Hyperliquid

After reviewing the Hyperliquid (HYPE) classification, I am struggling to reconcile the “halal” verdict with the protocol’s own stated core purpose. Hyperliquid explicitly describes its flagship product as a fully on chain perpetuals exchange, offering leveraged and synthetic derivatives trading. Under established Shariah principles, perpetual contracts and leveraged derivatives constitute financial derivatives and synthetic exposure, where no underlying asset ownership is transferred, and the activity itself closely aligns with maysir and prohibited financial intermediation. Classifying the exchange token as halal by arguing that misuse is the responsibility of the user introduces conditional permissibility, which is problematic, as Shariah assessment should be based on what the protocol fundamentally exists to do, not on hypothetical user behavior. The analogy drawn between exchange tokens and fiat money also appears flawed, since fiat currency is a neutral medium of exchange, whereas Hyperliquid’s token exists to operate and sustain a derivatives market. I would appreciate a clear explanation of which Shariah principle permits a protocol whose primary function is operating a perpetual derivatives exchange to be classified as halal, and how this avoids the well established prohibitions related to derivatives, excessive uncertainty, and speculative financial contracts.