Debunking the FUD that Hyperliquid prioritizes protocol revenue over traders On 10/10, Hyperliquid ADLs net made users hundreds of millions of dollars by closing profitable short positions at favorable prices. If more positions had been backstop liquidated, HLP could have made hundreds of millions of dollars more in pnl, while being exposed to an irresponsible amount of risk. ADL passed on HLP's potential pnl to users while decreasing HLP's exposure, a win-win. As a reminder the ADL queue on Hyperliqid has always followed a similar formula to what most CEXs use, incorporating both leverage used and unrealized pnl on the open position. Finally, thanks to everyone for the feedback on ADL. Suggestions generally increase complexity, such as partially offsetting long and short positions in historically correlated assets. I don't know of other major venues that use more complex logic for the ADL queue. Simple formulas are more robust and understandable by users. Nonetheless, there is research being done on whether there can be substantial improvements that merit more complexity.