0.57days of MEME volume to unwind the crowd99%of the XMR book on one side, across 38 vaults$474.3Munder one key with no guardian — 12 of the 126 vaults whose control we have read$2.10Bwhose control we have never read, across 2,755 vaults$1.63Bsitting in vaults and not lent out$5.89Bunder 2,881 vaults we read1,811agent-managed, of 2,881 tracked192agent vaults scored, 11% of them479operators identified behind them25networks read, from Ethereum to Cardano3,771,281deposits and withdrawals read from chain139changes recorded in the last day525,535ERC-8004 agent registrations read+9.96 up, ERC-8004 agent registrations read/ 30 days330,405distinct owners behind those registrations188,799registrations carrying a readable card, 36%4,107,221agent tasks settled on the Olas rail−0.39 down, agent tasks settled on the Olas rail/ 30 days71suppliers delivering that work404,161agent-to-agent jobs read on Base+0.4 up, agent-to-agent jobs read on Base/ 30 days$1.0Msettled between agents, all time1,168suppliers listed on the ACP rail191agents live on Cardano74Cardano agents deregistered, 28% of all ever minted27,988open escrows between Cardano agents0.57days of MEME volume to unwind the crowd99%of the XMR book on one side, across 38 vaults$474.3Munder one key with no guardian — 12 of the 126 vaults whose control we have read$2.10Bwhose control we have never read, across 2,755 vaults$1.63Bsitting in vaults and not lent out$5.89Bunder 2,881 vaults we read1,811agent-managed, of 2,881 tracked192agent vaults scored, 11% of them479operators identified behind them25networks read, from Ethereum to Cardano3,771,281deposits and withdrawals read from chain139changes recorded in the last day525,535ERC-8004 agent registrations read+9.96 up, ERC-8004 agent registrations read/ 30 days330,405distinct owners behind those registrations188,799registrations carrying a readable card, 36%4,107,221agent tasks settled on the Olas rail−0.39 down, agent tasks settled on the Olas rail/ 30 days71suppliers delivering that work404,161agent-to-agent jobs read on Base+0.4 up, agent-to-agent jobs read on Base/ 30 days$1.0Msettled between agents, all time1,168suppliers listed on the ACP rail191agents live on Cardano74Cardano agents deregistered, 28% of all ever minted27,988open escrows between Cardano agents
Loading
Where the leverage is
Four perpetual venues, read from their own indexers rather than from an aggregator. On GMX every open position is counted — 3,829 of them across two chains, not a sample — so the leverage on this page is measured rather than estimated.
The exposure column is never added up. GMX, dYdX and Avantis publish open interest; Ostium’s figure is summed notional over a capped page of open trades and is a floor. Four different measurements under one headline is how the size of this market is usually quoted. It is not quoted that way here.
4
Venues read
each from its own indexer
3,829
Positions counted
every open position on GMX
$15.83M
Standing on
$58.93M of size, 3.7x venue-wide
3
Attributable to an agent
of 2,036 addresses we hold
Exposure the venue is carrying
GMX
$59.32M
dYdX
$36.68M
Ostium
$17.13M
Avantis
$15.82M
0$59.32M
Collateral standing behind it
GMX
$15.83M
dYdX
not reported
Ostium
$2.79M
Avantis
not reported
0$15.83M
Exposure ÷ collateral
GMX
3.7x
dYdX
not reported
Ostium
6.1x
Avantis
not reported
06.1x
Accounts holding a position
GMX
2,143
dYdX
not reported
Ostium
342
Avantis
not reported
02,143
One panel per measure and one scale per panel. A hatched track is a figure the venue does not publish, which is not the same as a zero — two of these four report no collateral at all, so nothing here can say how levered they are.
GMX, every open position
How much of the book is standing on very little
under 2x
1,49239%
2–5x
1,20031%
5–10x
62316%
10–25x
38810%
25x and over
1263.3%
Measured, not sampled: 3,829 open positions. The median is 2.7x and the largest is 141.0x — which is why the bands are drawn. 126 positions are levered 25 times or more.
SaveThe image carries its own caveat, the date it was read, and a link back to the working. An embedded one redraws itself as the numbers move.
GMX capacity
How much of what the venue could carry, it is carrying
In use
$59.32M15%
Free
$344.27M85%
Open interest against available liquidity. Neither number says this on its own, and it is the figure that separates a venue with no demand from a venue at its ceiling — they report the same open interest.
How many of these traders we can name
Every address we hold — declared by an operator or recorded in an ERC-8004 registry — asked against every venue that can answer an address join. The reads are complete; what they find is almost nothing.
Venue
Addresses we hold
Found trading
Why that is the number
GMX
980
0
Every open position on both chains was read and joined by address. A GMX position is held by the trader’s own key, so a join works here — it simply finds nothing.
Ostium
943
0
Ostium trades from the trader’s own Arbitrum address rather than through a proxy, so an address join works here where it cannot on Polymarket. A zero means no address we hold trades on Ostium.
Polymarket
113
3
Polymarket trades through PROXY wallets created by the exchange, not the key an operator declared or a registry recorded. An agent can be active here and invisible to an address join. Zero means no declared address is a Polymarket proxy — never that no agent trades here.
dYdX
—
0
dYdX accounts are Cosmos addresses. No declaration, registry or rail we read carries one, so no dYdX account is attributable to an agent. The reader exists and is called with an empty list.
The positions standing on the least of their own money
Collateral plus unrealised profit, over size. Not a liquidation distance — the real threshold is a per-market maintenance factor this does not read, so a thin buffer means a position with little of its own money left, not one about to be closed. Positions above $50.0k only.
Three costs, kept apart, because they answer different questions: a fee is charged for trading, funding is paid to whoever is on the other side, and borrowing is rent on the position. A venue quoting only the first is quoting a third of what it costs to be there.
Of 22,354 orders that set a limit price, 99.9% filled inside it — which is not news, because the venue enforces that. The informative figure is the room they had: 99 bps of margin against their own limit at the median. 10,186 more set no limit at all and are counted apart rather than scored as perfect.
Dearest markets
Moved
Cost
DYDX/USD [WBTC.b-USDC]
$82.1k
231.6 bps
XAUT.v2/USD [WBTC.b-USDC]
$75.6k
Forecasting accuracy
Are they any good at being right?
1,283 resolved forecasts
The other leverage: what agents owe
6,469 attributable addresses asked directly, across Aave V3 and Morpho Blue. 100 positions in total, posting $994.5k and borrowing $40.2k against it.
Per protocol: Aave V3 92 positions (read from the chain); Morpho Blue 8 positions (the protocol’s own indexer).
100
Positions
of 6,469 addresses asked
$994.5k
Posted
owned, pledged, unavailable
$40.2k
Borrowed
against all of that
0
Near liquidation
none below a health factor of 2
Agents post collateral and do not borrow against it. That is the finding, and it is the opposite of what the leverage on the venues above would lead a reader to expect. It is also narrow on purpose: Aave V3 and Morpho Blue are read and Compound, Euler, Spark, Fluid are not, so a zero means no position on the protocols we ask rather than no debt anywhere. Every chain in scope answered.
Two leverage figures, and why this page publishes ours
GMX’s indexer carries a leverage field of its own. Read at the scale that makes it comparable, it lands within a quarter of our figure on 488 of 915 positions and outside it on the rest. The median ratio between the two is 1.03, with a tenth of positions below 0.61 and a tenth above 2.00.
A median near one with a spread that wide is not a scale error — a wrong scale would be wrong on every position by the same factor. It is a different definition, and the likeliest one is that the venue divides by equity where this divides by collateral: a position deep in profit or loss is exactly where those two part company. Ours is published because its units are established from the venue’s own price convention; theirs is described here because a reader comparing this page to GMX’s own interface deserves to know they differ.
Cross-venue model
Can these venues actually be compared?
3 of 5 carry an account
One vocabulary for five venues that share none. Every square says which of four things a blank would otherwise hide — and only two of the four are ours to close. 85% of the fields that can be filled are filled, 19 of 22 fields are readable on at least one venue, and 3 are readable on none.
3 of 25 shown in full. 12 more are listed with the market withheld.The other 10 are not on this page at all. A plan opens every open position on GMX whose collateral and unrealised profit together are a thin slice of its size, the market it is in, and what it is standing on. The count is free because the count is the finding; the detail is what Analyst carries.
A window, not a lifetime: fee parameters change, and an average over all of history is a number about a period nobody chose. Price impact is what the venue charged rather than what we inferred from a mid price we do not hold.
Each dot is a band of forecasts, sized by how many. On the dashed line, what was claimed is what happened; below it the outcome came in less often than the price paid for it.
0.208
Brier score
against 0.25 for a coin flip
54.2%
Hit rate
on an average claim of 54.1%
A Brier score of 0.25 is what saying “fifty per cent” to everything earns, and roughly what quoting both sides of a market collects mechanically. Below it is informative; above it is worse than a coin. These agents score 0.208, so they carry information — but the curve says more than the number does.
They are underconfident in the middle and overconfident at the top: what they price between 60% and 80% happens 84% of the time, so they are buying their own good calls too cheaply, while the 91 things they called near-certain at 94% happened 68% of the time. A single score cannot show that, which is what the diagram is for.
Buys only: a sell is the opposite statement about a position already held, and scoring it would count one opinion twice with the sign flipped. Forecasts on markets that have not resolved are counted and not scored. The sample is whatever attributable wallets exist, which is small — a Brier score over a handful of forecasts is a number, not a ranking.
Chain
●
●
●
●
●
Market
●
●
●
●
●
Instrument class
●
●
●
●
●
Direction
●
×
●
×
●
Position size
●
●
●
●
●
Collateral
●
×
●
×
–
Leverage
●
×
●
×
–
Entry price
●
×
×
×
●
Exit price
●
×
×
×
●
Fill history
●
◐
×
×
●
Maker or taker
–
◐
–
–
◐
Trading fees
●
×
×
×
◐
Funding cost
●
◐
◐
×
–
Borrowing cost
●
×
×
×
–
Realised PnL
●
×
×
×
●
Unrealised PnL
●
×
◐
×
●
Deposits & withdrawals
◐
×
×
×
◐
Liquidations
◐
×
×
×
–
Source timestamp
●
●
●
●
●
Attribution & evidence
●
×
●
×
●
●
read and published here
◐
the venue publishes it and we do not read it yet
×
the venue does not publish it, and no work here closes that
–
the concept does not exist on this venue
Trading is not a top-level domain here, and this is the reason. §13 of the expansion work gates that promotion on this model plus demonstrated customer demand. 2 of 5 venues publish no account at all — not a gap we can close by working harder — so a cross-venue comparison of agent behaviour would be built on 3 venues wearing a label that claims five.
GMX: Every open position is read rather than sampled, and every executed order inside a seven-day window with the fee, funding, borrowing and price impact the venue charged for it. What remains unread here is deposits and withdrawals, and liquidations as their own events rather than as the orders that closed a position.
dYdX: Accounts are Cosmos addresses and nothing we read carries one, so the per-account half of the model cannot be filled here by any amount of work on our side.
Ostium: Read over a capped page of open trades ordered by notional, so its size figure is a floor rather than the venue’s total.
Avantis: Venue-level open interest only. The SDK exposes no per-account endpoint, so every account field is the venue’s gap rather than ours.
Polymarket: A prediction market has no collateral, leverage, funding or liquidation — those are absent rather than missing, and a model that recorded them as gaps would put this venue permanently at the bottom of its own coverage table.