0xb317d2bc2d3d2df5fa441b5bae0ab9d8b07283ae
0xb317...83ae audit. -$127,501,561 realised trading PnL across 2 closed position cycles, using the latest 10,000 public fills from Nov 4, 2025 to Jan 31, 2026; older public fills may exist outside this audit.
The dollar PnL is the realised result from closed trades in the data covered. The percentage uses an inferred starting value (current account value $49 minus closed trading PnL -$127,501,561 = starting estimate $127,501,610). 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.
Only the most recent public fills are visible, so this audit covers the data covered rather than full account history. The sample is too small—two closed episodes across 88 days of activity—to support behavioural or skill-based conclusions. Both trades were long-only, both lost money, and both closed on 31 January 2026. The account is -100% in the data covered: $127.5m in realised losses on $486.9m gross volume. No wins are recorded.
The data covered spans 88 days from 4 November 2025 to 31 January 2026. Two closed trades dominate the record. The first was a long ETH position opened at $3,085.89 on 5 November 2025, held for 2,104 hours (87.7 days), and closed at $2,222.40 on 31 January 2026 for a loss of $121.85m. Maximum notional exposure reached $535.88m. The second was a long SOL position opened at $125.34 on 12 December 2025, held for 1,210 hours (50.4 days), and closed at $98.28 on 31 January 2026 for a loss of $5.65m. Maximum notional exposure reached $62.80m. Both trades carried the behavioural flag "averaging_down", indicating the position size was increased during adverse price movement rather than reduced or exited.
Fees paid totalled $58,966.76 on $518.37m gross volume, a net fee drag of 0.011% of volume. Fee impact is immaterial relative to the scale of realised losses. The account closed both positions on the same date, suggesting either a forced liquidation event, a deliberate portfolio wind-down, or a margin call. No open positions remain.
The sample is too small to isolate directional edge, instrument-specific patterns, or entry/exit discipline from the data alone.
Win rate is 0%. Profit factor is undefined (no winning trades to offset losses). Expectancy is negative across both episodes. Both trades were initiated as longs and both resulted in losses. The structural stop distances—4.38% for ETH (ATR-based) and 4.0% for SOL (instrument default)—were not respected; both positions were held through and beyond those levels before closure.
ETH long, 5 November 2025 to 31 January 2026: Opened at $3,085.89, closed at $2,222.40. Loss of $121.85m on maximum notional of $535.88m. Held 2,104 hours. Flagged for averaging down. Structural stop at 4.38% below entry was not executed.
SOL long, 12 December 2025 to 31 January 2026: Opened at $125.34, closed at $98.28. Loss of $5.65m on maximum notional of $62.80m. Held 1,210 hours. Flagged for averaging down. Structural stop at 4.0% below entry was not executed.
No matching position cycles in the data covered.
No matching position cycles in the data covered.
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.
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.
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.