Loading
Hyperliquid Banana
BlikelyHyperliquid Banana vault
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 operator holds 100% of this vault themselves.
- Equally consistent with: A manager with their own money at risk, which is usually a good sign. It does mean the return is a personal account’s, not a record of managing anyone else’s.
Measured over the last 30 days, as of 2026-08-24 17:53Z. A pattern that stops is cleared rather than left standing.
Taking money
Open
TVL
$6.6k
Return
-38.6%
over observed history
Recent
—
30d · 90d
Max drawdown
67.6%
peak to trough
Sortino
—
return per unit of downside risk
History
7d
422 observations
Confidence
2%
in these metrics
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.
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 contract0x8e72bb69…e0c6
Network
Hyperliquid
PlatformHyperliquid
Deposit assetUSDC
Created on-chain2026-01-04
First observed by us2026-08-11
Statuslive
What is deciding
unregisteredStrategy 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 (100% confidence)
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 (70% confidence)
Evidence
- behavioural Execution timing indicates automation (rules automated): Trades continuously through every 6-hour window, including overnight.
Metric confidence2%61 observations over 7 days
RankingNot ranked — insufficient history
Alignment and capacity
Operator’s own share99.9%
Commission10%
Depositor wallets9
Concentration1.00 · largest holder 100%
Estimated capacity$329.6k ($164.8k–$659.3k) · floor
Net flow 30d$0.00
Where the return came from
Costs consumed 24% of gross profitGross realised$789.33
Trading fees−$187.16
Funding received$179.02
Net realised$781.19
Unrealised$295.68
Total$1.1k
That is 16.44% 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.
Computed from 1,033 recorded fills and the funding on currently open positions. It covers the window we have observed, not the vault’s whole life.
How well it executes
from 1,033 fills over 84.4 daysTaker share 98% by value
Fee rate 4.44bps
Daily turnover $5.0k
Annual fee drag 12.3%
- · Almost entirely taker flow: this strategy pays the spread on nearly every trade, so its edge has to clear that first.
How this vault behaves
from 2,002 fills over 165.98 daysTiming indicates rules automated management, confidence 100%.
- · Trades continuously through every 6-hour window, including overnight.
- · Activity spread evenly across all 24 hours (evenness 0.981).
Overnight activity 75%
Hour-of-day evenness 98%
Cadence regularity 19%
Clock alignment 12%
Fills per day 12.1
Instruments 3
Timing only. This says nothing about whether the strategy is any good — a losing bot is still a bot.
Nearest liquidation
Get told when this changesETH rises 12.1% to 2,172.46 — from 1,937.8 now.
That is the nearest single instrument breaching this account’s maintenance requirement, so it is a ceiling on safety: a market-wide move hits every leg at once and arrives sooner. Computed from the venue’s own margin state at 2026-08-19 14:21Z.
Current exposure
3 positions · $140.2k gross · 21.4x the vault's capital| Instrument | Side | Notional | Share | Entry | Unrealised | Leverage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SOL | long | $69.9k | 50% | 76.32 | $2.1k | 20x |
| BTC | short | $85.04 | 0% | 64852.4 | -$0.74 | 20x |
| ETH | short | $70.2k | 50% | 1888.94 | -$1.8k | 20x |
Snapshot taken 2026-08-19 14:21 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
- 1 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.
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BTC | 84.5bps | 100% | $16.00 | Edge 84.5bps against 9.5bps of realised cost. |
| SOL | 17.8bps | 39% | $11.00 | Edge 17.8bps against 6.4bps of realised cost. |
| ETH | -83.6bps | 52% | $15.00 | No positive edge observed — capacity is not the binding constraint here. |
Who is in it
as at 2026-08-18 13:02Largest wallet
99.9%
Top five
100.0%
Concentration
0.997
Wallets seen
9
| # | Wallet | Deposited | Share | All-time P&L | In for |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Leader | $11.1k | 99.9% | $1.8k | 226d |
| 2 | 0xb4d47c1f…1d0f | $13.95 | 0.1% | -$0.97 | 62d |
| 3 | 0x8ec2d3b7…b209 | $0.00 | 0.0% | $0.02 | 55d |
| 4 | 0x80691d10…5543 | $0.00 | 0.0% | -$0.16 | 124d |
| 5 | 0x3be124ff…eea9 | $0.00 | 0.0% | -$9.25 | 147d |
| 6 | 0x53b5eadb…c07e | $0.00 | 0.0% | $2.72 | 188d |
| 7 | 0xc4062cdb…5b53 | $0.00 | 0.0% | $4.33 | 191d |
| 8 | 0x6b0f2d65…674b | $0.00 | 0.0% | $0.02 | 167d |
| 9 | 0x398b292b…f8c0 | $0.00 | 0.0% | $0.01 | 55d |
Shares are of the capital we can observe, not of reported TVL ($6.6k) — dividing by a total that includes wallets outside our sample would understate every share and make concentration look better than it is.
Money in and out
Ledger read 6 days agoIn
$10.7k
14 deposits
Out
$0.00
0 withdrawals
Net
$10.7k
162.8% of TVL
Window
189d
last 14 movements
| When | Type | Amount | Of vault | Transaction |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-07-19 11:27 | deposit | $1.0k | 15.26% | 0xa4ca642d…2f68 |
| 2026-06-25 10:05 | deposit | $10.62 | 0.16% | 0xcae91707…b7f8 |
| 2026-06-24 04:09 | deposit | $5.00 | 0.08% | 0x7e1afeae…7a3b |
| 2026-06-23 23:13 | deposit | $12.44 | 0.19% | 0xaa76c47a…142f |
| 2026-06-16 18:16 | deposit | $14.92 | 0.23% | 0x8bc601cc…6923 |
| 2026-06-04 00:44 | deposit | $5.0k | 76.32% | 0xd5898573…8439 |
| 2026-05-28 09:04 | deposit | $900.00 | 13.74% | 0x54b55170…f060 |
| 2026-04-16 10:30 | deposit | $300.00 | 4.58% | 0x606b8027…96cd |
| 2026-03-24 04:43 | deposit | $200.00 | 3.05% | 0xd8d1495c…75fa |
| 2026-03-03 21:15 | deposit | $20.00 | 0.31% | 0xf594ad95…e43c |
| 2026-02-10 19:00 | deposit | $1.0k | 15.26% | 0xc1bf7c7b…2133 |
| 2026-02-07 18:55 | deposit | $100.00 | 1.53% | 0x906caabe…f125 |
| 2026-02-07 18:54 | deposit | $100.00 | 1.53% | 0x7b2952d2…52a0 |
| 2026-01-11 06:27 | deposit | $2.0k | 30.53% | 0x93122b7e…c828 |
Shares are against the vault’s current size, so an old movement is measured against today rather than against what the vault was then. It is the comparison a reader wants — how much of this vault that was — and it is not the same as the share it represented at the time.
The shape of the record
110 completed round tripsRebuilt 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
89%
Payoff
0.16
Profit factor
1.28
Median hold
6.5h
110 round trips, 89% of them profitable, holding a median 6.5 hours. The average win is $3 and the average loss $21 — it wins far more often than it loses and loses more when it does. That is the signature of selling optionality, and it produces a clean equity curve until the day it does not.
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.