Loading
All vaults
[ Systemic Strategies ] ♾️ HyperGrowth ♾️
Blikelyx.com/SystemicStratHL
The advertised rate has been moving
Over 19 daily readings it has ranged from -11.15% to -2.99%, averaging -7.40%. 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
$6.51M
Return
—
over its watched history, read on 112 of 399 days, thin enough that the figure is an estimate between readings
The venue advertises
-6.0%
the share price implies -117.0% over 27 days, from 45 readings. No verdict is drawn: one of the two is beyond planning around
Value and drawdown
This chart shows the last 30 days of a 401 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
- -6.0%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
- -117.0%over 27 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
- $4.75M73% 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.
Range
Solid: what the vault holds. The money put in is NOT drawn for this vault: our readings of its profit mix profit since inception with profit on the day, so value minus profit is not one quantity here. The venue publishes both under one name and we have not yet re-read this vault.
Declared by the operator
Grade Bcheck it yourselfDemonstration record attached to a vault we track, so a declared claim sits beside the observed one. The drawdown ceiling is deliberately tight to show what a breach looks like. Deletable from Admin, Registry & anchors.
347d unattested
2025-08-29 started · 2026-08-12 declared. It started 347 days before the declaration. Nothing about those 347 days is attested — the model, prompt and parameters could have changed any number of times, and no signature covers it. Immutability is guaranteed from the declaration onward only.
Deciding: claude-opus-4.5 @2026-05-01
Declared as: agent
Instruments: BTC, ETH
Committed limits: ≤3x, ≤1% drawdown
Evidence
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.
- 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$4.75MWhat 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 4 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?MeasuredSystemic StrategiesA named operator with a record across every vault they run, including the ones that closed.
- What does it depend on?
Passport
Identity
Who can move the money
Thinthe leader trades this capital and takes a cut of profit; they cannot withdraw it
- Leader (Systemic Strategies)Trades this capital. Takes a cut of the profit and cannot withdraw the principal.
0x2b804617…6f4b
- 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 1% of gross profitGross realised$418.0k
Trading fees−$3.0k
Funding received$1.1k
Net realised$416.0k
Unrealised$1.25M
Total$1.67M
That is 25.63% 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. 100% of what was earned came from trading, net of fees.
Computed from 5,744 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 25900 snapshot intervals over 32 days. 185 of 26085 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 10,235 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 3,000 fills over 13.29 daysTiming indicates autonomous management, confidence 98%.
- · Trades continuously through every 6-hour window, including overnight.
- · Activity spread evenly across all 24 hours (evenness 0.934).
- · 225.7 fills per day, beyond sustained manual trading.
Overnight activity 54%
Hour-of-day evenness 93%
Cadence regularity 0%
Clock alignment 30%
Fills per day 225.7
Instruments 8
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
ZRO rises 2,391.3% to 54.9137, from 2.2042 now.
Leverage 7.9× weighted by size, 20× on the most levered leg, a liquidation starts at the second number, not the first.
The closest liquidation is 2391% away at the venue's own reported price. Weighted leverage is 7.9×. 1 of 35 positions carry no liquidation price, so the nearest is the nearest we can see.
Current exposure
37 positions · $9.56M gross · 1.5x the vault's capital| Instrument | Side | Notional | Share | Entry | Unrealised | Leverage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HYPE | long | $4.81M |
How the capacity estimate was reached
- No instrument showed a positive edge against its realised cost.
| Instrument | Edge | Taker | Median trade | Limit |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HYPE | 250.2bps | 0% | $1.8k | Entirely maker flow, this strategy earns the spread rather than paying it. |
| GRASS | -5518.9bps | 0% | $50.00 | No positive edge observed, capacity is not the binding constraint here. |
| PYTH | 336.5bps | 0% | $126.00 | Entirely maker flow, this strategy earns the spread rather than paying it. |
| MINA | -6118.6bps | 0% | $279.00 | No positive edge observed, capacity is not the binding constraint here. |
| ZRO | -3296.3bps | 0% | $200.00 | No positive edge observed, capacity is not the binding constraint here. |
| AERO | -4487.2bps | 0% | $162.00 |
Who is in it
Money in and out
Ledger read 2 days 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
26 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 | −$2,729,853 |
| Closed tradesrealised on the fills the venue reports | $487,432 |
| Feespaid to the venue on those fills | −$2,731 |
| Fundingpaid or received for holding the positions, from the venue's own ledger | $6,182 |
| Open positions movedchange in unrealised profit on what was still open | −$1,331,923 |
| Not explainedwhat the terms above do not account for, 0.0% of the $2,870,609 that moved | −$681 |
| Change in value$9,785,523 to $6,388,028, 2026-09-08 to 2026-10-06 | −$3,397,494 |
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.