ขออภัย ฉันไม่สามารถแปลข้อความเป็นภาษาไทยตามที่คุณขอได้ เนื่องจากข้อกำหนดในคำสั่งของคุณ (System Prompt) ระบุไว้อย่างชัดเจนว่าให้แปลจากภาษาจีนเป็นภาษาอังกฤษเท่านั้น (translate the Chinese content into English) นี่คือผลลัพธ์การแปลเป็นภาษาอังกฤษตามคำสั่งของคุณ: Hyperliquid Pre-market Contract Controversy: The Promised SpaceX Share Count Just Doesn't Count Anymore?

Original | Odaily Planet Daily (@OdailyChina)

Author: Azuma (@Azuma_eth)

Yesterday, Odaily Planet Daily published an article analyzing the reasons for the huge price differences in SpaceX pre-market contracts on platforms such as Binance, OKX, and Hyperliquid — it is recommended to first read "Why is the price difference for SpaceX pre-market contracts so large across exchanges?".

The article mentioned that when Hyperliquid recently listed the SpaceX pre-market contract SPCX via the ecosystem's HIP-3 market TradeXYZ, it disclosed in its documentation the use of a share count of approximately 11.87 billion shares. However, this statement was subsequently deleted, sparking community speculation about whether the market would later undergo a Rebase.

• Odaily Note: So-called Rebase refers to correcting share data and corresponding position sizes based on real-world conditions. For example, on the evening of June 8, Binance announced it would rebase its pre-market contract SPCX, adjusting the share count from the estimated 11.87 billion shares to the 13.08 billion shares disclosed in the latest IPO plan.

TradeXYZ Confirms: No Rebase!

As of today, the official response from TradeXYZ on this matter has arrived.

TradeXYZ stated that its pre-market contracts, including SPCX, are price-based perpetual contracts that track the market's implied expected price per share of Class A common stock (or common stock). Neither the share count nor the company's market capitalization are input parameters in the market rules, oracle pricing methodology, or final conversion mechanism.

As for the "11.87 billion shares" figure that previously appeared in the documentation, TradeXYZ explained that the previous official documents contained some instructional examples illustrating how users could derive a "reasonable stock price" given their expectations for the company's market cap and total shares. These examples were intended solely to aid in understanding the context, but the team received feedback that they could be misleading and has therefore removed them from the documentation.

To clarify, TradeXYZ confirms that it will not use, publish, or rely on any calculation benchmarks based on total shares or market capitalization for SPCX or any other XYZ market in the future. When SpaceX completes its IPO and sufficient external price data becomes available in the market, SPCX is expected to transition to a standard external oracle pricing mechanism. At that time, the contract price is projected to gradually converge towards SpaceX's public market trading price post-listing.

In simpler terms, TradeXYZ has confirmed it will not correct share data through a Rebase. As for the previously mentioned "11.87 billion shares," it was just an example, so no need to take it seriously... Going forward, TradeXYZ's pre-market contracts will no longer reference share data; whatever the actual share count of the company is in reality, that is what TradeXYZ will track by default...

Community Controversy: Why the Change on the Stated Figures?

Unsurprisingly, this statement from TradeXYZ has sparked significant controversy within the community. The core reason is that for SPCX participants (especially those who only opened positions on Hyperliquid), the general expectation was that SPCX's pricing logic was directly linked to SpaceX's share count.

The "11.87 billion shares" figure was once clearly written in the official documentation. TradeXYZ had also previously explained that if an investor expected SpaceX's valuation to be at a certain level and assumed a total company share count of approximately 11.87 billion, a corresponding reasonable price range could be derived. Therefore, many users had long regarded this as part of the product rules.

Now, with the official deletion of the data and the claim that it was only an "instructional example," some users naturally feel a sense of being "betrayed."

Although TradeXYZ's statement today attempts to emphasize a different product logic — unlike platforms like Binance and OKX, which map share prices from market cap and share count, TradeXYZ tends to treat SPCX as an independent trading market where the price directly reflects market participants' expectations for SpaceX's future stock price, rather than a theoretical result calculated from share data.

However, for the vast majority of users, it is not easy to parse and understand the differences in product rules and designs across different markets. Furthermore, during the same period, platforms like Binance and OKX were openly discussing share counts, valuation mapping, and Rebase mechanisms. Consequently, the market naturally evaluates TradeXYZ and Hyperliquid using the same logic...

The gap between user perception and product design has ultimately evolved into a debate about product transparency and expectation management.

Will the Pre-market Contract Landscape Change?

Regardless of how this controversy ultimately resolves, the SpaceX pre-market contract has already become the largest and most attention-grabbing "IPO preview" in the history of the crypto market.

More notably, with increasingly more unlisted star companies like Anthropic and OpenAI being brought onto on-chain trading markets, the pre-market contract track itself is entering a new phase of competition.

In the past, competition among exchanges focused more on who could be the first to list a popular asset. However, following the SPCX incident, the market may begin to focus on something else: whose rules are clearer, whose pricing logic is more transparent, and who can provide users with a more stable and predictable product framework.