Mentioned in This Article
1. Papertrade PAPER token rules draw criticism
Jason Pagoulatos, head of markets at Delphi Digital, said in an October 22 interview that Papertrade is correct to fear manipulation if its PAPER token trades freely, but that changing the terms after users pre-deposited roughly $140 million is "a bad look." The venue runs on Hyperliquid's HyperEVM network and has told holders it has no plans to make PAPER transferable.
The dispute pits a genuine security concern against a basic expectation of fair dealing. Pagoulatos accepted the team's technical argument, yet he objected to how the position changed once money had arrived. His comments give the clearest outside view so far of a disagreement that has run since the venue opened on October 10.
2. What is Papertrade and how does PAPER work?
Papertrade is a high-leverage trading venue deployed on HyperEVM, the smart-contract environment connected to the Hyperliquid exchange network. It went live on October 10. Traders who lose money on the platform receive PAPER tokens in return, and those tokens can be staked to earn a share of the fees the venue collects.
That design turns trading losses into a form of ownership. Instead of a loss simply disappearing, it is converted into a claim on future platform revenue. Supporters of such models argue that this aligns users with the venue, while sceptics note that the value of the token depends on the venue continuing to attract trading activity and on the token holding its worth in the open market.
The question now in dispute is whether PAPER can move freely. A token that cannot leave the contract cannot be traded on exchanges or lent elsewhere, so holders can only stake it and collect fees. The team's launch plan, published on October 1, had listed transfers as a later phase of development, which led many depositors to expect that movement of the token would eventually be allowed.
For readers unfamiliar with the structure, a perpetual futures contract is a derivative with no expiry date that tracks the price of an underlying asset. Traders post collateral and borrow exposure through leverage, so a small price move can produce a large gain or a large loss. At very high leverage, even a modest move against a position can wipe out the collateral entirely, which is why such venues generate frequent losses and, in Papertrade's model, frequent PAPER issuance.
Papertrade positions are synthetic, meaning they are not matched with a counterpart on the open order book. The venue takes prices from Hyperliquid, and its internal pool stands on the other side of trades. This is the reason the quality of the reference price matters so much: whoever can influence it can influence what the pool pays out.
3. Why did Papertrade rule out free trading of PAPER?
On October 19, Papertrade posted that "at this juncture" it has no plans to allow off-contract transferability of the token. The team's reasoning rests on how manipulation economics work: if a market exists where PAPER can be shorted, attackers gain a new way to profit from distorting the platform.
The team illustrated the point with a hypothetical. A bankroll of $10 million would not make a $15 million attack on bitcoin or ether viable, because the cost of moving the price would exceed the likely gain. Add a $10 million short position in PAPER, however, and the same attack becomes, in the team's words, "very viable indeed." The token, in other words, would give an attacker a second place to collect winnings while the first market is being pushed.
For a venue that prices trades off prices taken from Hyperliquid, that risk is concrete. Anyone able to nudge the reference price can attempt to profit from positions held on the synthetic venue, and a tradable token would offer a further way to bet against the venue itself.
Market makers and exchange operators have long worried about this kind of feedback loop, in which a derivative on a thinly traded token lets one actor profit from pushing that token down. The concern is amplified when the token is also the payout asset of a pool that traders are betting against, as it would be here.
4. Pagoulatos agrees the attack risk is real
Pagoulatos told listeners that the attack "will 100%" happen if PAPER becomes transferable, because anyone could then create a perpetual futures market for the token. He did not treat the team's warning as an excuse. He treated it as an accurate reading of how markets behave when a new asset becomes easy to short.
He said the first stage of that pattern had already occurred on launch day. According to Pagoulatos, the team manually blocked positions linked to large Hyperliquid market orders that moved the price of ether that day. Such manual intervention shows that the venue's operators were already acting to limit the damage from price distortion.
A second episode came a few days later. Paragon listed a PAPER perpetual market on Hyperliquid on October 18, using HIP-3, the network's system that lets third parties launch their own markets. Paragon halted and settled that market about a minute after Papertrade published its statement on transferability. The exact date of the halt was not given, although the sequence implies it followed the October 19 post.
Pagoulatos also addressed the options the team had to reduce the danger. He said capping pool size or leverage would strip away the main reasons people use Papertrade in the first place, since the product is built around very large positions and deep leverage. Those limits would therefore have solved the security problem only by removing the product.
5. Is changing the rules after deposits a bait and switch?
Pagoulatos was careful about what he did and did not allege. He said the situation was "not exactly a rug," a term for a project that takes user funds and disappears. Nothing in his remarks suggested funds had been taken. His complaint concerned the terms under which people committed their money.
In his description, the team "sold a rule set" in advance, deposits came in, and the team then changed everything afterward. He called that "kind of bait and switching" users on what they had signed up for. The core of the criticism is sequence: a restriction announced before deposits would have let users decide whether to participate, whereas a restriction introduced after roughly $140 million had arrived leaves them holding a token they cannot move.
He also took the other side of the argument. Pagoulatos said the team "literally put the risk in the doc ahead of time," and that there is "some blame to go around for everybody." The implication is that users who deposited without reading the risks also carry part of the responsibility, even if the change in direction was poorly handled.
6. How much has been paid to PAPER stakers?
Data from DefiLlama shows that Papertrade had distributed about $57 million to PAPER stakers through October 21. The pace of those payouts has been uneven. Daily distributions fell from about $1.3 million on October 20 to roughly $88,000 on October 21, then recovered to about $1.07 million on October 22.
Such swings are typical of a venue whose revenue depends on traders taking losses. A fee pool grows when trading volume is high and shrinks when activity slows, so staking returns can move sharply from one day to the next. The recovery to more than $1 million on October 22 suggests activity had not disappeared, even if the one-day drop to $88,000 shows how quickly it can fall.
Because stakers receive a share of those payouts, the figures matter directly to holders who cannot sell their tokens. If the token cannot be traded, income from staking is the only way to realize any return from holding it.
7. Farmers, organic demand and what comes next
Pagoulatos drew a distinction between two kinds of users. Some arrive to farm a token, meaning they collect it and sell it as soon as they can. Others want the product itself. He said current activity reflects organic demand from users who want this type of high-leverage trading, which differs from a crowd simply waiting to cash out.
That distinction matters for the transferability decision. With the token locked, short-term farmers have little reason to remain, while users who value the trading product are more likely to stay. Pagoulatos stopped short of predicting failure. He said he is "not gonna say it's over," but added that the situation "is going to be extremely tough."
The Papertrade team has not set a date for revisiting its position, and its own wording, "at this juncture," leaves room for a future change. Depositors will be watching for further statements on PAPER transferability, for changes in the daily staking payouts reported by DefiLlama, and for any further attempts to open outside markets for the token on Hyperliquid.
Those three signals will show whether the venue can keep users engaged while the token stays locked. If payouts stay near the $1 million level seen on October 22, stakers continue to earn from the platform despite the restriction. If they fall back toward the $88,000 seen a day earlier, pressure on the team to reconsider its position is likely to grow.
8. Why the dispute matters beyond one token
The episode illustrates a recurring tension in decentralized finance between security and accessibility. A token that anyone can trade freely invites liquidity, price discovery and new uses, but it also creates openings for coordinated attacks on the system that issues it. Locking the token reduces those openings but concentrates risk on holders who cannot exit.
It also shows why the timing of rule changes weighs heavily in crypto. Documents describing a project's plans are often treated as commitments, and deposits are made in reliance on them. When the team decides that a planned feature is unsafe, the way it communicates and compensates affected users can shape confidence in the venue as much as the technical decision itself.
For now, Papertrade holds roughly $140 million in user deposits under rules that differ from its launch plan, and an experienced market participant has called the change a bad look while agreeing it may be necessary.