Hyperliquid Enters Singapore’s Investor Alert List

The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has added Hyperliquid to its Investor Alert List, flagging the decentralized perpetuals exchange as an entity that consumers may wrongly assume is licensed or regulated by the central bank.

MAS says the latest entry, published on Friday, names both the Hyper Foundation website and the Hyperliquid trading app. The Investor Alert List is designed as a consumer protection tool rather than a ban or an announcement of enforcement action.

Key takeaways

• MAS has included Hyperliquid on its Investor Alert List, associating the flag with the Hyper Foundation website and the Hyperliquid app.
• Being listed does not mean MAS has launched an enforcement action or imposed a prohibition.
• MAS’s move follows other crypto platform additions earlier in 2025, including Bybit (June 17) and listings that also include KuCoin and Bitget.
• Singapore continues tightening oversight, emphasizing consumer protection and alignment with global anti–money laundering and counter-terrorism financing expectations.
• Hyperliquid says it has not claimed MAS licensing or authorization, arguing its permissionless setup has not changed.

MAS adds Hyperliquid to the Investor Alert List

MAS’s Investor Alert List is meant to reduce the risk that members of the public interpret certain firms or websites as being authorized or overseen by the regulator. According to MAS’s description of the list, inclusion is not an indication that an activity is prohibited, nor does it itself represent a regulatory action.

The update lists Hyperliquid through its ecosystem: MAS references both the Hyper Foundation website and the Hyperliquid trading application in the same entry. The regulator added the new item on Friday.

Cointelegraph attempted to contact MAS for additional comment but did not receive a response prior to publication.

Hyperliquid responds: no MAS authorization claim

Hyperliquid pushed back on any implication that it sought or received MAS approval. The platform said it has never presented itself as licensed or authorized by MAS and argued that nothing about its permissionless infrastructure has changed.

In a Friday post on X, Hyperliquid wrote that it remains committed to engaging with regulators and institutions globally while supporting “clear, well-designed frameworks” for onchain finance.

How Hyperliquid fits the broader Singapore crackdown

Singapore has tightened crypto regulation in recent years, with MAS repeatedly emphasizing that the industry must comply with licensing requirements and anti-financial crime standards. The regulator’s approach has included clarifying how firms serving foreign customers are treated under Singapore’s framework.

In May 2025, MAS ordered crypto companies that served overseas customers to either obtain the necessary licenses or stop operating. MAS characterized the decision as consistent with its long-standing stance rather than a sudden policy shift.

MAS said the directive targeted a loophole that had allowed certain firms headquartered in Singapore to avoid licensing by focusing on customers outside the jurisdiction. In MAS’s framing, the move effectively ended a transition period for firms that continued operating without a license while serving only overseas users.

MAS also explained that its measures aim to strengthen consumer protection and bring Singapore’s crypto oversight in line with international expectations relating to Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (CFT).

What the market data suggests—and what remains unclear

While MAS’s Investor Alert List is a consumer-facing notice, traders and investors often read these updates as signals about how Singapore-based oversight is tightening across both centralized and decentralized crypto offerings.

According to CoinGecko, Hyperliquid ranks as the ninth-largest decentralized exchange by trading volume. Separately, DefiLlama estimates Hyperliquid’s total value locked (TVL) at around $5.7 billion.

At the same time, the regulatory message conveyed by MAS’s Investor Alert List is not a direct restriction. That distinction matters for users trying to understand what changed in practice: the list signals potential consumer misunderstanding around regulatory status, but it does not, on its own, spell out whether specific Singapore-based intermediaries or local distribution channels will face separate action.

Readers should watch for whether MAS follows up with additional clarifications on how its licensing expectations interact with permissionless infrastructure and whether any related entities—such as service providers or interfaces that could influence access—are later referenced in the regulator’s consumer warnings.

For now, the key question is how Singapore will translate its licensing and AML/CFT enforcement posture into the decentralized layer—especially as major protocols like Hyperliquid continue to grow in usage—while keeping the boundary clear between consumer alerts and actual regulatory prohibitions.