- Data used: 7,714 public fills from Aug 26, 2025 to Oct 10, 2025; this is the actual visible trading span, not a preset last-week or last-month period.
- The sample is too small to support behavioural conclusions.
- Three closed episodes over 44 days produced a -100% realised loss of $17.2m USD.
0xb2cae590b41b381ad17174453805a6783ab99c63
0xb2ca...9c63 wallet audit
0xb2ca...9c63 audit. -$17,216,537 realised trading PnL across 3 closed position cycles, using 7,714 public fills from Aug 26, 2025 to Oct 10, 2025.
The dollar PnL is the realised result from closed trades in the data covered. The percentage uses an inferred starting value (current account value $0 minus closed trading PnL -$17,216,537 = starting estimate $17,216,537). 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.
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 44 calendar days of visible trading history.
- Public fills
- 7,714
- Position cycles
- 3 closed
- Limit
- public fill cap not hit
- The sample is too small to isolate repeatable patterns or edge. Three episodes provide limited sample for meaningful inference about trade selection, execution discipline, or risk management consistency.
- The AVAX position demonstrates extreme position sizing relative to account capital and a failure to exit at the structural stop level, resulting in a total account loss.
- No winning trades are present in the data covered, preventing any assessment of win/loss asymmetry or edge validation.
Bottom line up front
The sample is too small to support behavioural conclusions. Three closed episodes over 44 days produced a -100% realised loss of $17.2m USD. One trade—a long AVAX position opened 22 September at $31.12, held 438 hours, and closed 10 October at $17.79—accounts for $17.2m of that loss. The position reached a notional size of $36m and was flagged for averaging down. A second micro loss on WLFI short ($4.68) and fees of $14,977.61 complete the account. No winning trades are recorded.
What the data shows
The account opened 26 August 2025 and closed its final position 10 October 2025. Gross volume across all episodes was $60m USD. The AVAX long dominates the loss profile: entry at $31.12 on 22 September, exit at $17.79 on 10 October, a 42.8% decline over the holding period. The position was scaled to $36m notional at its peak, representing extreme concentration. The trade carried a structural stop at 4% distance from entry, which was not triggered before the exit. The behavioural flag "averaging down" indicates the position was added to during the drawdown, a pattern consistent with fighting a losing trade rather than respecting initial risk parameters.
The WLFI short, opened and closed on 27 August, was a micro position ($121.64 notional) that lost $4.68. No entry price is recorded, suggesting a liquidation or forced close.
Fees consumed $14,977.61 of gross volume, representing 0.025% of total turnover—a standard execution cost. The net fee drag equals gross fees paid, indicating no rebates or maker credits offset execution costs.
Trade quality
Win rate is 0%. Profit factor is undefined—no winning trades exist to offset losses. Expectancy across three episodes is negative $5.7m per closed trade. The account generated zero profitable closes in the data covered.
Post-mortems
AVAX long, 22 September – 10 October 2025. Entry $31.12, exit $17.79, loss $17,216,531.96 on a $36m peak notional position. Held 438 hours. Flagged for averaging down and oversized loser. The structural stop at 4% distance was not executed, and the position was held through a 42.8% decline. This single trade consumed the entire account.
WLFI short, 27 August 2025. Micro position, $121.64 notional, loss $4.68. No entry price recorded. Likely a liquidation or forced close on the same day it opened.
Honest summary
- The sample is too small to isolate repeatable patterns or edge. Three episodes provide limited sample for meaningful inference about trade selection, execution discipline, or risk management consistency.
- The AVAX position demonstrates extreme position sizing relative to account capital and a failure to exit at the structural stop level, resulting in a total account loss.
- No winning trades are present in the data covered, preventing any assessment of win/loss asymmetry or edge validation.
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.
- AVAX on Sep 22, 2025: added to the position; while it was already moving against entry; outcome -$17,216,532.
- AVAX: -$17,216,532 realised loss; 3,675,170.7x median closed loss.
No matching position cycles in the data covered.
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.
- -0.2%
- Stopped earlyHow many historical position cycles would have exited before the real close because the simulated stop was hit.
- 1
- Max drawdownLargest high-to-low account-value drop inside this simulated replay.
- -0.4%
- Stopped earlyHow many historical position cycles would have exited before the real close because the simulated stop was hit.
- 1
- Max drawdownLargest high-to-low account-value drop inside this simulated replay.
- -0.8%
- Stopped earlyHow many historical position cycles would have exited before the real close because the simulated stop was hit.
- 1
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.