Scan to download
BTC $59,768.42 +0.65%
ETH $1,589.93 +1.43%
BNB $554.54 +0.57%
XRP $1.04 +0.46%
SOL $74.23 +3.89%
TRX $0.3190 -0.83%
DOGE $0.0724 -0.62%
ADA $0.1440 +0.24%
BCH $198.67 +3.74%
LINK $7.30 +0.57%
HYPE $66.00 +6.65%
AAVE $90.83 -0.49%
SUI $0.6909 +1.57%
XLM $0.1754 +1.93%
ZEC $398.20 +6.25%
BTC $59,768.42 +0.65%
ETH $1,589.93 +1.43%
BNB $554.54 +0.57%
XRP $1.04 +0.46%
SOL $74.23 +3.89%
TRX $0.3190 -0.83%
DOGE $0.0724 -0.62%
ADA $0.1440 +0.24%
BCH $198.67 +3.74%
LINK $7.30 +0.57%
HYPE $66.00 +6.65%
AAVE $90.83 -0.49%
SUI $0.6909 +1.57%
XLM $0.1754 +1.93%
ZEC $398.20 +6.25%

rejected

All
Article
Flash

The founder of Hyperliquid once rejected a $1 billion valuation funding proposal, insisting on a "zero external investment" approach

According to market news, Hyperliquid founder Jeffrey Yan received an investment intention based on a valuation of about $1 billion and a scale of about $100 million less than a year after the project went live. However, after careful consideration, he ultimately chose to reject the investment terms.Reports indicate that before and after the financing proposal was made, the team had been continuously using personal funds to maintain operations, consuming the founder's personal finances each month to cover project costs. During the investor's engagement, Jeff communicated with several entrepreneurs and VCs about the nature and significance of financing, but he was never convinced that external capital could enhance its intrinsic value. Ultimately, he clearly informed the team on Monday that he would reject the financing proposal.Relevant insiders described that the team members managing funds were shocked by this decision, as several preparations had already been made around the financing. Jeff's core reason was that Hyperliquid is not a traditional company but an on-chain protocol that needs to maintain neutrality. He believed that once external equity capital was introduced, it could undermine the protocol's permissionless and neutral positioning, conflicting with its long-term design goals.He had previously stated that if Bitcoin had accepted VC financing in its early days, its neutrality narrative might have been weakened. Following the same logic, he chose to continue maintaining Hyperliquid's investor-free structure and to support part of the operating expenses with personal funds in the long term. On January 28, 2024, he summarized the project's principles on social media: · No investors · No paid market makers · No fees charged to the development team (or the development team does not take fees) · No insiders (or internal privileged participants). This statement is also seen as a core footnote to Hyperliquid's extreme decentralization/decapitalization approach.

Kalshi's ban application was rejected, and a U.S. judge ruled that prediction markets do not take precedence over state gambling regulations

The Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Sarah D. Morrison, ruled that there is no historical evidence indicating that Congress intended for federal law to take precedence over state regulation of sports gambling, and thus denied the preliminary injunction request filed by the prediction market platform Kalshi.Kalshi had previously sued the Ohio Casino Control Commission in an attempt to prevent it from taking enforcement action against the platform's event contracts under state gambling laws. Last year, the regulatory agency accused Kalshi of operating illegal sports gambling in Ohio.Kalshi argued that the event contracts it offers are derivatives regulated under the Commodity Exchange Act and should fall under the jurisdiction of the CFTC, thereby asserting that federal regulation should take precedence over state gambling laws.However, the judge stated that there is no evidence from historical and legislative context to suggest that Congress intended for the law to supersede state sports gambling regulations, noting that when the Dodd-Frank Act amended relevant laws in 2010, sports gambling was still widely restricted in the U.S.Kalshi announced that it would appeal the ruling. The case is seen as an important test of the legal status of prediction markets, and its outcome could affect the future compliance prospects of other prediction platforms in the U.S., including Polymarket.
app_icon
ChainCatcher Building the Web3 world with innovations.