Hyperliquid Transaction Failed? How OneKey Prevents Errors
Why “Transaction Failed” Matters More in 2025 On-Chain Trading
Hyperliquid has become a major venue for on-chain perpetuals, and the broader derivatives market has grown fast—enough that market share shifts can happen within months as new venues and liquidity programs emerge. Reports in 2025 highlighted both Hyperliquid’s rapid growth and the increasing competitiveness of on-chain perps. For example, CoinDesk noted Hyperliquid processing up to tens of billions in daily volume and also reported periods where its share of the on-chain perps market fell materially as competitors gained traction. (coindesk.com)
More users, more capital, and more chains means one thing: more transactions where a small mistake becomes an expensive delay. If you searched “Hyperliquid transaction failed”, you’re usually dealing with one of these realities:
- You bridged the wrong asset or used the wrong network
- You don’t have the right gas token on HyperEVM
- Your wallet is broadcasting an incompatible transaction type
- You signed something you didn’t fully understand (approval, permit, typed data)
This guide breaks down the most common failure points and shows how OneKey’s on-device verification and self-custody workflow help reduce preventable errors.
Understanding Where the Failure Happened (HyperCore vs HyperEVM vs Arbitrum)
Hyperliquid isn’t “one transaction flow”
Hyperliquid has multiple components, and failures look different depending on where you interact:
- Arbitrum bridge actions (depositing USDC into Hyperliquid, withdrawing back to Arbitrum)
- HyperEVM transactions (EVM-style transfers, DeFi interactions, contract calls)
- HyperCore trading actions (placing orders, moving balances inside the trading system)
A key milestone: HyperEVM mainnet launched on February 18, 2025, enabling general-purpose smart contracts alongside the trading stack. (hyperliquid-co.gitbook.io)
If you don’t first identify which layer you used, troubleshooting becomes guesswork.
The Most Common Reasons Hyperliquid Transactions Fail (And How to Fix Them)
1) Deposit Not Credited: Wrong Token, Wrong Network, or Below Minimum
The rule that causes the most user pain
Hyperliquid’s official support docs are explicit:
- Only USDC deposits from the Arbitrum network are supported
- Depositing other assets won’t be credited
- There is a minimum deposit amount (5 USDC) (hyperliquid.gitbook.io)
Reference:
- Hyperliquid Support: Deposited via Arbitrum network (USDC)
- Hyperliquid Docs (Bridge2): Deposit minimum and flow
Quick fixes
- Confirm you used Arbitrum (not Ethereum mainnet or another L2)
- Confirm the asset is USDC (not a different stablecoin)
- Confirm the amount is ≥ 5 USDC
- Check the transaction on the official bridge contract page: Arbiscan: Hyperliquid Bridge Contract
2) Withdrawal Confusion: Expecting a Wallet Transaction When It’s Validator-Driven
Hyperliquid’s bridge design can surprise users coming from typical EVM bridges.
According to Hyperliquid’s bridge documentation:
- Withdrawals are deducted from your L1 balance
- Validators coordinate signing and finalization
- You don’t need Arbitrum ETH for gas as a user
- A 1 USDC withdrawal gas fee is paid on Hyperliquid to cover Arbitrum gas costs (hyperliquid.gitbook.io)
Reference:
What to do when a withdrawal “fails”:
- Verify whether it is pending vs reverted
- Confirm you have enough balance to cover fees
- Avoid retrying repeatedly without understanding the state (you may create new signed requests that complicate tracking)
3) HyperEVM Gas Problems: You Need HYPE (Not ETH)
A large share of “transaction failed” reports on HyperEVM come down to gas token mismatch.
Hyperliquid states clearly:
- Gas for transfers and transactions on HyperEVM is HYPE
- You may need HYPE on HyperCore (Spot) to transfer into HyperEVM
- You need HYPE on HyperEVM to send transactions there (hyperliquid.gitbook.io)
References:
Also confirm you’re on the correct network parameters
Some ecosystem docs list HyperEVM as:
- Chain ID: 998
- Gas token: HYPE (dwellir.com)
Reference:
4) “Invalid transaction envelope type…” (EIP-1559 Mismatch)
One error explicitly called out in Hyperliquid’s support materials looks like this:
Invalid transaction envelope type: specified type “0x2” but included a gasPrice instead of maxFeePerGas and maxPriorityFeePerGas
This typically means your wallet is constructing an EIP-1559 type transaction but filling legacy fee fields. The practical fix is usually:
- Update your wallet software (or switch signing method)
- Ensure the wallet supports the chain correctly
- Ensure it uses
maxFeePerGasandmaxPriorityFeePerGaswhen sending type0x2
If you want background on how gas works in EVM-style systems, this overview is a solid refresher:
A Practical “Failed Transaction” Checklist (30 Seconds)
Step 1: Identify the layer
- Arbitrum deposit/withdraw → Check Arbiscan and bridge rules
- HyperEVM dApp interaction → Check HYPE gas + network config
- Trading action → Confirm it’s not a UI/session issue vs a chain transaction
Step 2: Confirm the asset rules
- USDC on Arbitrum only (and minimums) for deposits: Hyperliquid deposit support doc
Step 3: Confirm gas and fees
- HyperEVM gas token is HYPE: Hyperliquid HyperEVM gas support doc
- Withdrawals include a 1 USDC fee and don’t require user Arbitrum ETH: Hyperliquid bridge doc
Step 4: Re-check what you’re signing
If you’re approving a token or signing typed data, treat it like a real transaction—because it is.
How OneKey Prevents Costly “Transaction Failed” Mistakes
A hardware wallet can’t fix network congestion or a protocol pause—but it can reduce the most common human errors that lead to failed, stuck, or dangerous transactions.
1) On-device verification reduces “wrong network / wrong address” errors
Many failed transactions start with something simple:
- sending on the wrong chain
- copying the wrong recipient
- interacting with a spoofed contract
With OneKey, the private key stays offline and signing requires physical confirmation, which forces a pause to verify key details before you commit.
2) Safer dApp signing habits (especially for typed data)
Hyperliquid’s bridge and HyperEVM ecosystem can involve structured signatures (for example, EIP-712 style typed data in developer flows). When users click through prompts too quickly, mistakes happen.
OneKey’s workflow encourages a best practice:
If you can’t verify what you’re signing, don’t sign it.
3) Separation of concerns: trade actively, custody conservatively
Active traders often mix high-frequency actions with long-term storage. A safer pattern is:
- Use a dedicated address for frequent interactions
- Keep the majority of assets in cold storage
- Move only what you need for margin and gas
OneKey supports this operational split cleanly, so a single dApp mistake is less likely to impact your full portfolio.
Recommendations for Hyperliquid Users (Especially HyperEVM Newcomers)
- Keep a small buffer of HYPE for HyperEVM gas before interacting with contracts
- For Arbitrum deposits, double-check USDC + Arbitrum + minimum amount before sending
- Treat approvals as high-risk actions: review the spender and only approve what you need
- When something fails, don’t spam retries—first determine whether it’s a rule issue (wrong asset/minimum/gas) or a temporary condition
Final Thoughts: Fewer Failures Come From Better Signing, Not More Clicking
Hyperliquid’s expansion—especially since HyperEVM’s 2025 mainnet launch—has made on-chain trading faster and more composable, but it also increases the number of ways a transaction can fail if fundamentals are missed. (hyperliquid-co.gitbook.io)
If you’re serious about reducing preventable errors (and the security risks that often hide behind them), pairing Hyperliquid usage with a hardware wallet like OneKey is a practical upgrade: keys stay offline, signatures require deliberate confirmation, and risky signing becomes harder to do by accident.
