RRektrospect

0x87f9cd15f5050a9283b8896300f7c8cf69ece2cf

0x87f9...e2cf wallet audit

0x87f9...e2cf audit. -$27 realised trading PnL across 81 closed position cycles, using 119 public fills from Jun 13, 2025.

loss-dominatedA quick bucket assigned from realised trading PnL, closed position-cycle count, and whether the public fill source was capped. Data covered: Jun 13, 2025. Classification basis: closed net pnl after fees available window.Jun 13 dataThis audit used 119 public fills covering Jun 13, 2025. The date range comes from the actual public fill and position-cycle timestamps, not a preset calendar period.
ModeProfessional keeps the tone factual. Roast uses the same numbers but writes the commentary more sharply.
ProfessionalRoast
Read trader analysisShare on X
Current account valueAccount value from Hyperliquid's public account state when this audit ran. This is a balance snapshot, not proof of lifetime deposits or withdrawals.$24,390,563Jun 13
Realised trading PnLClosed trading profit or loss after fees in the data covered: Jun 13, 2025. Deposits and withdrawals are not counted as PnL. This is the visible public fill history used by this audit.-$270.0%
Max drawdownLargest fall from a previous balance high to a later low inside the data covered: Jun 13, 2025.0.0%81 closed position cycles
Win rateShare of closed position cycles that ended positive. Profit factor compares total winning realised PnL with total losing realised PnL.+1.2%0 profit factor
Total volumeGross notional traded across 119 reconstructed public fills. A position cycle can contain many individual fills.$103,48181 position cycles
Trading PnL vs transfersRealised trading PnL comes from Hyperliquid closed-fill profit and loss. Deposits and withdrawals can change account value, but they are not counted as trading PnL here.

The dollar PnL is the realised result from closed trades in the data covered. The percentage uses an inferred starting value (current account value $24,390,563 minus closed trading PnL -$27 = starting estimate $24,390,590). 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.

Data coveredThis audit used 119 public fills covering Jun 13, 2025. The date range comes from the actual public fill and position-cycle timestamps, not a preset calendar period.Jun 13, 2025

This is not a fixed last-week or last-month period. It is the actual span covered by the public fills used for this wallet, so the page should be read as 2 calendar days of visible trading history.

Public fills
119
Position cycles
81 closed
Limit
public fill cap not hit
Equity curveA historical line showing how the wallet balance moved across the data covered: Jun 13, 2025. It is not a prediction.$24,390,563
all visible fillsThis audit used 119 public fills covering Jun 13, 2025. The date range comes from the actual public fill and position-cycle timestamps, not a preset calendar period.
Equity curve by date and account valueX-axis shows date. Y-axis shows account value in US dollars. The line starts at Jun 13 with $24M and ends at Jun 13 with $24M.Account value (USD)Date$24M$24M$24MJun 13Jun 13Jun 13
Audit summaryA short extract from the full trader analysis below. It is built from the stored numbers and evidence pack.What matters immediately
  • Data used: 119 public fills from Jun 13, 2025; this is the actual visible trading span, not a preset last-week or last-month period.
  • This account is -0.11% in realised PnL, down $26.79 on a $24.4M balance across 81 BTC trades executed in under 24 minutes on 13 June 2025.
  • The headline loss is modest in percentage terms, but the mechanism is severe: a 1.23% win rate, a 70-trade losing streak, four oversized losses that each ran 3–5.7× the median loss, and a pattern of revenge trades and re-entries after small closes.
Analysis readoutA plain-language interpretation layer from the trader analysis. Use the cards and tables below for the raw evidence.Strengths & weaknesses
  • One visible strength: 100% maker fills indicate disciplined order placement and likely rebate capture, reducing effective fees below the stated $15.52 if rebates were applied post-hoc.
  • One visible weakness: A 70-trade losing streak with a 1.23% win rate and no statistical edge. The account is a loss-making scalp operation with no profitable direction (longs 0%, shorts 2.44%) and no recovery mechanism.
  • One visible weakness: Four trades were sized 3–5.7× the median loss, and behavioural flags show revenge trading, averaging down, and FOMO re-entry within seconds of a close. These are markers of reactive rather than systematic execution.
  • One data-scope caveat: The sample is a single 23-minute session. No inferences about skill, consistency, or long-term edge can be drawn from one day of scalping activity.
Trader analysisThis is the full written analysis for this wallet and mode. The metrics, flags, simulator, and tables below are the supporting evidence.Full trader analysis

Bottom line up front

This account is -0.11% in realised PnL, down $26.79 on a $24.4M balance across 81 BTC trades executed in under 24 minutes on 13 June 2025. The headline loss is modest in percentage terms, but the mechanism is severe: a 1.23% win rate, a 70-trade losing streak, four oversized losses that each ran 3–5.7× the median loss, and a pattern of revenge trades and re-entries after small closes. The account has no edge; fees consumed more than half the gross realised PnL.

What the data shows

The account opened at 17:42 UTC on 13 June and closed its final position at 18:05 UTC the same day. All 81 episodes were BTC, split between 41 longs (down $12.26) and 40 shorts (down $14.52). The long side had a 0% win rate; the short side managed 2.44%, with exactly one winning trade: a short entered at 105303.0 and exited at 105209.0 for $0.02 profit.

The account structure reveals a scalping operation with a 3% structural stop distance and 100% maker fills. Gross volume was $103,481. Realised PnL before fees was -$11.26; fees paid were $15.52, so fees exceeded the gross loss. The net fee drag was $15.52, meaning execution costs were the dominant cost driver.

The loss distribution is heavily skewed. The four largest losses were $1.61, $1.15, $1.01, and $0.86—each flagged as oversized relative to the median loss. The largest loss ($1.61, a long from 105228.0 to 105072.9 in 0.01 hours) ran 5.66× the median loss. The second-largest ($1.15, a short from 105343.0 to 105423.0 in 0.03 hours) was 4.04× median. These four trades account for $4.68 of the $26.79 total loss—17.5% of the account's equity swing came from four trades that were statistically anomalous in size.

Behavioural flags show two averaging-down episodes on BTC shorts (one at 105109.0, one at 105281.0), a FOMO re-entry 3 seconds after closing a short at 105209.0 (re-entered at 105200.0, lost $0.39), and a revenge trade opened 4 minutes after a $0.34 loss. The max loss streak was 70 consecutive losing trades. The longest win streak was 1.

Trade quality

Win rate: 1.23%. Profit factor: 0.0 (no winning trades relative to losses in aggregate). Expectancy: -$0.33 per trade. Win/loss ratio: 0.07 (for every winning dollar, the account lost $14.29).

These numbers describe an account with no statistical edge. A 1.23% win rate on 81 trades means one winning trade and 80 losing trades. The profit factor of 0.0 reflects that total wins ($0.02) are negligible against total losses ($11.26). Expectancy of -$0.33 per trade is the average loss per episode; over 81 trades, this compounds to the observed realised loss. Fees of $15.52 on gross realised PnL of -$11.26 mean that execution costs were 138% of the gross loss—the account would have been slightly less negative without fees, but fees still consumed value.

Post-mortems

BTC long, 13 June 17:42–17:42 UTC, entry 105228.0, exit 105072.9, -$1.61 (oversized loser).

This was the largest loss in the window. Entry and exit occurred within 0.01 hours. The position notional was $910.22. The move from entry to exit was 155 basis points against the position. This trade was flagged as oversized relative to the median loss and contributed 6% of the total account loss in isolation.

BTC short, 13 June 17:55–17:58 UTC, entry 105343.0, exit 105423.0, -$1.15 (oversized loser).

A short position of $1,088.19 notional held for 0.03 hours. The exit was 80 basis points worse than entry. This was the second-largest loss and ran 4.04× the median loss size. It occurred during a period of averaging-down activity (a second short was added at 105281.0 during this window).

What the risk simulation reveals

Under a 1% stop-loss rule applied historically to all 81 episodes, the account would have realised -$149,958.42 with a max drawdown of -0.62% and a win rate of 23.46%. Under a 2% rule, simulated PnL would have been -$299,035.65 with a max drawdown of -1.24%. Under a 4% rule, simulated PnL would have been -$594,566.29 with a max drawdown of -2.47%. All three simulations held the same win rate (23.46%), indicating that tighter stops did not improve the underlying edge; they merely changed the loss magnitude per episode. These are gross-of-fees figures and represent what would have occurred if stops had been enforced on the historical fill sequence.

Open positions

No open positions. The account closed all 81 episodes within the 23-minute window.

Honest summary

  • One visible strength: 100% maker fills indicate disciplined order placement and likely rebate capture, reducing effective fees below the stated $15.52 if rebates were applied post-hoc.
  • One visible weakness: A 70-trade losing streak with a 1.23% win rate and no statistical edge. The account is a loss-making scalp operation with no profitable direction (longs 0%, shorts 2.44%) and no recovery mechanism.
  • One visible weakness: Four trades were sized 3–5.7× the median loss, and behavioural flags show revenge trading, averaging down, and FOMO re-entry within seconds of a close. These are markers of reactive rather than systematic execution.
  • One data-scope caveat: The sample is a single 23-minute session. No inferences about skill, consistency, or long-term edge can be drawn from one day of scalping activity.

Behaviour checksRule-based warnings found in the trading history. They are not moral judgements; they mark patterns worth reviewing.

Rule-based position-cycle checks
FOMO re-entryReopened the same market and direction soon after a winning close, but at a worse entry.
1
Examples
  • BTC on Jun 13, 2025: re-entered at 105,200 after closing at 105,209 (Jun 13, 2025 prior close); outcome -$0.
Averaging downAdded size while the position was already moving against the entry.
2
Examples
  • BTC on Jun 13, 2025: added to the position; while it was already moving against entry; outcome -$0.
  • BTC on Jun 13, 2025: added to the position; while it was already moving against entry; outcome -$1.
Oversized loserA losing position cycle more than 3x the wallet's median closed loss.
4
Examples
  • BTC: -$1 realised loss; 4x median closed loss.
  • BTC: -$1 realised loss; 3.5x median closed loss.
+2 more matching cycles
Revenge tradeOpened a larger-than-normal position within one hour after a closed loss.
1
Examples
  • BTC on Jun 13, 2025: followed a -$0 loss; larger-than-normal size.
ExpectancyAverage result per closed position cycle after wins and losses are blended. Positive means each completed cycle added money on average.-$0.33
Fees / realised PnLFees as a share of realised trading PnL. High values mean execution cost is eating a meaningful part of the edge.n/a
Maker fill rateShare of fills that added liquidity rather than crossed the spread. Higher maker share usually means more patient execution.+100.0%

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.

1% account-risk ruleThis scenario limits each eligible position cycle to about 1% of account value at the simulated stop.-$149,958
Max drawdownLargest high-to-low account-value drop inside this simulated replay.
-0.6%
Stopped earlyHow many historical position cycles would have exited before the real close because the simulated stop was hit.
0
2% account-risk ruleThis scenario limits each eligible position cycle to about 2% of account value at the simulated stop.-$299,036
Max drawdownLargest high-to-low account-value drop inside this simulated replay.
-1.2%
Stopped earlyHow many historical position cycles would have exited before the real close because the simulated stop was hit.
0
4% account-risk ruleThis scenario limits each eligible position cycle to about 4% of account value at the simulated stop.-$594,566
Max drawdownLargest high-to-low account-value drop inside this simulated replay.
-2.5%
Stopped earlyHow many historical position cycles would have exited before the real close because the simulated stop was hit.
0

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.

Equity curve by date and account valueX-axis shows date. Y-axis shows account value in US dollars. The line starts at Jun 13 with $24M and ends at Jun 13 with $24M.Account value (USD)Date$24M$24M$24MJun 13Jun 13Jun 13

Top lossesThe largest realised losing position cycles in the data covered by this audit.

Click a row for the trade breakdown
MarketThe traded Hyperliquid market or coin.SideLong means the wallet benefited if price rose. Short means it benefited if price fell.SizeLargest notional exposure reached during the reconstructed position cycle.PnLRealised profit or loss when the position cycle closed.DateClosed date when available; otherwise the cycle open date.

Top winsThe largest realised winning position cycles in the data covered by this audit.

Realised position-cycle outcomes
MarketThe traded Hyperliquid market or coin.SideLong means the wallet benefited if price rose. Short means it benefited if price fell.SizeLargest notional exposure reached during the reconstructed position cycle.PnLRealised profit or loss when the position cycle closed.DateClosed date when available; otherwise the cycle open date.
BTCshort$39$02025-06-13

By marketBreaks the audit down by traded market or coin so you can see which markets helped or hurt the account.

Realised results by coin
CoinThe traded Hyperliquid market.CyclesClosed reconstructed position cycles for this market. One cycle can contain many fills.WinShare of that market's closed position cycles that ended positive.PnLRealised PnL attributed to this market's closed position cycles in the data covered by this audit.
BTC81+1.2%-$27
Share this audit on X