This strategy is for high frequency momentum trading.
The advertised rate has been moving
Over 19 daily readings it has ranged from 21.97% to 114.16%, averaging 85.58%. The tile below shows today’s quote alone.
19 readings is 19 days, not a year. We began taking them on 2026-09-19 and this window grows with the record rather than standing in for a longer one.
Taking money
Open
TVL
$1.10M
Return
-1.3%
over its watched history, read on 91 of 245 days, thin enough that the figure is an estimate between readings
The venue advertises
22.2%
the share price implies 18.7% over 29 days, from 50 readings
Its depositors kept
Value and drawdown
This chart shows the last 30 days of a 246 day record; the whole-record figures on this page are measured over all of it, and the 30, 90 and 365-day figures over their own windows, dated below. The rest is the Analyst tier
Range
Hover for values. Upper: vault value, with BTC indexed to the same starting capital. Lower: how far below its own peak it was.
The rate, and the seven things that qualify it
A quoted rate is one input, not a verdict. These are the same seven fields in the same order for every vault, so a high rate and a high rate nobody can withdraw from do not look alike.
Current quoted rate
22.2%As the venue states it, from Hyperliquid. Passed on rather than adopted, and whether rewards are inside it is the next row.
Rewards inside that rate
No reward rate is published, so we cannot say whether the quote includes one.A published rate, not a verified payment. Promotional projections and amounts actually accrued are different things and this is the first.
Realised return
18.7%over 29 daysDerived from the share price we read, over the window stated. Annualisation is secondary: the window is the measurement.
Fee basis
Inside the share priceA return derived from the share price is net of whatever the venue already deducted. Fees charged outside it are not in either number.
Withdrawable now
$1.02M92% of the vault
Profit, and what the value is made of
Value held less cumulative profit is the money people put in. The venue draws the two apart; the gap is the point.
Range
Profit and loss since the vault opened, as the venue reports it. It ignores deposits and withdrawals: only trading moves this line.
Value heldNet money put in
Range
Solid: what the vault holds. Dashed: what depositors put in, net of withdrawals. Where the two rise together the growth was deposits, not performance.
No strategy has been declared for this vault
Everything above is reconstructed from public data. A declaration is free, signed from this vault’s own key, and cannot be edited afterwards.Note 28
Six questions, and what we hold for each. This is not a score and there is no letter at the end of it: the answers are different kinds of thing and compressing them into one number would hide exactly the part a reader needs. Where we have nothing, the row says so.
What does it hold or lend into?DeclaredUSDCThe venue names a deposit asset. What the vault actually holds behind it has not been read.
How much could leave now?Measured$1.02MWhat the contract will pay out now, read from it. Not the same as what is idle. A deposit here is locked: the longest lockup still running across this vault's depositors is 1 day, read from the venue's own per-depositor field on 1 of 100. That is a floor on the term rather than the term, and it is a constraint on the depositor that the vault-level figure above does not carry.
Who runs it, and what else have they run?MeasuredAIQuantPulseA named operator with a record across every vault they run, including the ones that closed.
no guardian and no timelock: the leader’s trades need nobody’s approval
the leader takes 10% of profit
Where the return came from
Costs consumed 8% of gross profit
Gross realised$90.7k
Trading fees−$4.5k
Funding paid−$2.4k
Net realised$83.8k
Unrealised−$4.0k
Total$79.8k
That is 7.23% on the capital the strategy currently runs.
Slippage is not separated: without a book snapshot at fill time it cannot be measured, so it remains inside gross rather than being estimated.
Funding is differenced across position snapshots, so it is a flow over the window rather than a level: it counts what changed hands while we were watching and nothing before that. Intervals where a position closed and reopened are refused rather than guessed, which makes the figure a floor.
Paid to trade.Earned by trading, after paying $2k of funding to hold the position.
Computed from 13,099 fills over the 32d in which funding could also be measured, so every part is taken from the same days. That window opens when we started watching, not when the vault started trading. Measured by differencing 28273 snapshot intervals over 32 days. 292 of 28565 intervals were not attributable, a position closed and reopened, or a snapshot was missed, so this is a floor.
Analyst tier
How well it executes
Built from 21,178 individual fills. Two strategies with identical signals can differ by hundreds of basis points purely in how they get filled, taker share, fee rate, slippage. This is the part of a result that is operational competence rather than market view, and it is what tells you whether a good year was skill or a good venue.
· Trades continuously through every 6-hour window, including overnight.
· 453.9 fills per day, beyond sustained manual trading.
· 47 instruments traded concurrently.
Overnight activity56%
Hour-of-day evenness80%
Cadence regularity0%
Clock alignment15%
Fills per day453.9
Instruments47
Timing only. This says nothing about whether the strategy is any good, a losing bot is still a bot.
Nearest liquidation, as the venue reports it
CASHCAT falls 22.0% to 0.09661, from 0.12378 now.
Leverage 7.9× weighted by size, 10× on the most levered leg, a liquidation starts at the second number, not the first.
The closest liquidation is 22% away at the venue's own reported price. Weighted leverage is 7.9×. 13 of 32 positions carry no liquidation price, so the nearest is the nearest we can see.
Current exposure
44 positions · $421.7k gross · 0.4x the vault's capital
Impact is inferred from this strategy’s own realised cost, not measured against a book.
A 10% participation ceiling is applied where venue volume is known.
Trade size is converted to capital using the strategy’s own capital-to-trade-size ratio.
Capacity is capped at 50× the largest trade actually observed, beyond that we are extrapolating.
Measured edge exceeded 100bps per trade and was clipped, above that it is directional luck, not repeatable alpha.
Capped at 50x current capital; beyond that the estimate is unfalsifiable.
At least one instrument hit the observed-size cap, so the total is a floor rather than an estimate.
Instrument
Edge
Taker
Median trade
Limit
ZEC
172.8bps
100%
$910.00
Edge 172.8bps against 9.4bps of realised cost.
ETH
97.3bps
100%
$613.00
Edge 97.3bps against 9.3bps of realised cost.
NEAR
105.1bps
100%
$246.00
Edge 105.1bps against 9.3bps of realised cost.
ONDO
228.3bps
100%
$226.00
Edge 228.3bps against 9.1bps of realised cost.
VIRTUAL
Who is in it
Money in and out
Ledger read 31 hours ago
Analyst tier
Who is in this vault, and how much of it is one wallet
A vault that is eighty per cent one depositor is a vault whose price can be reset by a single withdrawal, and whose headline TVL says almost nothing about whether anyone else believes in it. Concentration is the risk a return figure never shows, and it moves before the return line does.
The section above says money moved. This says what the movement WAS. A vault grows because deposits arrived, or because the trading worked, or because it was paid to hold a position, and a size figure renders all three identically.
Money in and outdeposits less withdrawals, and arriving is not earning
−$345,608
Closed tradesrealised on the fills the venue reports
$98,548
Feespaid to the venue on those fills
−$3,863
Fundingpaid or received for holding the positions, from the venue's own ledger
−$2,301
Open positions movedchange in unrealised profit on what was still open
−$60,603
Not explainedwhat the terms above do not account for, 0.0% of the $198,972 that moved
$64
Change in value$1,419,028 to $1,118,029, 2026-09-08 to 2026-10-06
−$300,999
Performance, which is the change less what arrived and left, is over days and fills.
The shape of the record
436 completed round trips
Rebuilt from the venue’s own open and close labels on every fill. A return figure cannot say whether it came from being right often and small or rarely and large, and those are opposite businesses.
Win rate
54%
Payoff
1.58
Profit factor
1.86
Median hold
24.0h
436 round trips, 54% of them profitable, holding a median 24.0 hours. Average win $764, average loss $484.
What is still missing
Operator cohort. We show what the venue still exposes; strategies deleted before we began observing are invisible, and only pre-registration can make a cohort provably complete.
Gross-to-net waterfall. Returns are venue-reported and not yet decomposed into fees, funding and slippage.
Off-chain exposure. Anything held on a centralised exchange is invisible to us, so the risk shown is a floor.
-1.5%
against 10% advertised over their 176 days, from 75 depositors still in it
Recent
-2.8% · —
30d · 90d
Market move behind it
0.9%
7.3% fall at 7.9×
Return per book-turn
-0.082%
turns 0.26× a day
Max drawdown
7.3%
a floor, read on 91 of 245 days
Sortino
-0.46
return per unit of downside risk
Volatility
18%
17% of it downside
History
60d
over 2,706 readings from one source. The record below is longer: 2,792 readings in total (2,792 readings, all taken at the time), and the metrics use one source family rather than mixing them.
Record begins
2026-08-11
began 2026-02-02, so 190 days of it are before anything here
Record rests on
Grade D
97% B, 3% D. A return computed across all of it inherits the weakest, which is D.
Confidence
16%
in these metrics
Figures computed from Hyperliquid’s account value and profit history: 2026-08-04 to 2026-10-03, 2,706 observations. 30-day window from 2026-09-03. Readings from hyperliquid.accountValueHistory.allTime (86) exist and are not mixed in: one series, one source.
A reading of now, not a promise about the day somebody tries. An accruing rate with nothing withdrawable is the case this section exists for.
History quality
50readingsHow many observations the derived figure rests on. A rate from three readings and one from three hundred are not the same claim.
What it depends on
25risk scoreThe rate says nothing about what it rests on. Two vaults paying the same can hold one asset between them.
Declared
Hyperliquid on HyperliquidThe venue and the chain are known; what the strategy routes into underneath them has not been read.
Who can change it, and how fast?Measuredreadthe leader trades this capital and takes a cut of profit; they cannot withdraw it
How much of the above was measured?Measured1 of 5 not measuredCounted from the rows above rather than asserted. Every figure on this page carries when it was read and what it was read from; the gaps are listed on /reconciliation with their size.
Amber means the evidence is incomplete, never that the vault is risky, and grey means we did not read it rather than that there is nothing to read. Nothing here is a rating, a recommendation, or a statement that this vault is safe.
First observed by us
2026-08-11
Statuslive
What is deciding
unregistered
Strategy versionNot attested; the operator has not bound this record to a specific version
Model providerNot attested; no model declared
ModelNot attested; no model declared
System prompt hashNot attested; no prompt commitment
Policy hashNot attested; no policy commitment
Inferred moderules automated from execution timing, 3,000 executions over 7 days; it shows automated execution, not whether a model or fixed rules decide
These fields are empty because nobody has attested them, not because we failed to find them. An operator who registers gets a record that provably cannot be edited after the fact, and a grade no unregistered strategy can reach.
How much to trust this
Provenance gradeBReal capital, readable at the venue, but the operator’s full cohort is unproven.
Machine-managedyes (execution timing we measured)
Evidence
behavioural Execution timing indicates automation (rules automated): 189.8 fills per day — beyond sustained manual trading.
name_signal Name contains autonomy signal: ai
Metric confidence16%2706 observations over 60 days
Ranking#218 of 249 perp vault
Alignment and capacity
Operator’s own share14.2%
Commission10%
Depositor wallets100+
Concentration≥ 0.12 · largest holder 22.1% of the vault
3 of 44 shown in full. 12 more are listed with the instrument withheld.The other 29 are not on this page at all. A plan opens every instrument, the exact notional and side, entry price, leverage, distance to liquidation, and how the book changed since the last reading. The count is free because the count is the finding; the detail is what Analyst carries.
Snapshot taken 2026-10-08 06:40 UTC. A strategy that flips intraday can look flat at every snapshot and still carry risk in between. Click an instrument to see every other vault holding it.
584.2bps
100%
$158.00
Edge 584.2bps against 9.0bps of realised cost.
2Z
180.6bps
100%
$131.00
Edge 180.6bps against 9.0bps of realised cost.
MET
1364.4bps
100%
$116.00
Edge 1364.4bps against 9.0bps of realised cost.
VVV
241.9bps
100%
$117.00
Edge 241.9bps against 9.2bps of realised cost.
$44,609
26
10,362
45 further days are not included, because a reader has not covered them: 25 days because the funding ledger has been walked, but not over these days; 24 days because fills have been walked, but not over these days; 1 day because this vault’s fills have never been walked.
Funding, summed forward
Range
What the vault was paid to hold its positions, less what it paid, a day at a time. A line that falls is a book that pays to stay where it is.