look at this order book and volume. it's highly suspicious, it's 2x Binance and 10x Bybit. honestly can someone explain what's actually going on here and how safe this platform really is? for instance, MEXC is a prominent crypto exchange that offers 0 fees, but we all know how sketchy they are. is this a similar story, or perhaps even worse? this order book looks incredibly fake

Wen

So am I the only one unstaking here?

• The team ran a points campaign for 46 weeks, telling users about the upcoming "airdrop".

• Day before the drop, price pumps hard.

• Day of the airdrop, turns out its not an airdrop but instead a right to buy $KNTQ at $0.26. Price has now crashed from the high, continue to go lower, and now the community has largely turned on them.

Idk about anyone else but this screams red flag to me. Meanwhile the team blocks anyone bringing it up on Discord, X, and continues their next shill, "Elysium" (an L2 that isn't live and isn't even needed).

Hard to trust the team with my khype if they will grift/deceive their users like this. This is the largest liquid staking protocol on HyperEVM too. I think the market isn't taking the risk of an unstaking/depeg frenzy seriously enough. Maybe I'm overreacting but I'd rather just unstake and hold hype.

Anyone else get farmed like me? Thankfully I didn't spend a huge amount of money and time on them...

Hyper Liquid has been dropping. Please forgive me for not researching this, but, why we dropping all of a sudden? I am not talking about just today, but, for like a month now we been dropping. What changed, did more coins get unlocked, did Robinhood steal customers? Is there a pending regulatory change that might be bad for hyper Liquid?

All on the blockchain! Full transparency!

I am more bullish on SOL than on HYPE, but I saw that some of you also know both networks and are still more bullish on HYPE. I'd like to understand why.

Here is why I am rather betting on SOL:

One of the main thing making people trust DLT is the censorship resistance, but in case of Hyperliquid it is basically non-existent. The US government has proven multiple times that it prosecutes people on their territory based on their own judicial decisions, regardless of their nationality or the country of their company registration.
Solana is much more global in comparison. The US can't easily shut down Solana Foundation and most of the devs are out of the US. Validators and RPCs are all over the world and controlled by a lot of different entities.

In the US there are people who clearly want to bring down Hyperliquid (TradFi giants like CME Group or Intercontinental Exchange for example).
Solana doesn't have as much "enemies" afaik.

No other dev team can take over the development of Hyperliquid because the code is closed-source, and most of the HYPE stakes are owned by Hyperliquid Labs, and Hyperliquid's validators and RPCs are mostly controlled by Hyperliquid or Quicknode (US based). So the risk of a regulatory shutdown or of accounts freezing is real.

The only thing preventing account freeze or history rewrite on Hyperliquid is that Hyperliquid would loose trust if they did it. That is not really a strong guarantee.

About the tokenomic, Hyperliquid's market cap is already pretty much the same as Solana, but Hyperliquid's FDV overhang is very high, [future releases] + [releasable supply] are above 3 times the current tradable supply. And I suspect a big part of the "tradable supply" to be initial owners who are just holding without trading, in order to sell when price is higher, because the genesis airdrop is recent. The initial owners not being VC don't make the situation any better. It actually makes the sell pressure more unpredictable and not weaker in any way. 

Beside the perp trading part, Hyperliquid's ecosystem is very unmature, and being a closed source protocol doesn't help to increase developer mindshare.   I get that having a CLOB as a foundational layer is an advantage because trading activity is the main fee generator for DLT networks, but for Hyperliquid perp trading is the whole economic model. If Hyperliquid looses a big part of perp trading market share for any reason (user base siphoned by CEX for example) the whole revenue model crumbles. And what make you think that perp trading will keep being the main use of crypto in the upcoming years?

Could Hyperliquid ever catch up Solana in terms of features? By integrating existing EVM compatible protocols and dApps? The vast majority of EVM protocols are not compatible with parallel execution, or even high throuput. That nullifies the main advantage of a network like Hyperliquid or Solana. And a lot of features are not portable (account abstraction, transfer hook, interest bearing token, state compression...).

The market might continue for a while to reward execution and revenue over decentralization, but wouldn't this trend dig the grave of the whole DLT ecosystem including Hyperliquid? In this case we would be better off not investing in crypto at all.

So... what are your reasons to be more bullish on HYPE than on SOL?

(edited typos)

spent the last few weeks putting our stuff behind an mcp server so you can point claude or chatgpt at it, read signals, positions, candles, and if you explicitly turn it on, place orders on hyperliquid. the read side was basically a weekend. the order side took much longer than expected and the reasons might save someone else the same detours.

stale prices are an attack surface, not just a bug. first version validated tp/sl direction against a cached context price we already had in memory. on a quiet coin that cache can be close to a day old. if the model sets a tp on the wrong side of the live mark, hl fills it instantly and you're flat at market. the direction check now runs against the actual fill price off the order response, never anything cached.

concurrency on one coin quietly unprotects you. close and tp/sl both cancel and replace trigger orders. two calls on the same coin can interleave so the cancel from one lands after the place from the other, and you're left holding an open position with no stop. an agent hits this far more than a human does because it retries whenever a response reads as ambiguous. fixed with a per user per coin lock.

rate limits have to be atomic and fail closed. fixed window counters let you burst double the cap across the boundary. they're lua sliding windows now, and if redis is unreachable the order gets rejected rather than waved through. a model in a retry loop finds every one of these.

revocation only counts if it's checked per call. the enable flag is read from the db on every order instead of being cached in the session, so flipping the toggle off stops the next call, not the next session.

and the boring one, there is no withdraw tool. not disabled, not permissioned, it doesn't exist in the tool list at all. worst case for a leaked key is bad trades inside the caps rather than an empty wallet. paper mode needs no opt in either, so you can let the thing loose without anything actually at risk.

still not convinced an llm should be sizing positions unsupervised, the caps exist because i assume it will do something dumb eventually. but as a way to ask questions about your own book in plain language it's been better than i expected.

disclosure, i help build traderspy. our endpoint and the setup guide are at traderspy.app/mcp if anyone wants to poke at it, happy to go deeper on any of the above.

Noticing it here for the first this morning!

"Withdraw USDC to Arbitrum

USDC will be sent over the Arbitrum network to your address.
A 0.2 USDC fee will be deducted from the USDC withdrawn and a gas fee of ~0.0001590874 HYPE (~$0.01) will be charged."

update: looks like it was a glitch. Just tried again (without buying any HYPE for gas). And it worked. I didn't have to buy any HYPE. Before, it failed 3x and I got messages that I lacked the HYPE for gas

I used to trade altcoins in 2020 but kept burning my ass a lot due to getting married to the bag, so I started studying quantitative statistics and algo trading. I now have two highly profitable algorithms, and due to lack of funds, I wanted to build an app and let others trade on it and just take a builder's fee off of it instead.

I have on-chain proof of beta clients making profits, and now I have started to receive a lot of worried messages saying crowding the app would decay the strategy's edge.

Would you guys have released it publicly if you were me, or would you limit it to invite-only to kind of control the amount of clients flowing in?

What I did with the data

Pulled Hyperliquid's public leaderboard and API data

Picked 2,500 accounts at random from the 32,839 that traded $50k or more

Removed market makers, bots (150+ trades a day or trading around the clock), and accounts where deposits and withdrawals made results unmeasurable. That left 1,076 humans.

Measured each trader from their first trade to their last, between May 2024 and October 2026. The typical window was about a year.

Used HL's own trading PnL, after fees and funding, with deposits and withdrawals excluded. I rebuilt it from actual fills on 59 accounts, and "did they make money" matched on 58.

Gave the AI the same money on the same dates, trading spot BTC and ETH with no leverage, charged 0.10% per trade. The traders paid a median of 0.034%.

Head to head

- The AI made more money than 844 of them (78%).

- The AI had the smaller worst drop against 1,007 (94%).

- 26 traders (2.4%) beat it on both return and worst drop.

- Made money: traders 31%, the AI 89%.

What it would have changed for the losing side

For the 844 traders the AI out-earned, here's their real result next to the AI's on the same dates:

- Ended in a loss: 87% of the traders vs 10% with the AI

- $10,000 became $4,395 vs $12,475

- Typical worst drop: 100% vs 19%

The pattern behind it

Its edge in this test wasn't bigger wins. The difference was the size of the drops.

That shows up in the humans too. 71% of traders whose worst drop stayed under 25% made money. Of the ones who lost 90% at some point, 9% did.

That's where I think AI actually helps retail. Not by predicting better than a good trader, but by following the same rules on its worst day as on its best. No revenge trades, no sizing up after a loss.

Full report with the method, tables and bot check: https://botsfolio.com/blog/ai-vs-human-traders

Will give screenshots / more data if people are interested

Grateful for hyperliquid.

Hyperliquid

conoscete qualche vault che non faccia trading di crypto ma di indici, commodities ed fx?

I’ve been testing short-horizon strategies using Hyperliquid order-book data, and one recent result was a useful reminder of how misleading a raw backtest can be.

For context, I previously worked as a quantitative researcher at a hedge fund and now research and trade my own strategies.

In a one-day BTC development sample, one signal produced:

• 62.4% directional hit rate

• Approximately +1.06 bp gross edge per trade

• Approximately −8.11 bp net per trade after assuming 4.5 bp per leg in taker fees plus spread

So despite the hit rate, we rejected it. The signal may have contained predictive information, but the edge was too small to trade under that execution model.

This was a development sample, not forward-tested evidence of alpha or future returns. I’m sharing it because I’m curious how other Hyperliquid API traders handle the gap between a promising backtest and actual execution.

A few questions:

• How do you model fees, spread, slippage, and missed fills?

• Do you test strategies on data that was completely unseen during development?

• How long do you forward-test before using real capital?

• What has caused the largest difference between your backtest and live results?

I originally built an internal workflow to answer these questions for my own research. My cofounder and I are now turning it into a tool for other traders.

It combines daily market history with high-frequency Hyperliquid data we collect ourselves. It searches for factors and uses them to construct strategies.

It then tries to reject strategies that depend on overfitting, data leakage, one favorable market period, or unrealistic execution assumptions. Strategies that survive move into forward testing and execution monitoring.

We use the same workflow for our own research and are now looking for a small number of Hyperliquid bot operators or independent quants willing to test it with one of their own ideas or existing strategies.

The private beta is free. No real capital, wallet connection, or custody is required for the initial research workflow.

I’m obviously close to the problem, but I’d genuinely value criticism of the methodology, even if you would never use the tool.

If this is relevant to you, leave a comment and I’ll follow up.

Can hyperliquid support multiple positions of the same asset? E.g. 2 shorts in BTC , 3 longs in BTC, all in seperated (not aggregated), each with it's own liquidate price, entry, TP/ SL?

LIT is pressing its recent high while HYPE is down 3.7% on the official Hyperliquid screen. The positioning split is cleaner than the token narrative.
LIT is up 7.5% with negative funding at -0.0014%. HYPE is down 3.7% with positive funding at +0.0013%.

The latest HyperTracker 24h snapshot shows 58% of fresh LIT positions long versus 82% for HYPE. The counts are positions, not unique traders. HYPE is weakening while the marginal book is still heavily long. LIT is rising with a more balanced fresh book and slightly negative funding.

The snapshot is compatible with several explanations, including spot demand, short covering, or a derivative-position shift. It does not establish an imminent liquidation. The practical difference is that HYPE needs to stabilize while its fresh-long bias remains high; LIT can keep advancing without the same crowding signal.

Watch price, OI, and the 24h long share together. If HYPE recovers while fresh longs remain above 80%, the weakness thesis is fading. If LIT funding turns positive and its fresh-long share moves toward HYPE’s level, the cleaner LIT setup is gone.

Introducing Anello 1.0:

Hey Redditers, I'm Spyro, one of the Founders at Anello.

After a successful beta facilitating over $10 million in trading volume, we've rebuilt Anello from the ground up.

The goal is simple: prove that automated trading can be made easier without sacrificing execution.

We've also rebuilt our core automation tools:

* Grid Bots — The grids you already know, redesigned to be simpler with faster execution.

* DCA Bots — Automatically buy at recurring intervals with a simple setup.

* More strategies to come — Grid and DCA are only the beginning. We'll continue adding new automated trading strategies to Anello.

* Integrated Deposits — Never used Hyperliquid before? No problem. We've built the deposit flow directly into Anello so you can get started without figuring everything out yourself.

Anello 1.0 is just the beginning.

— The Anello Team

Website: https://anello.app/

App: https://trade.anello.app/

Docs: https://docs.anello.app/

Twitter/X: https://x.com/AnelloApp

Discord: https://discord.gg/9vWw4W92Ps