Loading
The advertised rate has been moving
Over 16 daily readings it has ranged from 138.65% to 869.50%, averaging 604.85%. The tile below shows today’s quote alone.
16 readings is 16 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.
gogogo
B#116 of 249just go，go，go，just keep
One thing worth a look
Patterns in this vault’s record that have more than one explanation. None of them lowers its grade and none of them is a finding of wrongdoing, a ledger cannot separate the readings below, and neither can we.
- The address that runs this vault holds 99% of it.
- Equally consistent with: A manager with their own money at risk, which is usually a good sign, and then the return is a personal account’s rather than a record of managing anyone else’s. It can also be a treasury or a custodian: the chain shows who holds the shares, not whose money they are.
Measured over the last 30 days, as of 2026-10-03 23:37 UTC. A pattern that stops is cleared rather than left standing.
Taking money
Open
TVL
$72.6k
Return
-29.7%
over its watched history
The venue advertises
672%
the share price implies -322.2% over 29 days, from 1,279 readings. No verdict is drawn: one of the two is beyond planning around
Its depositors kept
Value and drawdown
This chart shows the last 30 days of a 45 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 tierRange
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
- 672%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
- -322.2% over 29 daysDerived from the share price we read, over the window stated. Annualisation is secondary: the window is the measurement.
- Fee basis
- Already 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
- 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
- 1,279 readingsHow many observations the derived figure rests on. A rate from three readings and one from three hundred are not the same claim.
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.
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
0x0eb634dc…a82c
NetworkHyperliquid
Platform
Hyperliquid
Operatorgogogo0xdf80f13a…fdef
Deposit assetUSDC
Where the return came from
Costs consumed 9% of gross profitGross realised$14.8k
Trading fees−$134.61
Funding paid−$1.3k
Net realised$13.4k
Unrealised$11.4k
Total$24.8k
That is 34.13% 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 $1k of funding to hold the position.
Computed from 488 fills over the 28d 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 1306 snapshot intervals over 28 days. 46 of 1352 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 593 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 593 fills over 33.46 daysTiming indicates discretionary management, confidence 100%.
- · No strong automation signature in the timing.
Overnight activity 1%
Hour-of-day evenness 63%
Cadence regularity 0%
Clock alignment 22%
Fills per day 17.7
Instruments 6
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
UNI falls 94.0% to 0.55664, from 9.2038 now.
Leverage 3.2× weighted by size, 4× on the most levered leg, a liquidation starts at the second number, not the first.
The closest liquidation is 94% away at the venue's own reported price. Weighted leverage is 3.2×. 2 of 3 positions carry no liquidation price, so the nearest is the nearest we can see.
Current exposure
3 positions · $134.6k gross · 1.9x the vault's capital| Instrument | Side | Notional | Share | Entry | Unrealised | Leverage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UNI | long | $73.6k | 55% |
How the capacity estimate was reached
- 3 of 6 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.
| Instrument | Edge | Taker | Median trade | Limit |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ZEC | 830.2bps | 71% | $1.7k | Edge 830.2bps against 6.8bps of realised cost. |
| NEAR | 452.5bps | 61% | $887.00 | Edge 452.5bps against 6.1bps of realised cost. |
| UNI | 85.8bps | 44% | $327.00 | Edge 85.8bps against 5.0bps of realised cost. |
| SUI | -216.7bps | 65% | $661.00 | No positive edge observed, capacity is not the binding constraint here. |
Who is in it
Money in and out
Ledger read 7 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
25 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 | $1,040 |
| Closed tradesrealised on the fills the venue reports | $14,678 |
| Feespaid to the venue on those fills | −$131 |
| Fundingpaid or received for holding the positions, from the venue's own ledger | −$1,221 |
| Open positions movedchange in unrealised profit on what was still open | $13,261 |
| Not explainedwhat the terms above do not account for, 0.0% of the $118,403 that moved | −$0 |
| Change in value$46,156 to $73,783, 2026-09-04 to 2026-09-29 | $27,627 |
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.