Data Analytic Investments
RIPPLE book coverRIPPLE — the book·numbered first edition·$9.99Buy now
Research

Two Robinhood engineers charged over pre-listing trades on Hyperliquid: what the two complaints say, token by token — and what they do not

On 15 September 2026 the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York unsealed complaints against two Robinhood software engineers. The allegation: they bought perpetual futures on Hyperliquid before Robinhood announced new token listings, on at least ten occasions each, and each made more than 50,000 dollars. The tokens, the dates, the two counts, the maximum sentences, and what is still only an accusation. Sourced.

D
DAI Research Desk
6 min read
Two Robinhood engineers charged over pre-listing trades on Hyperliquid: what the two complaints say, token by token — and what they do not

An exchange listing is one of the few moments in crypto markets where a small group of people knows something the rest of the market does not, and knows it days in advance. The question a prosecutor asks is simple: did anyone in that group trade on it? On 15 September 2026 the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York said that two people did. This article records what the two unsealed complaints allege, token by token, and marks clearly what remains an accusation.

🎧 Audio edition — the full article read aloud, 9 minutes, MP3: robinhood-hyperliquid-2026-09-audio-EN.mp3

Who is charged, and with what

The press release names Hefu Chai, 36, of Menlo Park, California, and Huaisong Xiang, also known as "Jerry Xiang", 30, of Jersey City, New Jersey. Both, it says, "were employed as engineers at Robinhood". Each is charged with one count of violating the Commodity Exchange Act, which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years, and one count of wire fraud, which carries a maximum of 20 years. The complaints cite 7 U.S.C. §§ 9(1) and 13(a)(5), 17 C.F.R. § 180.1, and 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 2.

The prosecutors' summary of the scheme is one sentence long: between 2025 and 2026, the defendants "repeatedly purchased perpetual futures linked to cryptocurrency tokens on Hyperliquid in advance of Robinhood's public announcements that these tokens would be listed on Robinhood Crypto." Each, the release says, possessed material non-public information about the listings, and each "profited more than $50,000".

The instrument: why perpetual futures, and why Hyperliquid

Neither complaint alleges that the defendants bought the tokens themselves on Robinhood. The allegation is that they bought perpetual futures on Hyperliquid, a decentralised derivatives venue. The Chai complaint explains the choice in plain terms: on such venues, "traders can create substantial exposure to the price movements of a cryptocurrency with comparatively little capital" through margin trading. A perpetual future tracks a token's price without an expiry date; a leveraged position multiplies the effect of a small move.

That detail matters for the legal theory. The charge is commodities fraud under the Commodity Exchange Act, not securities fraud. Crypto derivatives fall under the CFTC's anti-fraud authority, and the complaints invoke Rule 180.1, the CFTC's general anti-manipulation and anti-fraud rule. The mechanics of a leveraged position are the same whether the venue is centralised or on-chain; our educational material starts from that vocabulary on the Kripto Akadémia page.

The Chai complaint: ten listings in eight months

According to the complaint against Chai, the trading ran "from in or about 2025 up to and including in or about January 2026", on at least ten occasions. The dated examples it gives are: MEW and MOODENG on 22 May 2025; ASTER and XPL on 16 October 2025; HYPE on 23 October 2025; ENA on 6 November 2025; AERO on 4 December 2025; SYRUP on 11 December 2025; LDO on 18 December 2025; DOT on 13 January 2026; and LIT on 15 January 2026. In each case, the complaint says, the position was opened before Robinhood's public announcement that the token would be listed on Robinhood Crypto.

The complaint also records the policy the defendant is alleged to have broken. Robinhood's internal rules "prohibited employees from trading in securities, crypto-assets, event contracts or other financial instruments while in possession of material non-public information". The complaint was sworn by Joseph Kim, a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The Xiang complaint: eleven occasions, and a job on the listing team

The complaint against Xiang covers a slightly longer window, "from in or about March 2025 up to and including in or about February 2026". It describes one occasion in detail and then "at least ten other occasions", eleven in total. Its dated examples are POPCAT on 13 March 2025; MEW and MOODENG on 22 May 2025; ONDO on 7 August 2025; and RENDER on 29 January 2026.

The complaint also states his role: a "software engineer at Robinhood" who "worked on the listing of new digital assets on Robinhood Crypto". That is the sentence that connects access to opportunity. The profit figure is the same as for Chai: "more than $50,000 in illicit profits".

What the officials said

US Attorney Jamie McDonald: "Misappropriating confidential information to trade in the derivatives markets for personal benefit is illegal." FBI Assistant Director James C. Barnacle, Jr.: "These charges make clear the FBI with its partners will act when individuals access sensitive business information for their own benefit." The case is being prosecuted by Assistant US Attorney Alexandra N. Rothman.

The precedent the case rhymes with

This is not the first US prosecution built on exchange listing information. In 2022 the same office charged a former Coinbase product manager, Ishan Wahi, with tipping his brother and a friend about upcoming Coinbase listings; that case, described by the Department of Justice at the time as the first-ever cryptocurrency insider trading case, ended with a two-year sentence in May 2023. The Robinhood complaints differ in one respect: the alleged trades were derivatives on a separate, on-chain venue, not spot purchases of the listed tokens.

What the complaints do not establish

Three things are worth stating plainly. First, the release itself says: "The charges contained in the Complaints are merely accusations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty." Second, the complaints give a floor for the profits, more than 50,000 dollars each, not a total; the full figure, if there is a larger one, is not in the public documents we read. Third, neither document alleges wrongdoing by Robinhood or by Hyperliquid as companies; the allegation is against two individuals for misusing information their employer held in confidence.

For the market-structure question the case raises, who knows about a listing and when, the relevant data is not the price move after the announcement but the volume and open interest before it. Our Market Observation page shows sourced, real-time market data from Kraken and Yahoo; it does not, and cannot, show who knew what. That is what a complaint sworn by an FBI agent is for. Readers following exchange-level events this month may also want our CoinEx closure timeline, published yesterday, and the team page explains how our research desk works.

Sources

Educational content. Not investment advice. Data Analytic Investments Kft. is an educational and market-information provider; it is not a crypto-asset service provider and does not offer investment recommendations.

Explore Topics

#Robinhood#Hyperliquid#perpetual futures#insider trading#DOJ#SDNY#token listings#market structure
D

Written by

DAI Research Desk

Content creator and writer sharing insights and stories.

Share · Megosztás:XFacebookLinkedInWhatsAppTelegramE-mail

Related Research

61 million dollars in crypto, 1.5 billion in oil money: what the SDNY forfeiture complaint alleges about the Iranian route through Binance accounts — and what it does not
Research

61 million dollars in crypto, 1.5 billion in oil money: what the SDNY forfeiture complaint alleges about the Iranian route through Binance accounts — and what it does not

On 14 September 2026 the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York filed a civil forfeiture complaint for about 61 million dollars in cryptocurrency. The allegation: two Chinese companies converted black-market Iranian oil proceeds into crypto through accounts at Binance, and a web of unhosted wallets moved more than 1.5 billion dollars onward to IRGC-linked services. The mechanism as the complaint describes it, the officials' words, and the caveat that none of it is yet proven. Sourced.

6 min readDAI Research Desk
#civil forfeiture#Iran#IRGC
Coinbase Derivatives files 'Equity Perpetual Contracts' with the CFTC: what the 18 September submission says, what it leaves out, and where it sits next to the SEC's Innovation Exemption
Research

Coinbase Derivatives files 'Equity Perpetual Contracts' with the CFTC: what the 18 September submission says, what it leaves out, and where it sits next to the SEC's Innovation Exemption

On 18 September 2026 Coinbase Derivatives, LLC submitted 'Equity Perpetual Contracts' to the CFTC: single-stock perpetual futures with no scheduled last trading day, hourly funding and near round-the-clock trading, filed under Regulation 41.23(b) as a security futures product. The CFTC's filing page shows the status 'Approval Pending'. This article documents what the submission states, what it does not contain, and how it relates to two other United States regulatory documents from the same week.

8 min readDAI Research Desk
#Coinbase Derivatives#CFTC#perpetual futures
Moscow Exchange lists perpetual futures on five crypto indices from 22 September: what the exchange notice says, and what it does not
Research

Moscow Exchange lists perpetual futures on five crypto indices from 22 September: what the exchange notice says, and what it does not

On 16 September 2026 Moscow Exchange announced five perpetual futures with daily auto-rollover on its own Bitcoin, Ether, Solana, XRP and Tron indices, launching 22 September, cash-settled in roubles, for qualified investors only. This article documents the notice line by line: the contracts, the settlement design, the funding parameters, the exchange's own usage figures since 2025, and the questions the notice leaves open.

5 min readDAI Research Desk
#Moscow Exchange#MOEX#perpetual futures