BTCSOS

Hyperliquid founder Jeff Yan: US regulation should

2026-10-15 23:05 · 3 sources

On October 15, 2026, Hyperliquid founder Jeff Yan proposed on Bloomberg's "Odd Lots" podcast that regulatory obligations should be borne by the financial companies operating markets on the blockchain, rather than by the blockchain itself; Bloomberg said this distinction could allow Hyperliquid to expand its Wall Street business without bearing the full compliance burden of a traditional exchange. Hyperliquid is not currently open to U.S. users.

Event Timeline

Background and Impact

On October 15, 2026, according to Bloomberg, Hyperliquid founder Jeff Yan proposed a regulatory approach in an interview on Bloomberg's "Odd Lots" podcast: regulatory obligations should be borne by the financial companies operating markets on the Hyperliquid blockchain, rather than by the blockchain itself. PANews, Wu Blockchain and Odaily reported this statement successively on the morning of the same day, and all three sources noted that the information came from Bloomberg.

Yan believes regulation should apply to the entities that actually hold control over the market. As he described it, Hyperliquid can serve as infrastructure providing an order book, clearing and liquidity, while the institutions that deploy and operate trading markets bear the corresponding regulatory obligations. He also stressed that Hyperliquid does not seek to replace traditional exchanges, but rather hopes to provide underlying trading technology to Wall Street institutions. Bloomberg said this distinction would allow Hyperliquid to expand its business to Wall Street without bearing the full compliance burden of a traditional exchange.

The statement comes against the backdrop of U.S. regulators considering how to bring offshore trading venues into the domestic financial system. According to Wu Blockchain, Hyperliquid is not yet open to U.S. users, and the relevant regulatory arrangements remain to be clarified.

The core statements of the three sources are consistent, with no contradictory claims; the differences lie mainly in the level of detail: PANews and Odaily focused on the division-of-labor proposition regarding "attribution of regulatory obligations," while Wu Blockchain added the infrastructure positioning of order book, clearing and liquidity, as well as information such as "does not seek to replace traditional exchanges" and "not yet open to U.S. users." As of the time point covered by the materials, no response from U.S. regulators to this approach was shown, nor were specific arrangements given for bringing offshore trading venues into the domestic financial system.

Frequently Asked Questions

### Which entities would this regulatory approach affect?

According to Yan, those bearing regulatory obligations are the financial companies that deploy and operate trading markets on the Hyperliquid blockchain, while Hyperliquid itself is positioned as infrastructure providing an order book, clearing and liquidity. The materials do not involve other blockchains or assets.

### What points should be watched going forward?

U.S. regulators are considering how to bring offshore trading venues into the domestic financial system, but the materials give no timetable, nor do they show any response from regulators to Yan's approach. Hyperliquid is not yet open to U.S. users, and the relevant regulatory arrangements remain to be clarified.

### Does Hyperliquid intend to replace traditional exchanges?

According to Wu Blockchain, Yan stressed that Hyperliquid does not seek to replace traditional exchanges, but rather hopes to provide underlying trading technology to Wall Street institutions. The three sources do not differ on this point.

Sources