Excelsior Protocol

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

37.3%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

47.5%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

$13.1k99% of the vault

What a risk decision about this vault can rest on

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. 1 of 6 is not measured for this vault.

• 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$13.1kWhat the contract will pay out now, read from it. Not the same as what is idle.
• Who runs it, and what else have they run?MeasuredExcelsior ProtocolA named operator with a record across every vault they run, including the ones that closed.
• What does it depend on?DeclaredHyperliquid on Hyperliquid

Timing indicates rules automated management, confidence 100%.

• · 57.3 fills per day, beyond sustained manual trading.
• · 38 instruments traded concurrently.

Timing only. This says nothing about whether the strategy is any good, a losing bot is still a bot.

How the capacity estimate was reached

• 16 of 35 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.
• 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.

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.

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.

237 round trips, 35% of them profitable, holding a median 5.1 days. The average win is $55 against an average loss of $18. Most trades lose a little and a few pay for all of them, which reads badly on a hit rate and is the more durable shape.

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.