Disclosure: The opinions and opinions expressed here belong to the authors solely and do not represent the views or opinions of the crypto.news editorial.
The recent Crypto Market Pullback may have been caught by many surprises, but it also did something useful. This forced the Defi community to talk about important topics that are usually ignored in the hype of the Bull Market: Risk Management.
In March 2025, one of the most respected defi platforms, High Lipids, were shaken by two market manipulation events. One was a large long position at Ethereum (ETH), and the other was a short play targeting a small memokine called Jelly. These transactions were not just smart exploits. They were alarm bells ringing about the fundamental weaknesses of Defi’s risk infrastructure.
Both sides of the same problem
In the first attack, traders who used $307 million in ETH at 50x ETH, then strategically pulled out collateral as prices rose and approached liquidation. If prices fell, forced liquidation was not absorbed into Hyperliquid’s liquidity pool (HLP) without massive slippage. Key remedies with high lipids include lower leverage limits for Bitcoin (BTC) and ETH, increased maintenance margin requirements, and limiting secondary withdrawals to open positions of at least 20%.
A few weeks later, the jelly incident occurred. Traders misused Memecoin’s low liquidity in DEXS, actively spot-buying while holding short positions with high lipids, causing a price surge that pushed HLP to nearly $13 million unrealized losses. In response, Hyperliquid’s Validators stepped in and voted controversially to forcefully settle it at a virtually low price and register for the perpetual jelly. The protocol fends the losses, but at the expense of the risks associated with its own decentralization narrative.
Both events (long and short, blue tip, “shit”) point to the same underlying issue. Defi still deals with risk management as an afterthought.
Tradfi was there before
That said, this is nothing new. Traditional finance has seen it all before through derivatives explosions, margin spirals, and fraudulent trading. But after each crisis, it has not just recovered. It has hardened. Location limits, capital requirements, stress testing, and other sophisticated methods became standard because they were needed, not because they were good.
Meanwhile, Defi continues to reward high leverage, underestimate liquidity risks, and leave governance decisions on the baritator vote, which can be reactive and panic-inducing. Nevertheless, we don’t have to be Tradfi, but we need to adopt the discipline behind its evolution.
Risk is not the enemy
The high lipid incident taught us some important lessons regarding better adherence to risk control protocols. for example:
Position caps and margin locks were able to limit exposure, neutralize ETH for a long time, and prevent forced liquidation. A better asset listing standard would prevent jelly from becoming a systematic responsibility. Clear and enforceable decommissioning protocols would have avoided governance panics that undermine trust.
These are not burdens, they are basic building blocks, not retroactively slaps and should be embedded during protocol design.
The truth is that most Defi platforms still keep up with the risks, and often learn through painful trial and error. However, there is no time to trip from one exploit to the next in hopes that users will forgive and forget.
The risks of Defi are interconnected and amplified
Defi is more than just an ecosystem. This is an interconnected entanglement of protocols, tokens and cross-chain bridges, amplifying the risk of transmission. A failure in one area that is a smart contract risk, liquidity crunch, or missteps of governance can rapidly cascade across the stack.
When one liquidity pool collapses, users will be scattered. Institutional adoption is hesitant if the governance vote appears panic or arbitrary. When a Stablecoin turns into a stag, everyone holds their breath.
This is not just a technical risk, it is a market risk, reputation risk, and increasingly regulatory risk.
Paranoia is maturity, not overreaction
Some players at Crypto Surcles continue to see risk management as a brake on innovation, but that’s wrong. The next generation of debt leaders are not the ones chasing the best APY. They build resilient protocols that can withstand volatility, manipulation and regulation scrutiny.
The paranoia of defi is not a weakness. It is a sign of maturity.
If we want Defi to be a serious alternative to TRADFI, we must begin to consider risks not only in post-mortem but in every design decision we make. Because when the next exploit comes, and it certainly will.
