A Funny Show or Fair? CEO of Dragonfly Criticizes Hyperliquid

Haseeb Qureshi – CEO of Dragonfly – has spoken out criticizing the Request for Proposal (RFP) process of Hyperliquid regarding the USDH stablecoin, calling it a "farce" (. According to him, the entire process seems to be designed to favor Native Markets, rather than creating a fair competition among participants. In a post on X on September 9, Qureshi asserted that more than half of the other contractors who submitted applications also believe that the validators of Hyperliquid are only interested in Native Markets, despite there being many applications from larger names. Context: The Competition to Build Infrastructure for USDH Hyperliquid is currently evaluating proposals from several major projects such as Ethena, Paxos, Agora, and Frax. Participants must provide a detailed plan related to: Legal compliance framework )regulatory compliance(Stablecoin distribution strategyHow to share yield from reserves for the Hyperliquid ecosystem The winning bidder will be responsible for issuing and managing the stablecoin USDH. However, according to Qureshi, this process has not been transparent from the beginning: Native Markets made a proposal almost immediately after the RFP was announced, leading him to suspect that this startup had prior information. Meanwhile, other competitors had to "race over the weekend" to prepare their submissions. He concluded that: "The entire RFP process of USDH is almost tailor-made for Native Markets." Conflict of Interest and Related Concerns Qureshi emphasized that although Ethena, Paxos, Agora, and Frax have prominent proposals and outstanding potential, they are not of interest to validators. He believes the reason lies in a "backroom deal" that has been arranged beforehand. However, some social media users have countered Qureshi, arguing that these allegations may stem from his personal interests, as Dragonfly has investments in some of the bidding entities. In response, Qureshi acknowledged that Dragonfly indeed has investments in Hype, Ethena, Agora, Sky, and Frax, but he asserted that the issue lies not in economic interests but in the unfair process from the validators: He does not blame the Hyperliquid core team, but targets the validators, whom he accuses of ignoring the opinions of the community and delegators. What he cares about is transparency and fairness in the way partners for building the USDH stablecoin are chosen. Conclusion: A Farce or a Test of Transparency? This incident is raising many questions for the Hyperliquid community: Is the RFP process of USDH truly fair and transparent? Or is this just a "show" to pave the way for Native Markets – a new startup but strongly backed? In the context of stablecoins increasingly playing a crucial role in DeFi and the crypto market, the transparency of the infrastructure partner selection process is a key factor. If not adequately addressed, this controversy could affect the community's trust in Hyperliquid as well as the USDH ecosystem in the future.