall direction team wants to take. To me this is a clear slap on the face of smaller teams being allowed to be strong-armed by privileged partners. @sershokunin can you also pitch in as to what happened here?

Hyperliquid has effectively scammed all the Hyperliquid ticker auction buyers by seizing $MON from @monprotocol and handing it over to Monad. The whole value prop of even buying these spot tickers from Hyperliquid was the immutability of the purchase and the hyperliquid front end UI that gives that ticker the value. Regardless of the size or success of the token tied to the seized ticker, having Hyperliquid just seize the ticker, quoting just a 'UI change' and hand it over to Monad is the wrong precedent and an injustice to every single ticker buyer who in good faith invested capital into the future success of Hypeliquid. Not a single one would have bid on any ticker if ownership of that on the Monad frontend was not immutable. They should offer full refunds to every single aucction ticker buyer. Shame on them. Shame on @chameleon_jeff and @iliensinc, who I thought were better than this. A number of the spot ticker auction sales went for mid-six figures. One even sold for almost 7 figures. Some of the higher sales (not all): GOD for $975,700 ANIME for ~500k MON for 489K SOVRN for 262,660.17$ FLASK for 159,794.44$ FARM for 181,291.25$ HYFI for 90,652.95$ SHEEP for 111,683.24$ BUBZ for 118,531.66$ SOLV for 128,345.67$ GENESY for 87,198.02$ WATAR for 73,940.75$ STAR for 66,889.45$ Why were these tickers bid on so high? Because the teams that bid on them were essentially paying for future distribution rights for their token by having it spot listed on Hyperliquid. You are NOT paying for some useless backend on-chain ticker that no app will use or support with zero practical utility. HYPE bag holders will no doubt go into defense mode and try and justify this, but try to understand what's happened here and how negative this is overall. Let me tell you a little story with you as the protagonist. 1/ You fairly buy a sought-after apartment in a prime city center location at an open auction from a well-regarded developer. The developer has decided to try a new real estate sale format, offering anyone the ability to buy the property for life if they bid the highest. 2/ You participate, and to guarantee you win, you pay a huge premium for that property because the house is literally in a perfect location, a location that will match the life you intend to create for yourself. 3/ You move into the apartment, you furnish it, and you even set up a little home office in it. You invite family to stay, you host events with friends, you slowly make this little space yours. This is your very own apartment, bought from a developer with an impeccable reputation for honesty who prides itself on building quality affordable housing in a city where most developers do not. 4/ But suddenly, in just under a year of owning and living in this property, this developer informs you that a very famous, very wealthy celebrity wants your home. That celebrity already owns multiple houses, but your house is in a prime location that would allow quicker access to his favorite art gallery. The property developer also stands to gain because the celebrity will bring a host of free publicity to that developer by owning that property. The developer will be able to sell even more properties because of that and earn even more money in the future! 4/ The developer, let's call them @HyperliquidX, despite your protests that you bought that home fair and square, forcibly transfers your title deed to the celebrity and then suddenly evicts you from your home. To honor *some* of the terms of the auction sale, but not the spirit of the purchase, you are instead handed the title deed to an apartment outside of the city, in a poor and undesirable location, worth a fraction of what you paid (if anything) on the open market. 5/ Since you LOST the property you actually paid for, you at least ask for a refund because you did NOT get what you paid for, but are told no refunds. Why? Because the developer had a little sneaky line in the sale contract, which stated that the developer fully owns the actual building location, and you were not really buying a title deed to that specific building address, but just 'any' single building the developer owns in the city. Unfortunately, this little side clause was so obscure and written in another language that none of the apartment buyers even knew it existed. ---------- This story is real, and it's what @HyperliquidX has done to @monprotocol in essence. You can call it what you want. Say that nothing was violated and the ticker on the chain remains the same, and that the UI for the ticker is on hyperliquid. But I call it theft and nothing but that. Now I've been a fan of what Hyperliquid has been trying to do over the past year, but what they have done here violates everything they have stated they are about. @Pixelmon spent $500k to secure the $MON ticker on the hyperliquid ticker auctions. Did they wildly overpay in hindsight? Yes. But they fairly won that auction with the full expectation that they would have control of that listing name ON the hyperliquid platform for the foreseeable future. Only to be kicked aside and have the ticker forcibly changed because of a much bigger project @monad decided they wanted to use the same ticker and Hyperliquid decided on it. Yes, Pixelmon's gaming token is down 97%. I should know, I had massive bags there that I did not sell. Despite web3 gaming pretty much dying and the mon gaming token along with it, the Pixelmon team has been building non-stop and just globally launched their flagship game @wardensascent on Apple Store. They are certainly not dead, nor have they abandoned their community or token. Oh yes, 'technically' Hyperliquid is only changing the 'front end' UI while the ticker remains unchanged on the chain itself. But in practice, this is basically the open theft of that ticker. The value of the Hyperliquid spot ticker was ALWAYS primarily the front-end ticker displayed on the platform. Why would anyone possibly pay inflated prices for a ticker when the exchange can (and will) change the name arbitrarily when it best suits their business interests? What value is there then for all those spot ticker purchasers? Any bigger project can come along and hijack (for free!) your ticker because Hyper will just straight out hand it to them when the trading fee incentives are there. You don't buy a non-trademarked domain name only to find out, suddenly after you buy it and build a business on it that another bigger company that wants to build a business on the same name can just seize it for free. So yeah by basically forcibly changing a legitimately paid for ticker, @HyperliquidX has undermined their stated ethos. It's a bad look on their part and shows the company, under the hood, operates much like the very same CEX platforms they claim to be disrupting. Bad look. Hyperliquid needs to make this right. At the very least, a choice of a better name AND a full refund because what was paid for was basically seized by force.

MON is now listed on the @HyperliquidX spot market. app.hyperliquid.xyz/trade/0x622cf5…