Loading
This vault advertised a rate and no longer does
It quoted 18.35% at its highest and was still quoting on 2026-09-22. It quotes nothing now. A vault that has never paid and a vault that has stopped paying both read as nothing on the tiles below, and they are not the same proposition.
From 16 daily readings of the venue’s own advertised rate, which we began taking on 2026-09-19. It says the rate moved, not why.
Compounder Lab
BAn AI-native laboratory for compounding capital. A systematic CTA strategy on top assets, targeting high double digit IRR driven by attractive risk-reward trades. View more: compounderlab.ai
Taking money
Open
TVL
$231.5k
Return
-4.4%
over its watched history
The venue advertises
-4.6%
a year, on their own figures
Its depositors kept
Value and drawdown
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
- -4.6%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
- Too little share-price history to derive one. The quote stands alone until there is.Derived from the share price we read, over the window stated. Annualisation is secondary: the window is the measurement.
- Fee basis
- We do not read this vault’s share price, so we cannot say which fees the figure is net of.A 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
- The venue publishes no withdrawable figure, so no amount is claimed either way.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
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
Passport
Identity
Vault contract
0xca7ccc77…eebb
NetworkHyperliquid
Platform
Hyperliquid
OperatorCompounder Lab0x90725590…0e25
Deposit assetUSDC
Where the return came from
Gross realised−$4.7k
Trading fees−$1.1k
Funding paid−$819.96
Net realised−$6.6k
Unrealised−$2.7k
Total−$9.3k
That is -4.01% 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.
- Gross realised PnL is not positive, so the cost ratio is not meaningful.
Underwater over this window. Costs exceeded everything earned.
Computed from 459 fills over the 13d 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 471 snapshot intervals over 13 days. 4 of 475 intervals were not attributable, a position closed and reopened, or a snapshot was missed, so this is a floor.
Analyst tier
Detail is hidden, not absentHow well it executes
Built from 466 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.
See what unlocksAlready a customer? Sign inHow this vault behaves
from 466 fills over 12.37 daysTiming indicates model assisted management, confidence 91%.
- · No strong automation signature in the timing.
Overnight activity 0%
Hour-of-day evenness 68%
Cadence regularity 0%
Clock alignment 15%
Fills per day 37.7
Instruments 3
Timing only. This says nothing about whether the strategy is any good, a losing bot is still a bot.
Current exposure
2 positions · $369.6k gross · 1.6x the vault's capital| Instrument | Side | Notional | Share | Entry | Unrealised | Leverage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BTC | long | $185.2k | 50% | 85369.6 | -$1.6k | 10x |
| ETH | long | $184.4k | 50% | 2701.05 | -$1.1k | 10x |
Snapshot taken 2026-10-03 11:56 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.
How the capacity estimate was reached
- 2 of 3 instruments showed no positive edge.
- 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.
| Instrument | Edge | Taker | Median trade | Limit |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BTC | 2.1bps | 89% | $3.1k | Edge 2.1bps against 8.9bps of realised cost. |
| ETH | -74.4bps | 72% | $4.1k | No positive edge observed, capacity is not the binding constraint here. |
| HYPE | -7.2bps | 100% | $1.4k | No positive edge observed, capacity is not the binding constraint here. |
Who is in it
Money in and out
Ledger read 12 hours agoAnalyst tier
Detail is hidden, not absentWho 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.
See what unlocksAlready a customer? Sign inWhat changed the value
12 days decomposedThe 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 | $92,141 |
| Closed tradesrealised on the fills the venue reports | −$5,782 |
| Feespaid to the venue on those fills | −$1,064 |
| Fundingpaid or received for holding the positions, from the venue's own ledger | −$817 |
| Open positions movedchange in unrealised profit on what was still open | −$4,070 |
| Not explainedwhat the terms above do not account for, 0.0% of the $23,148 that moved | −$1 |
| Change in value$150,584 to $230,992, 2026-09-20 to 2026-10-02 | $80,408 |
Performance, which is the change less what arrived and left, is over days and fills.
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.