Observing the unfolding and the positions taken by the various validators regarding the vote for the assignment of the USDH ticker, I have a few points I wanted to address. Currently, the balance seems to heavily lean in favor of Native Market, despite their proposal which, imo, is not up to the level of the others, particularly those from @Paxos and @ethena . This is apparently explained by @fiege_max 's colossal popularity within the "core" of the HL community. We have also seen many accusatory positions from certain actors in the ecosystem toward each other, without any evidence provided. Imo this already sends a bad image of the HL ecosystem, even before the vote's outcome, which is regrettable. Let's recall that the vote is to assign the opportunity to bid on the USDH ticker, and in no way fixes that the future stablecoin created under this ticker must necessarily be promoted by Jeff and the Hyperliquid Foundation. We need to think broader for this vote. Some take positions based on the "Hyperliquid alignment" of the teams (which is a really abstract concept to begin with) before considering the value and interest that each proposal could bring to the ecosystem. Through this governance vote, we have the opportunity to show external actors, both present and future, in the crypto/blockchain ecosystem that Hyperliquid is not closed and would know how to welcome proposals and actors as long as they bring concrete value to HL. By choosing Native Market despite a proposal below the competitors, this sends an image of a closed and mafia-like ecosystem to the world, and will very likely play against our ecosystem for a while. Hyperliquid will never succeed in the long term without collaborating with other bigger or smaller actors. Moreover, opting for Native Market and not Paxos or Ethena, who already have the tools and knowledge for this kind of product, is a great waste of time (and money) for Hyperliquid's growth, giving competitors an additional chance to come and compete with Hyperliquid. Finally, I would like to remind that @kinetiq_xyz has decided to abstain from voting. Thus, if you have kHYPE, your governance power will be of no use in making your opinion heard on this vote. I therefore encourage you to either temporarily unstake your kHYPE to HYPE and delegate them natively on Hypercore to a validator whose vote suits you. You also have the option to lend your kHYPE to borrow HYPE, and thus do the same by delegating them directly (you can unstake directly once the snapshot is taken on September 14). It is also very simple to redelegate your HYPE already staked on Core to another validator aligned with your opinion: you just need to unstake the HYPE and restake them immediately to the chosen validator (no cooldown). Lastly you can also stake through @hyperbeat beHype and select a validator to direct your stake to if you want to stay on EVM. I wanted to be brief, but it was close to my heart to write this little tweet in relation to the current situation. Think biggerliquid.

Hi, it's been a while! I created a new app on computer 2887, a manual position tracker for HyperEVM. It simulates positions, displays cash flow clearly, and includes features like global APY calculation. Try it at 2887.okcomputeres.eth.limo I've implemented @felixprotocol, @hyperlendx, @hyperbeat, @liminalmoney, and DEXs like @HyperSwapX, @prjx_hl, @HybraFinance, @KittenswapHype, etc. Tagging for visibility : @dailofrog, @uper_max, @Notnanoturner, @HypioHL, @stableAPY, @0xBroze, @UncleHODL, @MBXXVV, @Ramen_HL.