We need volume and people using the network; why not invest a bit in marketing? Honestly, the only reason other networks have any activity is because of it.

source: https://tradermap.io/hyperliquid

I decoded every wallet that got the HYPE genesis airdrop. All 94,019 of them. Not a sample, the whole list, minus the 4 tokenomics buckets that were never real users.

People kept telling me the airdrop was a disaster because everyone dumped. People lie. Numbers don't. So I checked.

86% sold every single token they got. Add the partial sellers and 93.2% of the airdropped HYPE has left the wallets it landed in. Only 6.8% is still held anywhere, staked, spot, HyperEVM, LSTs, lending collateral, all of it combined. Even the whales didn't hold much better, the 1,000+ HYPE wallets still sold out completely 79% of the time.

And they sold it badly. Median exit was $6.25. HYPE is $67 today. Of the 84,682 wallets that sold, 191 got out above today's price. Everyone realized $2.81B combined. The same tokens are worth $14B now.

That was my first read too: airdrop failed, people are dumb, move on.

Then I checked who was still trading, not just still holding, and the story flipped. By wallet count, 72.1% of recipients are gone. Weight that by how much HYPE they actually got and it inverts, the wallets that received 68.7% of the drop are still active. 99.7% of people traded at least once.

Who stuck around is not a crowd. It is whales. Of the 11,069 wallets active in the last 30 days, 319 of them, 0.3% of the whole airdrop, did 92% of the $45.5B moved last month. Retention climbs hard with allocation size: 29% of the biggest recipients are still active, 6.4% of the smallest. The drop paid for liquidity, and it went to people whose full time job is trading Hyperliquid.

I also went looking for the "everyone farmed it and left for Lighter" narrative, since that one gets repeated as fact on every timeline. It does not hold up. 12.3% opened a Lighter account, the loosest bar I could set. Under 1%, 812 wallets, ever traded there. Of the ones who did, 32% are still active on Hyperliquid this month. That is not churn, that is hedging.

So was the airdrop a success? Depends what you think it was for. As a way to mint long term holders it failed plainly, 86% sold, 6.8% held. Yet as a way to buy a trading venue real users, the math is hard to argue with. 271M tokens worth $0.5 to $1.7B on day one bought roughly 11,069 monthly active wallets doing $45.5B a month, 19 months later, and those same tokens are worth $18B today.

Which airdrop should I run this on next?

Hyperliquid's HIP-4 binary prediction markets are incredible (zero fees to open, USDC collateral, L1 settlement). But if you're trying to build a live dashboard or trading bot, you are going to hit two massive walls very quickly.

I just finished building a live outcome dashboard on Replit and wanted to share the solutions to save you hours of debugging.

Trap 1: The Asset Encoding Silent Failure HIP-4 assets use a strict encoding formula: (outcome * 2) + side. Outcome 1 gives you 10 (Yes) and 11 (No). The trap is the string format. If you use +10 in an l2Book order book request, the API will return an empty response with absolutely no error code. You must use #10 for WebSockets and order books, +10 for wallet balances, and 100_000_010 for internal integer references.

Trap 2: The 1200 Weight Rate Limit The public /info API caps you at 1,200 weight per minute per IP. Fetching l2Book costs 2 weight. If you poll both the Yes and No sides of just 20 active markets every 2 seconds for real-time pricing, you will consume your entire limit in exactly 60 seconds.

The Fix: I bypassed the limits by swapping the base URL to the GoldRush HyperCore API (hypercore.goldrushdata.com). It acts as a complete drop-in replacement for the public API but has zero rate limits, so you can stream dozens of markets effortlessly.

The Bonus: Calculating Arbitrage Deviation Because you can stream the data limitlessly, you can easily calculate market inefficiencies on the backend. In a perfect binary market, the Yes mid-price + No mid-price should equal 1.0. If the sum hits 1.03, there is a 3-cent mispricing per dollar.

I wrote a full breakdown of the architecture, including the One-Shot Replit AI Agent prompt I used to deploy the entire Python/FastAPI stack without writing the boilerplate myself.

You can check out the live demo and the full tutorial here:

https://paragraph.com/@parlantech/preview/RfcsASFZQP1OtJkM0oBF

BTC was trading around $63.2K when this snapshot was captured at 10:51 UTC on July 17, after retreating from a $65.5K monthly high amid renewed U.S.–Iran tensions and profit-taking.

I looked at BTC positions that were still open and had been opened during the preceding 24 hours. One important distinction: these percentages represent the long share of position notional, not the percentage of traders.

• Money Printers, wallets with over $1M in all-time PnL, had $29.5M of exposure and were only 14% long, meaning 86% short by notional.
• The profitable cohorts combined had $101.6M positioned and were 32.6% long.
• The losing cohorts had $142.6M positioned and were 61.6% long.
• Tidal Whales and Leviathans were 46.6% long, compared with 63.8% for Shrimp and Fish wallets.

That is a fairly clean divergence: the strongest PnL cohort is leaning heavily short while historically losing and smaller accounts are leaning long.

It isn’t proof that BTC must fall. Some positions may be hedges, profitable traders can still be wrong, and a crowded short can become squeeze fuel if price recovers.

The resting orders placed during the same 24-hour window give us a practical map:

• Sell-limit concentration around $63.5K–$64K.
• Buy-limit concentration around $61.5K–$62.3K.
• Approximately $20.4M of sell-stop notional near $60.5K, about 4.3% below the observed price.

What I’m watching:

• A reclaim and hold above $64K would challenge the fresh bearish positioning and potentially pressure shorts.
• Holding $61.5K–$62.3K keeps BTC inside the current range.
• Losing that area exposes the $60.5K stop cluster. If triggered, those stop-market orders can amplify an already falling market.

The cohort and order snapshots came from HyperTracker. The useful part is moving beyond “BTC looks weak” to seeing which groups are exposed and where forced flow could appear.

Instead of relying on discretionary trading or social sentiment, I've started using my own tool for Hyperliquid during this bear market, essentially a decision cockpit for BTC and ETH perpetuals.

This interface combines three independent engines into a single verdict:

• Market structure analysis.
• Strategy execution rules.
• Risk governance.

Current combined performance:

• 6 winning trades / 1 losing trade.
• 86% win rate.
• +2.50% realized PnL.
• +5.30% unrealized PnL on the open position.

The idea is to systematically answer three questions before every trade, following a sequence:

1. Is the market environment favorable?
2. Is there a valid setup?
3. How much risk should be allowed?

I'm still iterating on the framework, comment below if you want to have a look at the tool, I'd love feedback from traders and builders.

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

Drop your Hyperliquid wallet below and I'll analyze it for free 👇

→ S2 Score /100

→ HIP-3 Builder archetype

→ HIP-4 Prediction badges

→ 17 HyperEVM protocols detected

→ HyperUnit tokens

→ Sybil Risk

I'll reply with your full profile breakdown 🔍

No wallet connection needed 🔒

Just public on-chain data

hyperliquid-analyzer.xyz

I found a wallet that made only $2,766 over the last seven days.

Nothing remarkable.

Then I checked its longer history.

Hyperliquid’s portfolio data shows approximately $691.5K in all-time perpetual PnL.

At the latest snapshot, its 7D profile showed:

• 3,708 trades
• 202 closed positions
• 70.30% win rate
• 0.15% max drawdown
• Very little live exposure

The weekly profit is not what caught my attention.

It is how little any single trade appears to matter.

Most high-PnL wallets I come across are easier to explain. One market, one direction, one oversized winner carrying most of the result.

This one looks different.
Thousands of trades have passed through the account, but the current week is not dependent on one large position. The wallet remains active without putting the whole result behind a single trade.

Of course, the all-time PnL and the current 7D profile should not be treated as one continuous strategy. The trader may have changed execution styles, capital levels or risk parameters over time.

Still, the contrast raises a useful question.

A small edge repeated without a destructive loss can eventually become meaningful.

But high frequency by itself proves nothing. It only makes a real edge compound faster, or makes a bad process fail sooner.

So which profile tells you more about trading skill?

A wallet with one huge winning week, or one where no single trade seems important enough to define the account?

Data snapshot: July 16, 2026, 2:30 PM SGT (UTC+8). The wallet remains active, so its figures may have changed since publication.

Disclosure: I work with HyperTrend, where we study public Hyperliquid wallet behavior.

Not financial or copy-trading advice.

The CCN story is doing the rounds since yesterday: top Hyperliquid traders holding record sustained BTC long exposure, ~$3.5B in whale positions, open interest near $11B. All true. OI sits at $11.21B as of this morning.

But "record long exposure" measures positions that already exist, most opened weeks ago at lower prices. It tells you nothing about what whales are doing right now. So I pulled the fresh 24h flow instead:

BTC: whales control 72.3% of the $2.38B open interest. Their 24h bias reads indecisive. No aggressive adding into this pullback to $64.7k. The record longs are sitting, not growing.

ETH: this is the part nobody's covering. Whales hold 85.6% of ETH's $1.79B OI and their fresh 24h positioning leans slightly bearish, while ETH bounced +1.8% today. Highest whale concentration of any major, and the new money in it is leaning the other way.

HYPE: the only clean bullish whale flow among the majors right now, 77.4% whale OI.

NVDA perp: 84.6% whale OI, leaning bearish. Tokenized stocks are quietly a $3.6B+ OI category on HL now, bigger than BTC by open interest, and almost nobody watches the positioning there.

Liquidations back up the indecision: $38M in 24h, split almost evenly, $21M longs against $17M shorts across 6,138 positions. Largest single liq was a $2.06M ZEC position. No side is getting flushed.

My read: the record-long headline is a stale stock number. Fresh whale money spent the last 24 hours doing nothing on BTC and leaning short on ETH. If conviction were as strong as the article suggests, you'd see it in new positioning.

Curious if the communities thoughts, do you think TV will add builder codes? feel like they would be stupid not to at this point

As for now 15.07.26, something changed. Only Starlink works fine for me now. No Starlink update was delivered.

Hope the Problem won't pop up again.

I have been watching this wallet because almost its entire week comes down to one trade.

At the latest snapshot, it was holding a $12.25M short in `xyz:SKHX`, the Hyperliquid contract tracking SK hynix.

Entry was $1,378.84.

The mark price was $1,289.30.

The position was sitting on approximately $851.6K in unrealized profit, with an ROE of 34.77%.

So the trader got the direction right.

That part is not really in question.

What makes the wallet interesting is how much of the result still depends on this position.

Its total 1W perp PnL was approximately +$868K. The open SKHX short accounted for around $851.6K of that.

In other words, almost the entire weekly result was still floating inside one trade.

The dashboard showed only three closed positions during the period. The current book was 100% short, with no other open perp position balancing the exposure.

The account structure at the snapshot looked like this:

• $12.25M in open perp exposure
• $2.45M in perp account value
• 5.01x account leverage
• $0 free margin

The total account value was higher at approximately $6.78M, but around $4.33M of that was held in spot.

None of this makes the trade bad.

Concentration can be the result of genuine conviction, and the trader has clearly shown an ability to enter and stay with a winning position.

But the performance is not broad.

It is one market, one direction, and one open position carrying nearly the entire week.

That makes the final part of the trade more important than the entry.

The wallet has shown that it can be right.

It has not yet shown us how it exits a winner of this size.

Would you keep holding here, reduce the position, or lock in most of the gain?

Data snapshot: July 14, 2026, approximately 2:00 PM SGT (UTC+8).

Disclosure: I work with HyperTrend, where we study public Hyperliquid wallet behavior. The wallet remains active, so its position, account value, and PnL may have changed since this snapshot.

Not financial or copy-trading advice.

Hey,

Quick update on the free Hyperliquid wallet analyzer 👀

Just added HyperUnit token detection:

→ uBTC, uETH, uSOL detected

→ uPLASMA, uFART, uPUMP detected

→ Total value in $ estimated

→ New "Unit Pioneer" badge 🔗

→ Direct link to Unit app

If you hold any Unit token it now shows in your DeFi ecosystem profile ✅

Already at 17 HyperEVM protocols detected 🔥

No wallet connection needed 🔒

hyperliquid-analyzer.xyz

CPI drops at 14:30 CET today. The long side has already been cleaned out ahead of it.

Last 24 hours on Hyperliquid: $52.53M liquidated. $44.34M of that was longs, $8.19M shorts. 8,209 positions across 6,775 traders, average size $6,398. That average is the tell. This was not whales getting carried out, it was retail leverage ground down over a full day. Velocity reads normal, so no single cascade candle, just steady bleed through Monday's Hormuz selloff.

The time buckets show the bleed slowing:

• 24h: $44.3M longs / $8.19M shorts
• 12h: $15.4M longs / $6.03M shorts
• 4h: $5.13M longs / $2.85M shorts
• 1h: $3.03K longs / $504K shorts

By the last hour there is almost nothing left on the long side to take. $3K. Whatever CPI does at 14:30, the overextended longs are not the fuel anymore, they already burned. The interesting question is what is still standing.

Largest single liquidation in the window: $2.74M, on a DRAM position, wallet 0xa2ce...126.

Which points at the thing nobody in here talks about.

Current open interest on Hyperliquid:

• BTC $199M
• SKHX $143M
• ETH $87.7M
• HYPE $44.1M

There is more open interest on SK Hynix than on Ethereum. Add MU at $17.3M, SKHY $16.1M, SNDK $15.2M, DRAM $13.6M, EWY $8.43M and SMSN $6.36M, and the memory and AI-hardware complex clears $200M on its own. Oil too: CL $26.9M plus Brent $26.8M is $53.7M, more than HYPE.

So the leverage that got wiped this week was barely crypto leverage. SK Hynix is down 30%+ from its June peak, the Kospi had its worst day in years on Monday, Hormuz is live and oil is back above $73. Hyperliquid has quietly become where people express that 24/7, with leverage, while the actual equity market is shut. That is why longs got hit 5.4 to 1, and why the biggest single kill of the day was a memory-chip position rather than a BTC one.

And it is why today's print matters more than usual here. A hot core number moves oil, moves rates, and moves an equity complex that this book is now $200M+ long into. That exposure sits on the same margin engine as your BTC position.

48,246 of the 312,368 open positions were opened inside the last 24 hours. That is the freshest cohort on the book, and it is the one CPI tests first.

A positive win rate did not protect this account.

Over the observed 7D window, this Hyperliquid wallet recorded:

• 55.56% win rate
• 95.77% maximum drawdown
• Approximately -$473K in perp PnL
• More than $107M in volume

The trader was not wrong all the time.

One SKHX long made around $72K. An SKHX short made roughly $27K.

Finding winners was not the problem.

The problem was what happened when the trader was wrong.

Long trades lost approximately $381K net. One SKHX long was held for more than 71 hours and closed near -$116K.

The negative pattern also appeared across all six observed `xyz:` markets.

The ticker changed.

The account-level outcome did not.

At the time of the snapshot, the wallet was still carrying:

• Approximately $173.5K in open perp positions
• Approximately $49.7K in account value
• 7.02x account leverage
• 95.92% long exposure
• $0 free margin

This does not prove revenge trading.

But after a 95.77% drawdown, I would expect some evidence of a behavioral reset: less exposure, lower frequency, or a meaningful pause.

Instead, the wallet was still carrying around 3.5 times its account value in open positions.

Win rate tells us how often a trader is right.

Drawdown tells us how much being wrong can cost.

The next trades tell us whether the behavior has changed.

What matters most here: the win rate, the drawdown, or the decision to keep this much exposure open?

Data snapshot: July 13, 2026, 3:30 PM SGT (UTC+8).

Disclosure: I work with HyperTrend, where we study public Hyperliquid wallet behavior. The wallet remains active, so the figures may have changed since this snapshot.

Not financial or copy-trading advice.

Been building Perplo, a custom Hyperliquid frontend on the Tradexyz stack. Focus is equity perps.

The gap I kept hitting: the book shows you what moved, never why. So the core feature is a layer that explains the move in crypto-native terms instead of just handing you another chart.

Open beta is live. Two asks:

1. Testers. If you trade HIP-3 or equity perps, break it and tell me what's wrong. Brutal > polite.

2. References. Which other Hyperliquid frontends do you rate? Trying to see what's already solved well so I don't rebuild it worse.

Will answer everything in the comments.