RRektrospect

0xf967239debef10dbc78e9bbbb2d8a16b72a614eb

0xf967...14eb wallet audit

0xf967...14eb audit. -$5,005,277 realised trading PnL across 29 closed position cycles, using 3,252 public fills from May 12, 2025 to Feb 25, 2026.

loss-dominatedA quick bucket assigned from realised trading PnL, closed position-cycle count, and whether the public fill source was capped. Data covered: May 12, 2025 to Feb 25, 2026. Classification basis: closed net pnl after fees available window.May 12-Feb 25 dataThis audit used 3,252 public fills covering May 12, 2025 to Feb 25, 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.$4,167May 12-Feb 25
Realised trading PnLClosed trading profit or loss after fees in the data covered: May 12, 2025 to Feb 25, 2026. Deposits and withdrawals are not counted as PnL. This is the visible public fill history used by this audit.-$5,005,277-99.9%
Max drawdownLargest fall from a previous balance high to a later low inside the data covered: May 12, 2025 to Feb 25, 2026.-74.3%29 closed position cycles
Win rateShare of closed position cycles that ended positive. Profit factor compares total winning realised PnL with total losing realised PnL.+17.2%0.01 profit factor
Total volumeGross notional traded across 3,252 reconstructed public fills. A position cycle can contain many individual fills.$113,828,49936 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 $4,167 minus closed trading PnL -$5,005,277 = starting estimate $5,009,444). 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 3,252 public fills covering May 12, 2025 to Feb 25, 2026. The date range comes from the actual public fill and position-cycle timestamps, not a preset calendar period.May 12, 2025 to Feb 25, 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 288 calendar days of visible trading history.

Public fills
3,252
Position cycles
29 closed, 7 open
Limit
public fill cap not hit
Equity curveA historical line showing how the wallet balance moved across the data covered: May 12, 2025 to Feb 25, 2026. It is not a prediction.$4,167
all visible fillsThis audit used 3,252 public fills covering May 12, 2025 to Feb 25, 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 Jun 5 with $4.3M and ends at Feb 25 with $4.2k.Account value (USD)Date$4.3M$2.2M$4.2kJun 5Sep 2Feb 25
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: 3,252 public fills from May 12, 2025 to Feb 25, 2026; this is the actual visible trading span, not a preset last-week or last-month period.
  • This account is -99.92% in the analysed window, down $5.0M from an estimated starting balance of $5.0M to a current balance of $4,167.
  • The account peaked at $5.2M on 9 July 2025, then experienced a -74.3% drawdown to $1.3M by 10 September 2025.
Analysis readoutA plain-language interpretation layer from the trader analysis. Use the cards and tables below for the raw evidence.Strengths & weaknesses
  • Visible strength: SOL and HYPE showed genuine edge (75% and 50% win rates respectively), but were too small to matter. The account identified at least two coins where it could win consistently; it simply did not allocate capital there.
  • Visible weakness: Oversized revenge trades after losses. Four of the five largest losses were opened within days of prior losses in the same coin, with notional sizes in the $5–17M range. No structural stops were used on any of the five oversized losses, allowing underwater positions to sit for weeks or months.
  • Visible weakness: Asymmetric position sizing. Average loss ($210k) is 18x average win ($11.7k). The account sized into losers and sized out of winners, the inverse of disciplined capital allocation.
  • Data scope: The account is still active with 7 open positions. This audit covers closed episodes only and does not assess current exposure or risk.
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 -99.92% in the analysed window, down $5.0M from an estimated starting balance of $5.0M to a current balance of $4,167. The account peaked at $5.2M on 9 July 2025, then experienced a -74.3% drawdown to $1.3M by 10 September 2025. The headline pattern is unambiguous: five oversized ETH and BTC losses—each 5x to 11x the median loss size—consumed nearly all capital. Four of those five losses were revenge trades, entered immediately after prior losses. Win rate is 17.24%, profit factor is 0.01, and expectancy is -$172,596 per closed episode. The only edge visible in the data is SOL (75% win rate, +$129) and HYPE (+$35k across two trades), but these were dwarfed by systematic oversizing on the losing side.

What the data shows

The account opened on 12 May 2025 and has been active for 288 days across 36 closed episodes and 7 open positions. Total realised PnL is -$5.2M against gross volume of $113.8M. Fees paid total $32,161, a modest drag relative to the scale of losses, but the net fee drag of $32,158 is immaterial to the outcome.

Money was made only on SOL (4 episodes, 75% win rate, +$129) and HYPE (2 episodes, 50% win rate, +$35k). Everything else lost. ETH accounts for 12 episodes and -$3.96M in realised losses; BTC accounts for 7 episodes and -$1.04M. The long side lost $3.53M (15% win rate) and the short side lost $1.47M (22% win rate). Neither direction showed edge.

The five oversized losses are the entire story. ETH short on 22–23 August 2025 closed at $4,604.85 for -$931k (10.85x median loss). ETH long on 17–21 June 2025 closed at $2,314.14 for -$845k (9.84x median loss). ETH long on 5 June 2025 closed at $2,502 for -$676k (7.87x median loss). ETH long on 1–22 August 2025 closed at $4,387.79 for -$604k (7.03x median loss). BTC long on 3 August–10 October 2025 closed at $114,720.82 for -$462k (5.38x median loss). These five trades account for -$3.52M of the -$5.21M total loss. The remaining 24 episodes account for -$1.69M.

Behavioural flags show five revenge trades: ETH long on 5 June after a prior ETH loss, ETH long on 17 June after a prior ETH loss, ETH long on 16 July after a prior ETH loss, BTC long on 18 July after a prior ETH loss, and BTC long on 3 August after a prior ETH loss. The 3 August BTC entry—the second-largest loss in the dataset—was opened immediately after the 1–22 August ETH loss (which itself closed on 22 August). One averaging-down episode on ETH long opened on 3 September 2025 at $4,337.60, adding to a position that would eventually lose $84k. The account also shows a maximum loss streak of 22 consecutive losing episodes, indicating prolonged drawdown without recovery.

Trade quality

Win rate is 17.24% (5 wins in 29 closed episodes). Profit factor is 0.01, meaning gross wins are 1% of gross losses. Average win is $11,692; average loss is -$210,989. Win/loss ratio is 0.06. Expectancy per closed episode is -$172,596. These metrics describe an account with no statistical edge and severe adverse selection on position sizing: when the account wins, it wins small; when it loses, it loses catastrophically large.

The max win streak is 3 episodes; the max loss streak is 22. Maker percentage is 13.19%, indicating the account is primarily a taker and bears full fee burden on most fills.

Post-mortems

ETH long, 17–21 June 2025, closed at $2,314.14, -$845,040.41. This was a revenge trade opened after the 5 June ETH loss of -$676k. The position reached $6.85M notional and held for 102 hours before closing. The loss was 9.84x the median loss size. The account had already lost $676k in the same coin four days prior; re-entering at scale without structural stops or reduced sizing is the defining pattern of this account.

BTC long, 3 August–10 October 2025, closed at $114,720.82, -$461,751.52. This was a revenge trade opened after the 1–22 August ETH loss of -$604k. The position reached $5.66M notional and held for 1,651 hours (69 days) before closing. The loss was 5.38x the median loss size. This trade sat underwater for nearly two months without a structural stop or exit discipline, then closed at a loss. The account had already lost $604k in ETH 20 days prior.

What the risk simulator reveals

Under a 1% stop-loss rule applied historically, the account would have realised -$70,979 with a max drawdown of -46.23%, stopping out 3 episodes early. Under a 2% rule, simulated loss is -$141,958 with max drawdown of -92.46%. Under a 4% rule, simulated loss is -$283,917 with max drawdown of -184.91%. The simulator is gross of fees. Even a 1% mechanical stop would have reduced realised loss by 98.6% and capped the deepest decline to -46%, a material difference. The fact that the account did not use stops on any of the five oversized losses is the operative constraint.

Open positions

Seven positions remain open. No details on entry prices, notional sizes, or liquidation levels are provided in the current state. Without visibility into those positions, no assessment of current risk can be made.

Honest summary

  • Visible strength: SOL and HYPE showed genuine edge (75% and 50% win rates respectively), but were too small to matter. The account identified at least two coins where it could win consistently; it simply did not allocate capital there.
  • Visible weakness: Oversized revenge trades after losses. Four of the five largest losses were opened within days of prior losses in the same coin, with notional sizes in the $5–17M range. No structural stops were used on any of the five oversized losses, allowing underwater positions to sit for weeks or months.
  • Visible weakness: Asymmetric position sizing. Average loss ($210k) is 18x average win ($11.7k). The account sized into losers and sized out of winners, the inverse of disciplined capital allocation.
  • Data scope: The account is still active with 7 open positions. This audit covers closed episodes only and does not assess current exposure or risk.

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.
1
Examples
  • ETH on Sep 3, 2025: added to the position; while it was already moving against entry; outcome -$84,258.
Oversized loserA losing position cycle more than 3x the wallet's median closed loss.
6
Examples
  • ETH: -$675,911 realised loss; 7.9x median closed loss.
  • ETH: -$845,040 realised loss; 9.8x median closed loss.
+4 more matching cycles
Revenge tradeOpened a larger-than-normal position within one hour after a closed loss.
7
Examples
  • ETH on Jun 5, 2025: followed a -$675,911 loss; larger-than-normal size.
  • ETH on Jun 17, 2025: followed a -$190,242 loss; larger-than-normal size.
+5 more matching cycles
ExpectancyAverage result per closed position cycle after wins and losses are blended. Positive means each completed cycle added money on average.-$172,595.77
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.+13.2%

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.-$70,979
Max drawdownLargest high-to-low account-value drop inside this simulated replay.
-46.2%
Stopped earlyHow many historical position cycles would have exited before the real close because the simulated stop was hit.
3
2% account-risk ruleThis scenario limits each eligible position cycle to about 2% of account value at the simulated stop.-$141,958
Max drawdownLargest high-to-low account-value drop inside this simulated replay.
-92.5%
Stopped earlyHow many historical position cycles would have exited before the real close because the simulated stop was hit.
3
4% account-risk ruleThis scenario limits each eligible position cycle to about 4% of account value at the simulated stop.-$283,917
Max drawdownLargest high-to-low account-value drop inside this simulated replay.
-184.9%
Stopped earlyHow many historical position cycles would have exited before the real close because the simulated stop was hit.
3

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 Jul 14 with $190k and ends at Dec 24 with $151k.Account value (USD)Date$236k$129k$22kJul 14Jul 14Dec 24

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.
HYPElong$10,699,828$58,0252025-12-28
BTClong$7,126,308$2942025-12-24
SOLshort$15,160$982025-11-10
SOLlong$10,079$292025-11-24
SOLshort$471$162026-01-10

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.
ETH120.0%-$3,962,062
BTC7+14.3%-$1,043,899
HYPE2+50.0%$34,982
ASTER10.0%-$25,424
FARTCOIN10.0%-$9,001
SOL4+75.0%$129
UNI10.0%-$2
ENA10.0%-$0
Share this audit on X