Hyperliquid cover,
coverage and gaps.

Who this is for: Hyperliquid depositors (incl. HLP) protecting bridged funds

The scope is unusually broad: five designated protocols, and the annex even re-includes the Bridge, which most covers exclude. On a perps venue the oracle and liquidation covered events genuinely fit, unlike on an AMM. But the annex carves out the two most likely loss modes: a Bridge multisig or MPC failure (the main way a bridge is lost) is excluded, and the HLP vault is covered only when it does not operate as intended, so the vault losing money on a bad position is out. The March 2025 JELLY incident showed exactly this: a manipulated market forced a ~$13.5M HLP loss, and a small validator set reached quorum in about two minutes to override the oracle and settle positions. Neither the vault loss nor the validator intervention is a covered exploit. At roughly 5% per year, this is the most expensive listing in the set: the underwriters own verdict on the risk.