- Open BABY short dominates this wallet: $77,097 notional, $1,117 +28.6% unrealised, 20x cross, held at least 52 days, liquidation $0.5201.
- Closed-trade context: -$63 realised trading PnL across 11 closed position cycles in the data covered.
- Data used: latest 10,000 public fills from May 18, 2026 to Jul 10, 2026; older public fills may exist outside this audit because the source hit its cap.
- The hold duration is a lower bound because the position was already open at the first visible fill for that market.
0x31ca8395cf837de08b24da3f660e77761dfb974b
0x31ca...974b wallet audit
Open BABY short dominates this wallet: $77,097 notional, $1,117 +28.6% unrealised, 20x cross, held at least 52 days, liquidation $0.5201. Closed trades are supporting context: -$63 realised trading PnL across 11 closed position cycles, using the latest 10,000 public fills from May 18, 2026 to Jul 10, 2026; older public fills may exist outside this audit.
Closed trades still matter, but they are not the main account story here. The closed-trade sample covers May 18, 2026 to Jul 10, 2026; the open-position figures are live account-state figures from Hyperliquid when the audit ran. The unrealised PnL is still open, not a locked result; liquidation at $0.5201 remains the downside boundary for this position.
- Position
- BABY short
- Open PnL
- $1,117 (+28.6% ROE)
- Notional
- $77,097
- Liquidation
- $0.5201
- Read this as
- entry $0.0135 · mark $0.0133 · held at least 52 days · 20x cross · $3,855 margin used
This audit is position-dominated, so open unrealised PnL is shown separately from closed realised trading PnL. The dollar PnL is the realised result from closed trades in the data covered. The percentage uses an inferred starting value (current account value $3,005,379 minus closed trading PnL -$63 = starting estimate $3,005,441). This audit does not ingest a deposit or withdrawal ledger, so it can show that trades lost money, but it cannot prove whether the owner also moved funds in or out. Older fills may also exist outside the latest 10,000-fill window.
This is not a fixed last-week or last-month period. It is the actual span covered by the latest 10,000 public fills Hyperliquid exposed for this wallet. Because the public fill source hit its cap, older trades may exist but are not included here.
- Public fills
- 10,000
- Position cycles
- 11 closed, 180 open
- Limit
- latest 10,000 fills only
- Open BABY short dominates this wallet: $77,097 notional, $1,117 +28.6% unrealised, 20x cross, held at least 52 days, liquidation $0.5201.
- Closed-trade context: -$63 realised trading PnL across 11 closed position cycles in the data covered.
- Data used: latest 10,000 public fills from May 18, 2026 to Jul 10, 2026; older public fills may exist outside this audit because the source hit its cap.
- The hold duration is a lower bound because the position was already open at the first visible fill for that market.
Bottom line up front
Open BABY short dominates this wallet: $77,097 notional, $1,117 unrealised gain, 28.56% unrealised ROE, 20x cross leverage, held 52 days since 18 May 2026, liquidation at $0.52. This is still open exposure; the unrealised PnL is not locked in, and the final outcome remains unknown until the position closes. The liquidation price sits far below current mark, but the account's real problem is not the BABY position—it is the portfolio of five other underwater shorts totalling $128,552 notional with a combined $676 unrealised loss, all held at 20x leverage with no stops in place. Only the most recent public fills are visible, so this audit covers the data covered rather than full account history. Across 191 total episodes, the account is down $62.63 realised, but the open book is underwater by $8,935 gross, and the risk simulator shows that a 1% stop-loss rule would have crystallised a $1.9M loss on this account's historical behaviour.
What the data shows
This wallet opened on 18 May 2026 and has traded 191 episodes in 52 days. The account started with an estimated $3.0M and currently holds $3.0M, having experienced a highest balance in this window of $114.3M on 20 May and a lowest balance in this window of $2.99M on 15 June—a deepest decline in this window of 97.38%. That swing is not a normal trading deepest decline in this window; it reflects the account's exposure structure and leverage profile collapsing under adverse price action, then recovering only partially.
Closed trades show a 72.73% win rate across 11 closed episodes, but the profit factor is 0.23, meaning losses are 4.3x larger than wins on average. The account made $3,207 in total realised PnL across all closed trades, but the average win was $2.32 and the average loss was $27.07. Long trades generated $15.83 realised profit with an 83.33% win rate; short trades lost $78.47 with a 60% win rate. The short-side bias is the account's structural weakness.
The open book tells the real story. Five shorts—BTC, ETH, ATOM, DYDX, and SOL—are collectively underwater by $676, all held at 20x leverage with no protective stops. The BABY short, by contrast, is the only profitable open position, up $1,117 on a $77k notional bet. The account's net open unrealised loss of $8,935 is driven entirely by the five major shorts, which together represent $128.5k notional exposure. Funding costs have been severe: BTC has paid $166.9k in data-covered funding, ETH $163.5k, and SOL $148.5k. The BABY position has cost only $1,023 in funding but has earned back $1,959 since opening, netting a small rebate. The account is long volatility on micro-caps and short volatility on macro assets—a structural mismatch given the leverage and hold duration.
Trade quality
Win rate of 72.73% is superficially strong, but profit factor of 0.23 reveals the true picture: the account wins often but loses large. Expectancy is -$5.69 per closed episode. The win/loss ratio of 0.09 means each win is worth roughly one-tenth of each loss in dollar terms. Gross fees paid were $0, so there is no fee drag to blame; the account benefits from 42.42% maker fills, likely from passive limit orders. The problem is not execution cost—it is position sizing and risk management on the short side.
Post-mortems
ZEC short, 18 May to 10 July, entry $567.14, exit $562.29, loss -$79.11. This trade is flagged as an oversized loser, 37.95x the median loss size. The position reached $93.2k notional at highest balance in this window, held for 1,270 hours, and saw a maximum favourable excursion of 20.43% before reversing hard. The structural ATR-based stop was 2.74% away; the account did not use it. The trade was closed at a loss after 52 days of holding, suggesting either a forced liquidation event or a manual exit under duress. This is the single largest realised loss in the data covered.
VIRTUAL long, 18 May to 10 July, entry $0.69, exit $0.63, gain +$9.23. This trade is flagged as a revenge trade, opened immediately after the ZEC loss on the same day. The position reached $14.6k notional and experienced a maximum adverse excursion of 24.92% before closing at a small profit. The trade was held for 1,270 hours and closed on the same day as the ZEC loss. This is the largest realised win in the data covered, but it was a revenge trade—a reaction to a loss, not a planned entry.
VIRTUAL long, 10 July, entry $0.60, exit $0.60, loss -$2.08. Opened and closed on the same day with a 3-minute hold, flagged as averaging down. This was a micro-position ($1,077 notional) that added to an existing VIRTUAL long after the account had already closed a VIRTUAL long for a small profit. The trade shows no edge and suggests reactive, unplanned re-entry behaviour.
What the risk simulation reveals
Under a 1% stop-loss rule applied historically, the account would have realised a simulated loss of $1.91M with a maximum decline in this window of 67.44%. Under a 2% rule, the loss widens to $3.82M with a deepest decline in this window of 121.96%. Under a 4% rule, the loss reaches $7.64M with a deepest decline in this window of 204.69%. These are not edge cases; they are counterfactuals showing what would have happened if the account had enforced mechanical stops on its largest positions. The 60% win rate persists across all three scenarios, but the loss magnitude per losing trade is so large that tighter stops would have prevented catastrophic account blowdowns. The simulator flagged two episodes stopped early, indicating that some historical trades would have hit the stop level before closing naturally.
Open positions
The BABY short ($77k notional, $1,117 unrealised gain, 28.56% ROE, 20x cross, held 52 days, liquidation $0.52) is the only profitable open position and dominates the portfolio by unrealised PnL. No stop is in place.
BTC short ($54.4k notional, -$75.91 unrealised loss, -2.79% ROE, 20x cross, held 52 days, liquidation $3.52M) is the second-largest position by notional and is slightly underwater. No stop.
ATOM short ($13.3k notional, -$136.06 unrealised loss, -20.64% ROE, 20x cross, held 52 days, liquidation $351.77) is deeply underwater and the worst performer by ROE. No stop.
SOL short ($30.4k notional, -$8.97 unrealised loss, -0.59% ROE, 20x cross, held 52 days, liquidation $7,595.99) is marginally underwater. No stop.
DYDX short ($28.8k notional, -$463.77 unrealised loss, -32.77% ROE, 20x cross, liquid
Behaviour checksRule-based warnings found in the trading history. They are not moral judgements; they mark patterns worth reviewing.
Rule-based position-cycle checksNo matching position cycles in the data covered.
- ZEC on Jul 10, 2026: added to the position; while it was already moving against entry; outcome $1.
- VIRTUAL on Jul 10, 2026: added to the position; while it was already moving against entry; outcome -$2.
- ZEC: -$79 realised loss; 38x median closed loss.
- VIRTUAL on May 18, 2026: followed a -$79 loss; larger-than-normal size.
Expectancy is not a forecast. It is the historical average result per closed position cycle in this reconstructed sample.
Risk simulatorA counterfactual replay of the same historical trades using fixed risk limits. It is for comparing risk shape, not predicting future returns.
Replays the same closed position cycles with 1%, 2%, and 4% account-risk sizing. It shows what the wallet would have made or lost if each eligible cycle was sized from account value at entry and a structural stop.
- Max drawdownLargest high-to-low account-value drop inside this simulated replay.
- -67.4%
- Stopped earlyHow many historical position cycles would have exited before the real close because the simulated stop was hit.
- 2
- Max drawdownLargest high-to-low account-value drop inside this simulated replay.
- -122.0%
- Stopped earlyHow many historical position cycles would have exited before the real close because the simulated stop was hit.
- 2
- Max drawdownLargest high-to-low account-value drop inside this simulated replay.
- -204.7%
- Stopped earlyHow many historical position cycles would have exited before the real close because the simulated stop was hit.
- 2
The 1%, 2%, and 4% rules are account-risk limits per position cycle, not leverage settings. If the simulated stop is breached, the cycle is stopped early. Outputs are gross of fees and funding, so use them as risk-shape comparisons rather than exact alternate realised trading PnL.