MAS places Hyperliquid on "grey list": What this means for Singapore's DeFi sector
On June 26, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) officially added the website of the decentralized exchange Hyperliquid and its associated organization Hyper Foundation to its "Investor Alert List." This registry contains services that may be mistakenly perceived by users as licensed and regulated financial institutions. The regulator's decision is not an isolated case but part of a consistent policy to tighten control over the cryptocurrency market.
Hyperliquid Team's Response: "Nothing Changes"
Protocol representatives promptly responded to this event, emphasizing that being added to the list is not a ban on operations or an enforcement measure. In an official statement, the team noted that Hyperliquid is a public infrastructure that never sought a MAS license. "Nothing has changed on the network. As with other open-access blockchains, users hold their own assets, and transactions are processed transparently," the developers stressed.
It is important to understand that major players such as centralized exchanges KuCoin and Bitget have already been added to a similar registry, confirming the systemic nature of MAS's actions. The regulator aims to protect local investors from interacting with unlicensed platforms, even if they operate in a decentralized manner.
Context: New Rules for Crypto Companies
This step is a direct continuation of the policy announced back in June 2025. At that time, MAS required all crypto companies serving clients in Singapore to obtain a digital token service provider license. Otherwise, they must cease servicing foreign users. Hyperliquid, being a global DeFi protocol, obviously does not meet these local requirements, which led to its inclusion on the "gray list."
Analytical Commentary: MAS's actions are a vivid example of the growing trend toward "regulatory extraterritoriality." Even decentralized protocols with no physical presence in the jurisdiction are now in the crosshairs. For Hyperliquid, this is more of a reputational noise than an operational threat, but it sets a precedent: regulators are beginning to target not just companies but the code and interfaces themselves, which in the long term could seriously hinder the development of permissionless finance.