RIADeFi
Refusal file · other

Why Ketju rejected Hyper Unit

Memo v1Published by Ketju Research

A registry memo, published verbatim and versioned. Superseded versions are recorded, never edited away. A rejection is a judgment for Ketju's client base and thesis, not a universal safety claim. Not investment, legal, tax, or compliance advice.

The memo

REJECTED. Hyper Unit lets a user deposit native BTC, ETH, SOL, and other assets from their home chain and mints a matching balance on Hyperliquid, distinct from the separately-reviewed Hyperliquid Bridge (the Arbitrum-to-HyperCore USDC path). Custody runs through a "Guardian Network" using MPC/threshold-signature cryptography rather than a conventional multisig, but the network is reported to have only three total operators with a 2-of-3 signing threshold — a smaller, more concentrated trust set than the already-rejected Hyperliquid Bridge's 27-validator set. Cryptographic sophistication does not offset having only three parties, any two of whom can move funds, and no independent, Unit-specific security audit was confirmed.

What would reopen the file

  • Guardian count expands materially, for example to seven or more, with published, named operator identities
  • An independent, Unit-specific security audit, not the general Hyperliquid L1 audit, is published with no critical findings outstanding
  • Withdrawal timing and dispute or challenge mechanics are independently confirmed and pass a proposed-size stressed-exit test
  • Twelve consecutive months with no Guardian-key or MPC-ceremony compromise

Facts on file

Verdict
Rejected
Exposure
other
Chains examined
Ethereum
Memo version
v1
Reviewed
Next review

← All published refusals