Hyperliquid confirms Singapore base as report says MAS sees it outside its remit
Hyperliquid Labs confirmed that Singapore is its registered headquarters. MAS has added the Hyperliquid trading application and Hyper Foundation website to its Investor Alert List. People familiar with the regulator’s thinking told the Financial Times that Hyperliquid’s decentralized nature puts it outside MAS’s remit.
- Registration in Singapore does not prove a trading platform is licensed there.
- MAS’s alert list is a warning, not a ban or enforcement action.
- The reported view on MAS’s remit has not been described as a formal ruling.
- Payward has proposed a separate regulated route for eligible U.S. customers, but approval is still required.
Singapore headquarters, not proof of a license
Hyperliquid Labs confirmed that Singapore is its registered headquarters. Company documents reviewed by the Financial Times identified Singapore as the company’s base, while recruitment materials and job advertisements referred to a Singapore office. The FT reported that co-founder Jeff Yan and a team of about 11 people relocated there in 2024.
A company’s registered headquarters does not, by itself, mean that its products or services are licensed by the local regulator. Hyperliquid said it had never claimed permission or authorization from Singapore’s Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and said it was willing to work with regulators.
MAS told the FT: “We are not aware that Hyperliquid is regulated in any major jurisdiction.” That statement describes what the regulator is aware of. It is not a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction determination that no entity or activity connected with Hyperliquid is regulated anywhere.
People familiar with MAS’s thinking told the FT that the authority considers Hyperliquid outside its remit because of the platform’s decentralized nature. They did not present this as a formal MAS ruling, and the specific legal basis remains unclear.
What MAS’s Investor Alert List means
MAS added the Hyper Foundation website and Hyperliquid trading application to its Investor Alert List on June 26, 2025. The list warns about entities that investors might mistakenly believe are licensed, authorized or regulated by the authority. MAS says the list is not exhaustive and reflects the information available when each entry is published.
Hyperliquid said the listing “does not constitute a ban, an enforcement action, or a finding of wrongdoing.” An alert is not a prohibition, but it is not an endorsement either. Investors should not treat the absence of an enforcement action as evidence of regulatory approval.
Hyperliquid said its permissionless infrastructure remained unchanged. In general, “permissionless” means people can use a system without an operator approving each participant. That description does not settle which laws may apply to the companies, interfaces or services connected with the system.
Singapore’s licensing regime is a separate question
Singapore’s Financial Services and Markets Act licensing regime covers specified digital-token service providers that operate from Singapore while serving only customers outside the country. The services discussed include dealing in digital payment tokens and tokens representing capital markets products.
Covered providers had to obtain a license or stop the relevant activities by June 30, 2025. MAS said it would generally not grant licenses for that business model, citing money-laundering risks and the difficulty of supervising providers whose substantive regulated activity takes place overseas.
This framework helps explain Singapore’s regulatory environment, but it does not show that MAS formally determined the regime applies to Hyperliquid, or that it does not. The reported view that the platform falls outside MAS’s remit comes from people familiar with the regulator’s thinking.
Payward’s U.S. proposal is a separate, limited route
Hyperliquid’s reported status in Singapore is separate from a proposal for U.S. customers. On Aug. 31, 2025, Ashley Ebersole, a former SEC senior counsel and co-founder and chief legal officer at tx, said U.S. law offered no straightforward path for retail access to offshore-style crypto perpetual futures. He estimated that building a compliant route could take 10 to 12 months, given the registrations and product rules or exemptions that may be needed. Existing regulatory powers or exemptions could shorten the process. Litigation, agency disagreements or the need for legislation could extend it.
On Sep. 16, 2025, Payward, Kraken’s parent company, announced plans for regulated Hyperliquid perpetual markets for eligible U.S. customers. The proposal needs regulatory approval, and no launch date was specified. Perpetual futures are contracts with no fixed expiry date.
The proposal assigns different roles to separate firms:
- Bitnomial Exchange would create and administer the contracts.
- Bitnomial Clearinghouse would handle clearing and settlement.
- Hyperliquid’s on-chain order book would match and record trades.
- NinjaTrader Clearing would carry customer accounts.
Customers would need to complete onboarding and appear on both NinjaTrader’s and Bitnomial’s allowlists, or lists of approved participants. Access would be limited to regulated products deployed by Bitnomial under its exchange rules, not every market available through Hyperliquid.
Payward’s proposal would put selected products within a regulated structure. It would not make the entire Hyperliquid platform a regulated venue for U.S. customers. Ebersole said contracts tied to commodities would likely involve the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, while securities-linked products could involve the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Key questions and answers
-
Has MAS licensed Hyperliquid?
MAS said it was not aware of Hyperliquid being regulated in any major jurisdiction. The available information does not establish the regulatory status of every entity or activity connected with the platform.
-
Did MAS ban Hyperliquid?
No ban has been reported. Hyperliquid said its Investor Alert List entry was not a ban, enforcement action or finding of wrongdoing.
-
Why does MAS reportedly consider the platform outside its remit?
People familiar with the regulator’s thinking cited Hyperliquid’s decentralized nature. They did not describe this as a formal MAS ruling.
-
Can eligible U.S. customers trade through Payward’s proposed markets?
Not yet, based on the available information. Regulatory approval is required, and Payward has not announced a launch date.
-
Would the proposal cover every Hyperliquid market?
No. It would cover only regulated products deployed by Bitnomial under its exchange rules.
The permissionless protocol and the businesses and interfaces connected to it may face different legal obligations. Payward’s proposed U.S. arrangement would cover only specified products and intermediaries. It would not settle Hyperliquid’s regulatory status as a whole.
