Hyperliquid has drawn criticism for its response to UK sanctions against crypto exchange HTX, with users alleging the platform is blocking wallets that only indirectly interacted with the sanctioned entity. The controversy follows UK sanctions imposed on Huobi Global SA on May 26, 2026, over allegations the exchange facilitated Russian sanctions evasion by transferring more than $1.5 billion through the A7 network. According to a user known as "as required," Hyperliquid — a Singapore-registered platform with no UK ties — began blocking any wallet with contact to HTX-associated addresses after May 26, regardless of intermediary transfers. The user argues this exceeds legal requirements, as UK sanctions apply only to British digital asset service providers working directly with HTX. The debate highlights tensions between compliance obligations and user access in decentralized finance platforms.
User Claims Hyperliquid Blocks Wallets Over Indirect HTX Links
The user "as required" stated that Hyperliquid adopted the harshest possible interpretation of the UK sanctions by blocking wallets with any connection to HTX, even through multiple intermediary transfers. The user emphasized that Hyperliquid is registered in Singapore and has no ties to the UK, yet the platform began restricting addresses after May 26. According to the user, the platform did not provide a clear appeals process for affected users.
The user cited the case of a Duldul Capital investor who was allegedly blocked because he lent funds to a friend whose wallet was linked to HTX. The user also drew a comparison to Bybit, noting that Singapore's regulator added Bybit Fintech Limited to its Investor Alert List on June 17. The user suggested that if Hyperliquid's logic were applied consistently, anyone who deposited or withdrew funds through Bybit should also face restrictions.
Compliance Experts Say Block Lists Are Not Mandatory
In a separate post, "as required" rejected the argument that Hyperliquid's actions were dictated by blockchain analytics companies such as Chainalysis, TRM Labs, or Elliptic. The user said he spoke with several compliance organizations, and all confirmed they do not provide clients with mandatory block lists. Instead, these companies provide factual labels indicating whether a wallet interacted with HTX. The final decision on which addresses to block is made by Hyperliquid itself.
The user noted that other platforms handle such cases differently. According to the user, OpenSea unblocked his wallets within a few hours, while Lighter, Extended, and several other exchanges did not block the same wallets at all. The user argued this demonstrates that a transparent appeals process does not necessarily create legal risks for a platform.
Community Criticism Mounts Over Blocking Policy
On-chain researcher ZachXBT stated that the sanctions against HTX have weakened the usefulness of blockchain risk assessment. According to ZachXBT, compliance systems now label many ordinary wallets as "high risk" simply because they once interacted with the exchange.
The user "as required" concluded that Hyperliquid's strict interpretation contradicts the platform's stated vision of finance as a tool for empowering people, rather than depriving them of access without protection or recourse.
FAQ
What did Hyperliquid do after UK sanctions on HTX?
According to a user known as "as required," Hyperliquid began blocking wallets that had any contact with addresses previously associated with HTX after May 26, 2026, regardless of the number of intermediate transfers. The user claims the platform did not provide a clear appeals process for affected users.
Why is Hyperliquid's blocking policy being called excessive?
The user "as required" argues that UK sanctions apply only to British digital asset service providers working with HTX, while Hyperliquid — a Singapore-registered platform — went beyond legal requirements by blocking users over any connection to HTX. The user also stated that compliance companies do not provide mandatory block lists, meaning the final blocking decision was made by Hyperliquid itself.
How have other platforms handled similar cases?
According to "as required," OpenSea unblocked his wallets within a few hours, while Lighter, Extended, and several other exchanges did not block the same wallets at all. The user suggests this shows that a transparent appeals process does not necessarily create legal risks for a platform.
