Elysium Heads Toward Mainnet With Slowing Activity and Disputed Sequencer Access

Original reporting: Nancy, PANews, November 9, 2026, at 16:52 UTC+8. The report described Elysium’s mainnet launch as scheduled for that evening; it did not confirm completion.

Elysium, described by PANews as the first L2 ecosystem project associated with Hyperliquid, attracted capital, token launches and trading activity ahead of its planned mainnet debut. But the report found activity cooling before launch, while allegations of preferential transaction access raised questions about its sequencing arrangements.

For users entering the ecosystem, the report highlights two distinct issues: bridge flows into Elysium and the rules governing transaction submission once users are there. The supplied material provides activity figures for the bridge, but does not explain its verification model or whether assets are locked, minted or otherwise represented across chains.

Bridge inflows and a crowded token-launch market

According to Elyscan figures cited by PANews, Elysium’s testnet had processed more than 6.379 million transactions by publication. Activity rose from the start of November and reached a recent high on November 8, when daily transactions exceeded 1.4 million.

PANews also cited Elysium Explorer as showing cumulative bridge inflows exceeding 210,000 HYPE, valued at approximately $15.48 million. Separately, it reported about 98,000 HYPE transferred in and 7,900 HYPE transferred out—a roughly 12.4-to-one ratio. The article did not reconcile the two inbound figures, so they should not be treated as interchangeable measures.

Token issuance accelerated alongside that activity. Arkhampad data cited in the report showed roughly 143,000 token transactions and 18,000 newly created tokens on November 8. By publication, cumulative token issuance exceeded 66,000, involving more than 113,000 addresses.

Launchpads competed for the early liquidity. Elyscreener put their combined trading volume over the preceding 24 hours at approximately $21.19 million, with Ascend accounting for about 41% and Montra about 28%. According to PANews, both platforms opened earlier than their previously planned post-mainnet launches, drawing much of the ecosystem’s traffic and liquidity. The report linked that shift to sharp declines in some earlier-issued tokens and dissatisfaction among early participants.

Despite the volume of launches, GMGN data showed only six tokens with market capitalizations of at least $1 million. The leading token, e/acc, was valued at approximately $7.3 million.

Activity fell before the scheduled launch

For November 9, PANews reported approximately 268,000 transactions, down about 80.9% from the peak. Token transactions fell to roughly 25,000, a decline of about 82.5%, while new token creation dropped to around 4,500, down approximately 75%.

There is a labeling inconsistency in the original: it calls the November 9 total “mainnet” transactions while elsewhere saying mainnet was scheduled to open that evening and describing earlier activity as testnet activity. The figures therefore do not, by themselves, establish post-launch usage or retention.

PANews described some early participants taking profits, others moving into liquidity provision, and some capital remaining on the sidelines.

The disputed handoff to the sequencer

The more consequential infrastructure dispute concerned how transactions reached Elysium’s sequencer.

According to PANews, community members alleged in a developer group that a particular wallet used a private node and privileged access to operate an MEV bot, repeatedly sandwiching launchpad users. The address had reportedly been publicly labeled as a high-frequency sandwich and MEV bot, with onchain records indicating realized profits approaching $1 million. Those claims were not independently verified in the supplied material.

PANews reported that the team initially acknowledged an issue and said it had revoked the address’s RPC access. After community members alleged that the activity continued, the team said the transactions had followed the normal HyperEVM Delayed Inbox route and denied misuse of sequencer privileges.

The report also said some critics were muted in the official Telegram group, while founder Omnia was accused of blocking community members.

Crypto commentator @y_cryptoanalyst, cited by PANews, alleged a mismatch between Elysium’s documentation and its operating arrangements:

  • Documented rule: priority-fee ordering without privileged transaction channels.
  • Alleged partner route: authorized addresses could connect directly to the sequencer and submit transactions with lower latency.
  • Alleged ordinary-user route: other users had to submit through the HyperEVM Delayed Inbox, with longer delays.

The trust boundary at issue was therefore access to the sequencer: whether all users faced comparable submission rules, or whether authorized participants could reach it through a faster path. The team denied abuse of sequencer privileges; the supplied report did not resolve the competing accounts.

Measured sandwich activity

A sandwich attack places trades before and after a user’s transaction to profit from the resulting price movement, leaving the user with additional slippage and trading costs.

According to femtos.xyz figures cited by PANews, over the preceding seven days, 31 monitored sandwich bots on Elysium’s testnet carried out more than 24,000 attacks affecting over 6,000 traders. The reported value extracted was approximately $303,000, across affected trading volume of about $7.2 million.

The median loss on an affected transaction was 3.4%, and the top two bots accounted for 49% of the reported proceeds. These monitoring figures are distinct from the allegation that one wallet had earned nearly $1 million; the article did not reconcile their scopes or time periods.

At the report’s publication time, Elysium had demonstrated substantial pre-launch participation, but not sustained post-launch demand. Its bridge verification arrangements remained unexplained in the supplied material, and the dispute over transaction access left a separate question unresolved: whether ordinary users and authorized partners reached the sequencer on comparable terms.

Read the original PANews article.

Further reading