FORESHOCK

Every protocol here carries a dated score and the share of it backed by independently verified evidence. Where that share is still thin the assessment says so, is marked Low-signal rather than given a risk band, and holds every unevidenced category at the neutral midpoint instead of assuming it safe. Every score and its reasoning are free to read; the underlying dependency, incident and audit records are part of a plan. Each reading here is fixed at the date beside it. Re-scoring never stops, but a changed reading reaches plan holders on the day it changes rather than this page, which is what a plan is for. How a score is built, how to read one, and how the rubric was tested against real exploits are all in the methodology.

Coverage grows three ways: protocols Foreshock selects at its own discretion, protocols requested through the Request coverage button, and sponsored assessments delivered on an agreed timeline. No path has a guaranteed date except sponsorship.

Scores run from 0, the safest reading, to 100, the riskiest, where 50 is the neutral midpoint every unverified category is held at. Red marks a protocol scoring 50 or above, the band called Elevated: worse than neutral on the evidence gathered. Amber marks one below it, called Moderate. The boundary is fixed. It does not move as coverage grows, and it is not fitted to any backtest result.

Hyperliquid HLP

Hyperliquid HLP official site N/A

Hyperliquid L1

:

  • Evidence: this reading is based on 100% of the scored weight, verified against named sources. Categories without verified data are excluded from the reading, never counted as safe.
  • Validation: the rubric is backtested against past exploits of protocols in the same TVL, age and category bucket. None has been evaluated for this one yet, so the reading rests on its evidence alone.
In short

Foreshock's independent reading of Hyperliquid HLP is Moderate risk, 44.0 out of 100, as of 10 September 2026. The largest single contributor to that reading is dependency risk: relies on 2 bridges, composable with 3 other protocols. All nine scored categories are backed by verified evidence. Foreshock publishes the reading and the reasoning behind it. It is not a verdict on whether to use this protocol, and it is not investment advice.

Is Hyperliquid HLP safe?
Foreshock does not answer that as a yes or a no. Its independent reading of Hyperliquid HLP is Moderate risk, 44.0 out of 100, as of 10 September 2026, led by dependency risk: relies on 2 bridges, composable with 3 other protocols. The score and the reasoning are published in full so the reading can be checked rather than trusted.
Has Hyperliquid HLP been audited?
2 audits on record, most recent audit is over 2 years old; the most recent audit found 0 High and 0 Medium severity issues. This reflects code quality at the time of that audit only, not a claim that these specific issues are still unresolved today. An audit describes the code at the time it was reviewed. It is not a statement that the protocol is safe today.
Who controls Hyperliquid HLP?
Admin key: none, open source. No governance token and no admin key: the protocol cannot be changed by a vote or by an owner.
Has Hyperliquid HLP been exploited before?
No known own or inherited incidents. Foreshock records an incident against a protocol whether it originated there or was inherited from something it depends on.
When was this Hyperliquid HLP assessment last updated?
10 September 2026. Readings are recomputed as evidence changes, and every category carries the date of the evidence behind it.
Score by categories
Dependency risk12.8

Relies on 2 bridges, composable with 3 other protocols.

Audit profile10.1

2 audits on record, most recent audit is over 2 years old; the most recent audit found 0 High and 0 Medium severity issues. This reflects code quality at the time of that audit only, not a claim that these specific issues are still unresolved today.

Code characteristics7.6

Admin key: none, open source.

TVL profile3.6

TVL change (-9%) is within a stable range.

Team factors3.1

Anonymous team, a weak but real signal on its own.

Historical incidents2.3

No known own or inherited incidents.

Governance attack surface2.0

No governance token and no admin key: the protocol cannot be changed by a vote or by an owner.

Protocol age1.5

648 days live, past the ~1yr floor; treated the same as any older protocol, not scored progressively safer with more age.

Bug bounty1.0

Has a bug bounty program, up to $1 000 000.

Assets held (1)

Available with a plan. See pricing.

Dependencies (2)

Available with a plan. See pricing.

Incident history (0)

Available with a plan. See pricing.

Audit history (2)

Available with a plan. See pricing.

Also covered on Hyperliquid L1

This assessment follows Foreshock's published methodology. Exact category weights, scoring rules, thresholds, and aggregation logic are proprietary and not shown here. How to interpret this assessment

This reading will change.

This reading is fixed at the date above it, and it stays there. We keep re-scoring Hyperliquid HLP as the evidence moves, a new audit, a changed admin control, an incident, and this page is free to read and always will be. The updated reading is what a plan buys: you are told by email on the day it changes, instead of finding out the next time you happen to look.

Hyperliquid HLP risk score, audits and admin control · Foreshock