Bottom line up front
This account is -100% in the data covered, having liquidated from $7.39M starting capital to $0.01. Only the most recent public fills are visible, so this audit covers the data covered rather than full account history. The account reached a highest balance in this window of $11.7M on 1 October before collapsing into a deepest decline in this window of 88.87% to $1.24M on 25 June, then recovered briefly before the final washout. The core pattern is uncontrolled position sizing on low-conviction alts: 19 closed trades, 36.84% win rate, 0.15 profit factor, and a revenge trade on ETH that consumed $477k in prior losses and generated only $290k in return.
What the data shows
The account began trading on 14 May 2025 with what appears to be $7.39M in capital. Early trades were small and profitable—a BTC long on 16 May returned $370k in 11 hours, and an LTC scalp on 14 May returned $86k in under 2 hours. These were the template: short-duration, directional longs on liquid instruments.
The account then shifted to larger, longer-duration positions in lower-liquidity alts. On 15 May, after a $477k loss on ENA, the trader opened a $7.89M notional ETH long—a revenge trade flagged in the data. This position held for 911 hours and returned $290k, a recovery that masked the underlying problem: position sizing had decoupled from conviction. The account peaked at $11.7M on 1 October, suggesting a period of recovery or fresh capital, but by then the damage was structural.
From 22 June onward, the account accumulated a series of long positions in illiquid alts: ZEREBRO (opened 22 June, closed 10 October, -$1.11M), HBAR (same dates, -$661k), ONDO (-$650k), SOL (-$587k), W (-$509k), BERA (-$467k), PUMP (-$896k), and others. Most closed on 10 October in a cascade. The only winning trade in this cohort was WLD, opened 22 May and closed 10 October, which returned $373k on a $4.14M notional position—a 9% return over 3,388 hours that barely offset the losses accumulating elsewhere.
Realised PnL across all 19 closed trades was -$8.93M. Gross fees paid were $19.68k on $69.6M in gross volume, a 28 basis-point bleed that was immaterial relative to the core problem: the account was long-only, concentrated in low-conviction alts, and sized as if conviction were high. The win/loss ratio of 0.26 and average loss of $728k versus average win of $192k show the asymmetry clearly.
Trade quality
Win rate of 36.84% is below breakeven for a long-biased account. Profit factor of 0.15 means the account earned $0.15 for every $1 lost. Expectancy per trade was -$388k. The win/loss ratio of 0.26 reflects the core issue: when the account won, it won small; when it lost, it lost large. Gross fees of $19.68k were negligible; the account did not fail due to execution costs.
Post-mortems
LINEA long, opened and closed 10 October, $3.03M notional, -$1.72M. This was a sub-1-hour position that lost 57% of notional. No entry or exit price is recorded, but the exit at $0.02 suggests the coin had collapsed. This was a capitulation trade, not a conviction entry.
ZEREBRO long, opened 22 June, closed 10 October, $1.01M notional, -$1.11M. Held for 2,648 hours (110 days) and exited at $0.02. This was a dead-money position that the account carried through the entire summer, a sunk-cost hold that should have been cut weeks earlier.
What the risk simulation reveals
Under a 1% stop rule applied historically to the data covered, the account would have realised $0 PnL with zero max decline. Under 2% and 4% rules, the same: $0 PnL, zero decline. This is not a sign of skill; it is a sign that the account's actual losses were so large and so concentrated in multi-day holds that a mechanical stop would have prevented the account from entering those positions at all, or would have exited them before the worst damage. The simulator is gross of fees.
Open positions
No open positions at the time of the latest fill.
Honest summary
- Strength: Early trades on BTC and LTC showed discipline and speed. The WLD position, though ultimately a small winner, was held through 3,388 hours without panic, suggesting some ability to sit through volatility when conviction was present.
- Weakness: The account was long-only and sized positions in inverse proportion to liquidity and conviction. The revenge trade on ETH after the ENA loss, the 110-day hold on ZEREBRO at zero profit, and the cascade of sub-1-hour liquidations on 10 October all point to reactive, not deliberate, decision-making. The account did not cut losses; it carried them until forced.
- Data scope: Only the most recent 10,000 fills are visible. Earlier history is not available. The account may have had a longer track record before the data covered began on 14 May 2025.