The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has added Hyperliquid, an exchange platform focused on perpetual trading, to its investor warning list. The Investor Alert List is a consumer protection tool used to flag entities that the public may mistakenly believe are licensed or approved by a regulatory agency.
MAS said the new items include the Hyper Foundation website and the Hyperliquid trading app. MAS had previously extended the same warning list to other cryptocurrency trading platforms, highlighting Singapore’s approach to reduce regulatory confusion and strengthen investor safeguards.
Key Takeaways
- MAS has added Hyperliquid and the associated Hyper Foundation website/app to its Investor Alert List as a potential source of public misunderstanding about the state of regulation.
- Inclusion on the Investor Alert List is not a ban and does not in itself imply enforcement action by MAS.
- MAS has recently strengthened its supervision of cryptocurrency companies serving overseas customers, emphasizing licensing requirements and AML/CFT coordination.
- Hyperliquid claims that it has never received a MAS license or approval and that its permissionless infrastructure has not been altered.
Signs from MAS’ Investor Alert List
MAS’s Investor Alert List is designed to protect consumers by identifying entities that may be incorrectly regarded as authorized or regulated by central banks and financial regulators. The regulator has repeatedly made clear that listing does not automatically equate to activities prohibited under Singapore law.
MAS’ decision to include Hyperliquid specifies both the website and trading app in the ecosystem. This level of detail is important to compliance teams and institutional dealmakers who can use public regulatory signals to conduct due diligence. That’s because warning list items often trigger internal reviews of marketing, representation and risk controls related to a platform’s perceived regulatory status.
MAS’ process also reflects broader oversight issues for cryptocurrencies. Decentralized or non-traditional transaction services can be difficult to classify under traditional licensing frameworks, and customers may assume legitimacy based on branding, accessibility, or geographic relevance.
Hyperliquid’s response and compliance angles
Hyperliquid said it had never claimed to have received a license or approval from MAS. The platform added that nothing has changed regarding unauthorized infrastructure since the warning list update.
From a regulatory monitoring perspective, this statement is important because it addresses a key risk highlighted in the Investor Alert List, namely whether public disclosures may lead users to believe that the platform is under the supervision of MAS.
For institutions such as banks, payment providers, asset managers and regulated intermediaries, the real question is not only whether a platform is “accredited,” but also how to market the platform and document counterparty participation. Investor alerts can impact counterparty risk assessments, onboarding decisions and ongoing third-party monitoring, especially where customer communications or operational integrations may pose regulatory perception risks.
Strengthening Cryptocurrency Supervision in Singapore: Licensing and AML/CFT Alignment
MAS is increasingly enforcing licensing and compliance expectations across the cryptocurrency sector. In May 2025, MAS ordered cryptocurrency companies serving overseas customers to obtain licenses or cease operations. MAS explained that this step is consistent with its long-standing regulatory position rather than a new change in policy.
According to MAS, the guidelines address a previous gap where some Singapore-based companies had avoided licensing by focusing on overseas customers. MAS said it had communicated its position from 2022 and had decided to end the transition period for businesses that continue to operate without the necessary approvals.
MAS has also put in place measures to strengthen consumer protection and align Singapore’s framework with international standards on anti-money laundering (AML) and countering the financing of terrorism (CFT). This emphasis is relevant to regulators assessing cross-border services. This is because cryptocurrency businesses can operate across jurisdictions while still relying on global infrastructure and customer access.
For compliance officers, these developments highlight a key point: Supervision expectations may apply even if the service is not marketed as Singapore-centric. This is especially true if the company’s presence in Singapore, its corporate presence or its mode of operation creates regulatory scope.
Relevant local context and unresolved differences
The use of an investor warning list rather than immediate enforcement highlights an important regulatory difference in Singapore’s approach. MAS appears to distinguish between consumer awareness issues and licensing/permitting decisions. While inclusion in the warning list is not itself an enforcement action, it can serve as an early warning mechanism to signal how MAS views potential public misunderstandings.
This also leaves several issues that require ongoing clarification in the wider ecosystem. For example, decentralized or permissionless transaction structures may challenge existing definitions of “licensed activity,” especially if users access services through an application or website linked to an identifiable organizational entity. Regulators in several jurisdictions have been grappling with how to apply licensing obligations to decentralized finance interfaces, especially when consumer access is straightforward.
Separately, the MAS’s enforcement stance on licenses for companies providing services to overseas customers suggests that jurisdictional boundaries may not protect companies from the regulatory reach of Singapore, where licensing obligations are imposed through corporate structure or operational presence.
what to see next
While the addition of Hyperliquid to the warning list is unlikely to resolve issues around licensing classification or regulatory treatment of unlicensed services, it does raise near-term compliance considerations for entities participating or referring to the platform. MAS’s broader enforcement direction, particularly with regard to licensing obligations and AML/CFT expectations, will remain a key factor in determining how similar platforms will be evaluated in future regulatory updates.