Three months after the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) raised a public flag about the decentralized exchange Hyperliquid, no regulator has formally taken charge of the platform. The company has now confirmed to the Financial Times that its headquarters sits in Singapore, yet the city-state’s financial watchdog is still refusing to step in.
The Story So Far: A Warning in June
On June 26, 2025, the Monetary Authority of Singapore issued a rare and unusually direct statement. It warned the public about Hyperliquid, a fast-growing decentralized perpetuals exchange (a platform where users can bet on the future price of cryptocurrencies without expiration dates). MAS suggested the platform might be operating without proper authorization in Singapore.
At the time, Hyperliquid was flying high. The protocol had become one of the biggest names in on-chain trading, processing billions of dollars in daily volume. The MAS warning was a shot across the bow, a signal that even the most “borderless” DeFi projects can attract the attention of traditional financial authorities.
Yet, the platform did not shut down, relocate, or change its corporate structure. It simply kept operating.
Hyperliquid Confirms: “Yes, We’re Based in Singapore”
Three months later, Hyperliquid has done something notable: it has acknowledged its Singapore headquarters in conversations with the Financial Times. For a project that built its brand on being decentralized, borderless, and regulator-proof, this is a striking admission.
In a way, this confirms what MAS implied back in June. The platform has a real-world legal home, and that home is Singapore. But acknowledging a headquarters is one thing. Being supervised by a regulator is another.
Why MAS Isn’t Moving
According to the Financial Times, MAS has chosen not to open a formal investigation or enforcement action against Hyperliquid, at least not publicly. The regulator’s reasoning is not entirely clear, but several factors likely play a role:
- Decentralization is a legal gray area. Hyperliquid runs largely through smart contracts on a blockchain. Determining who is legally responsible, the team, the validators, or the protocol itself, is genuinely difficult under current Singapore law.
- Precedent risk. Taking aggressive action against a DeFi protocol could set a global precedent. Regulators often prefer to study, watch, and wait before making bold moves.
- Competitive considerations. Singapore wants to be a crypto-friendly hub. Heavy-handed action against a successful local project could scare away other crypto businesses.
What Does This Mean for DeFi Regulation?
The Hyperliquid situation is a fascinating case study in the slow, awkward collision between decentralized finance and traditional regulation. Think of it like this: imagine a taxi company that operates only through an app, has no cars of its own, and connects independent drivers with passengers. Regulators eventually figured out how to handle Uber. But Uber at least had a CEO, a board, and a headquarters they could subpoena.
DeFi protocols, especially ones with anonymous or pseudonymous teams, are much harder to pin down.
The Bigger Picture
This regulatory gap is not unique to Singapore. Around the world, agencies like the U.S. SEC, the European ESMA, and the UK’s FCA are all grappling with the same question: How do you regulate something designed specifically to avoid regulation?
For now, Hyperliquid appears to be in a kind of limbo. It has admitted to being based in Singapore, but Singapore’s regulator has decided not to act. Users keep trading. The protocol keeps processing billions. And the global regulatory conversation keeps grinding on.
Should You Be Worried as a User?
If you use Hyperliquid or any similar DeFi protocol, the lack of a regulator in charge is a double-edged sword:
On the positive side: You get access to powerful trading tools, often with lower fees and fewer restrictions than centralized exchanges. If you want to get started trading crypto on a regulated platform, Kraken is one of the most trusted names in the industry.
On the risk side: If something goes wrong, a hack, a smart contract bug, or a sudden regulatory crackdown, there is no government agency you can call. There is no insurance fund. You are on your own.
For long-term crypto holders, this is exactly why hardware wallets like Ledger remain essential. Keeping your own private keys means no centralized platform, regulator or not, can lock you out of your assets.
For European users looking for a reliable on-ramp to crypto, Bitvavo is a well-regulated exchange option.
Conclusion: The Regulatory Waiting Game
Three months after Singapore’s warning, Hyperliquid is still operating, still based in Singapore, and still without a regulator actively overseeing it. This is not a victory for the platform, nor a defeat for MAS. It is simply the reality of where crypto regulation stands in 2025: slow, uncertain, and full of gray areas.
As users and investors, the takeaway is clear. Understand what you are using, know the risks, and take custody of your assets when it matters most. The regulators will catch up eventually, but until they do, personal responsibility remains your best protection.
