Many believe that the big players' liquidations were due to being targeted/liquidated because of Hyperliquid or their on-chain "public positions." I disagree with this outcome-oriented logic: 1️⃣ Selective blindness: While the insider's $200 million liquidation was indeed tragic, he wasn't targeted for liquidation when he publicly earned $160 million. The same applies to Yi Lihua's public exit at 4500 points. 2️⃣ Double standards: If "publicity" was the cause of their downfall, why wasn't anyone targeting them during their period of huge profits? 3️⃣ Profit and loss are intertwined: Publicly disclosing positions does create pressure, but it also brings significant fundraising convenience and traffic benefits. Having enjoyed the commercial value of public disclosure, one cannot blame "public attention" when the trading direction is wrong. Trading is essentially decision-making; liquidation occurs because one went against the market's overall direction. Even US congressmen publicly disclose their positions, and they haven't been liquidated. They still have political enemies to deal with; isn't it even more dangerous to do this in public? Essentially, it's because they made a mistake in their trading strategy and over-leveraged. Whether it's public or not isn't the root cause.