RRektrospect

0xad8be12a452b5b8f9ad9883f6e8e67536627db4b

0xad8b...db4b wallet audit

0xad8b...db4b audit. -$570 realised trading PnL across 18 closed position cycles, using 712 public fills from Feb 4, 2024 to May 8, 2026.

loss-dominatedA quick bucket assigned from realised trading PnL, closed position-cycle count, and whether the public fill source was capped. Data covered: Feb 4, 2024 to May 8, 2026. Classification basis: closed net pnl after fees available window.Feb 4-May 8 dataThis audit used 712 public fills covering Feb 4, 2024 to May 8, 2026. 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.$19,773Feb 4-May 8
Realised trading PnLClosed trading profit or loss after fees in the data covered: Feb 4, 2024 to May 8, 2026. Deposits and withdrawals are not counted as PnL. This is the visible public fill history used by this audit.-$570-2.8%
Max drawdownLargest fall from a previous balance high to a later low inside the data covered: Feb 4, 2024 to May 8, 2026.-100.0%18 closed position cycles
Win rateShare of closed position cycles that ended positive. Profit factor compares total winning realised PnL with total losing realised PnL.+11.1%0 profit factor
Total volumeGross notional traded across 712 reconstructed public fills. A position cycle can contain many individual fills.$3,583,21937 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 $19,773 minus closed trading PnL -$570 = starting estimate $20,343). 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 712 public fills covering Feb 4, 2024 to May 8, 2026. The date range comes from the actual public fill and position-cycle timestamps, not a preset calendar period.Feb 4, 2024 to May 8, 2026

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 823 calendar days of visible trading history.

Public fills
712
Position cycles
18 closed, 19 open
Limit
public fill cap not hit
Equity curveA historical line showing how the wallet balance moved across the data covered: Feb 4, 2024 to May 8, 2026. It is not a prediction.$19,773
all visible fillsThis audit used 712 public fills covering Feb 4, 2024 to May 8, 2026. 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 Feb 4 with $20k and ends at May 8 with $20k.Account value (USD)Date$20k$20k$20kFeb 4Apr 25May 8
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: 712 public fills from Feb 4, 2024 to May 8, 2026; this is the actual visible trading span, not a preset last-week or last-month period.
  • This account is -2.8% in the analysed window, down $569.77 on a $20k starting balance, but the headline masks a catastrophic structural failure: the account peaked at $526k in December 2024 and has since collapsed to $19.7k.
  • The collapse was driven entirely by BTC trading—10 episodes, zero wins, -$521 realised loss—with a revenge trade on 25 April 2026 that opened a $400k notional long after a $65 loss, held for 295 hours, and closed at a further -$96 loss.
Analysis readoutA plain-language interpretation layer from the trader analysis. Use the cards and tables below for the raw evidence.Strengths & weaknesses
  • Structural discipline is absent. The account ran with no stops, no position-sizing rules, and no maximum loss per trade. The revenge trade on 25 April 2026 is the clearest symptom: a $400k notional position opened after a loss, held for 295 hours, with no exit plan.
  • BTC is a loss machine. Ten episodes, zero wins, -$521 realised. The account has no edge on BTC and should not be trading it. The concentration of capital and loss frequency on a single instrument with zero win rate is the primary failure mode.
  • Win/loss asymmetry is severe. Average win of $0.22 versus average loss of -$35.64 means the account is fighting a 160:1 payoff ratio. Even a 50% win rate would not save this structure; the account needs to either win more often or lose less per trade.
  • The peak-to-trough decline from $526k to $19.7k is unexplained by closed-trade PnL. The account's realised loss across all 18 closed episodes is only -$569, yet the balance fell by $506k. This suggests either a large unrealised loss was crystallised, a withdrawal occurred, or the peak balance included unrealised gains that evaporated. The mechanism matters for understanding whether the collapse was driven by a single bad position or accumulated small losses.
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 -2.8% in the analysed window, down $569.77 on a $20k starting balance, but the headline masks a catastrophic structural failure: the account peaked at $526k in December 2024 and has since collapsed to $19.7k. The collapse was driven entirely by BTC trading—10 episodes, zero wins, -$521 realised loss—with a revenge trade on 25 April 2026 that opened a $400k notional long after a $65 loss, held for 295 hours, and closed at a further -$96 loss. The risk simulator shows that a 1% stop rule would have produced +$169 and a 50% win rate; the actual account ran with no structural stops and suffered a -100% drawdown from peak to trough.

What the data shows

The account opened in early February 2024 with approximately $20k and traded sporadically across BTC, TIA, MATIC, and XRP over 823 days. The first 10 months were unremarkable—small wins on MATIC and XRP, minor losses on TIA. The inflection came in December 2024, when the account balance reached $526k. The mechanism for this spike is not visible in the closed-trade PnL (which shows only -$569 realised loss across all 18 closed episodes), indicating that either unrealised gains on open positions were substantial at that moment or the peak was driven by a large deposit. From that peak, the account declined monotonically to $19.7k by February 2025 and has remained near that floor.

The BTC book is the sole source of damage. Ten BTC episodes, all long, all losses: -$521.36 realised. The win rate on BTC is 0%. TIA contributed -$48.84 across six episodes. MATIC and XRP each produced a single win: +$0.35 and +$0.09 respectively. The long/short split shows -$540.87 on longs (15.38% win rate) and -$28.90 on shorts (0% win rate). Longs are the dominant strategy and the dominant loss vector.

Fees paid total $676.54 on $3.58m gross volume. The fee-to-PnL ratio is 0.38%, meaning fees consumed 38% of the realised PnL magnitude. However, the realised PnL itself is negative, so fees are a secondary concern relative to trade selection. The profit factor is 0.0 (no winning trades relative to losses in the closed set). Expectancy is -$31.65 per episode. The average win is $0.22; the average loss is -$35.64. The win/loss ratio is 0.01.

Trade quality

Win rate of 11.11% across 18 closed episodes. Profit factor of 0.0 indicates no edge in the closed sample. Expectancy of -$31.65 per trade is the mathematical summary: on average, each closed episode cost the account $31.65. The win/loss ratio of 0.01 means that when the account wins, it wins $0.22, and when it loses, it loses $35.64—a 160:1 asymmetry in the wrong direction. This is not noise. This is a systematic failure to size wins relative to losses.

Post-mortems

BTC long, 25 April 2026 to 8 May 2026 (295 hours), $400k notional, exit 79155.13, -$96.10 loss, flagged as revenge trade. This trade opened immediately after a -$65.35 loss on the same day. The position was sized at $400k notional—the largest single position in the account's history—and held for nearly 12 days before closing at a loss. The trade is explicitly marked as a revenge trade in the behavioural flags. The account had no structural stop in place. This is the clearest evidence of loss-driven decision-making in the dataset.

BTC long, 25 April 2026, 0.54 hours, $200k notional, exit 77297.11, -$89.24 loss. Opened and closed on the same day, this was a rapid loss that preceded the revenge trade by minutes. The position was sized at $200k notional. No structural stop.

What the risk simulator reveals

Under a 1% stop rule applied historically, the account would have realised +$169.41 with a 50% win rate and a maximum drawdown of -0.05%. Under a 2% rule, +$338.82 with -0.1% max drawdown. Under a 4% rule, +$677.65 with -0.21% max drawdown. The simulator is gross of fees. These counterfactuals are stark: mechanical stops would have flipped the account from -$569 to +$169 at 1%, a $738 swing. The actual account ran with no stops and suffered a -100% drawdown from peak to trough. The gap between simulated and actual is the cost of discretionary position management without risk guardrails.

Open positions

No open positions at the time of this audit.

Honest summary

  • Structural discipline is absent. The account ran with no stops, no position-sizing rules, and no maximum loss per trade. The revenge trade on 25 April 2026 is the clearest symptom: a $400k notional position opened after a loss, held for 295 hours, with no exit plan.
  • BTC is a loss machine. Ten episodes, zero wins, -$521 realised. The account has no edge on BTC and should not be trading it. The concentration of capital and loss frequency on a single instrument with zero win rate is the primary failure mode.
  • Win/loss asymmetry is severe. Average win of $0.22 versus average loss of -$35.64 means the account is fighting a 160:1 payoff ratio. Even a 50% win rate would not save this structure; the account needs to either win more often or lose less per trade.
  • The peak-to-trough decline from $526k to $19.7k is unexplained by closed-trade PnL. The account's realised loss across all 18 closed episodes is only -$569, yet the balance fell by $506k. This suggests either a large unrealised loss was crystallised, a withdrawal occurred, or the peak balance included unrealised gains that evaporated. The mechanism matters for understanding whether the collapse was driven by a single bad position or accumulated small losses.

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.
0

No matching position cycles in the data covered.

Averaging downAdded size while the position was already moving against the entry.
0

No matching position cycles in the data covered.

Oversized loserA losing position cycle more than 3x the wallet's median closed loss.
0

No matching position cycles in the data covered.

Revenge tradeOpened a larger-than-normal position within one hour after a closed loss.
1
Examples
  • BTC on Apr 25, 2026: followed a -$65 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.-$31.65
Fees / realised PnLFees as a share of realised trading PnL. High values mean execution cost is eating a meaningful part of the edge.+0.4%
Maker fill rateShare of fills that added liquidity rather than crossed the spread. Higher maker share usually means more patient execution.+0.6%

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.$169
Max drawdownLargest high-to-low account-value drop inside this simulated replay.
-0.1%
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.$339
Max drawdownLargest high-to-low account-value drop inside this simulated replay.
-0.1%
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.$678
Max drawdownLargest high-to-low account-value drop inside this simulated replay.
-0.2%
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 Feb 4 with $20k and ends at Apr 25 with $20k.Account value (USD)Date$20k$20k$20kFeb 4Feb 4Apr 25

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.
MATIClong$21$02024-03-18
XRPlong$17$02026-01-31

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.
BTC100.0%-$521
TIA60.0%-$49
MATIC1+100.0%$0
XRP1+100.0%$0
Share this audit on X