https://teapawt.net/t.co/Flh1ElSMPH’ Boss. Eating good 🫛🫛🫛 at https://teapawt.net/t.co/9H8rnOYsou.
Edamame.fun
Joined February 2022
- Tweets2.6K
- Following1.3K
- Followers292
- Likes2K
EDA intern retweeted
medium link
medium.com/@D2.Finance/texas…
EDA intern retweeted
TL;DR
Gold printed the exact same level as one year ago.
Last time we were here it ripped +37% to 5,595 in 12 weeks.
Same setup. Stronger bid. Epoch 2 is live.
The case for gold into Q1 2027, from the D2 desk.
Gold printed 4,070 Friday, the same tick as a year ago (4,001 on 7 Nov 2025). From that tick the next twelve weeks ran it to 5,595 (chart 1, green box). The 2006 template, mapped onto the 29 Jan top, puts about 5,000 in the second half of January 2027. Debasement++ Epoch 2 runs 100 to 300% of NAV gold delta into 19 Feb 2027 on that read. Ten points, timeline since the Trump election.
1. Cycle low 2,537 on 14 Nov 2024, nine days after the election. 5,595 on 29 Jan 2026, +121% print to print. The buyer was the official sector: Japan and China cut Treasuries for a decade while adding gold, the swap @LukeGromen has charted for years. Overseas UST holdings fell ~$70B in June.
2. 28 Feb 2026 the Iran strikes started; gold has given back 23% from the pre-war close. Oil pushed CPI to 3.7% by September and the Fed from easing to hiking. Central banks sold into us to pay for the oil. Brent: 72 pre-strikes, 126 at the April top, 98 now. The 2025 setup returns if Iran resolves and it trades in the 80s.
3. 19 Aug Bessent doubled long-end buybacks. Yields dipped a day, back above 4.7% within the week, dollar down vs every G10, gold +5%. Window closed 4 Nov with the refunding; ~$6T rolls in Q4; ten-year 4.86% now. Bessent remains Bessent.
4. The 3 Nov result does not touch the arithmetic. $38.6T at a 3.1% weighted coupon; Q4 coupon interest alone $196B. Bloomberg Economics has interest at 6.4% of GDP by 2035, above Italy, debt to GDP 131%.
5. October was the washout: almost -7%, worst October since 2008, low 3,870 on the 30th. Goldman says early to buy. CFTC managed money net longs 104,297 in the week to 3 Nov, a 21-week low, shorts at a 17-week high. The washout @MacleodFinance tracks weekly in COMEX data.
6. Democrats swept. Gold +5% on the week, BTC -2.6% since Tuesday's close (round trip in the quoted post). Whether crypto trades as a debasement hedge or a Trump trade is unclear. If the Dems go after it hard, better the old rock than digital, and yes @PeterSchiff, that point is yours. BTC and MSTR stay in the basket, smaller.
7. Saturday's data: PBOC added 830K oz in October, month 24 of the streak, buying harder as price fell. Ten-month additions 129t; official sector net 321t in Q3. WGC survey: 45% of central banks plan to buy next year, a record, the bid @JamesGRickards has argued since The New Case for Gold. Poland at 700t.
8. The bid sits in Asia. The July rebound ran in Asian hours while London and New York went sideways (chart 2). India's wedding-season demand is back on the pullback. Hong Kong central clearing for gold goes live Q1 2027.
9. The 2006 template: 22% fall in 24 trading days from the 12 May top, three fifths back a year later, new high 16 months out. This leg ran 31% and sits at day 195, so the cycle is behind the template. The difference is the buyer: 2006 had no PBOC adding every month of the fall. Date soft, shape is what we trade. @PeterLBrandt @TheDailyGold, does a 31% leg break the analog or stretch it? Three-month vol 22 vs 28 realized, flat risk reversal: the call wing is unpaid.
10. The short leg is the Fed. Warsh is the hawk. Friday's payrolls beat put a 9 Dec hike at 78%; gold gave back 1.5%. Ten-year real yield 2.61%, DXY 4% above the January top. Gold outran the dollar in the 2009-10, 2020 and 2025-26 suppression episodes and lost each time credibility came back. 30-day gold-dollar correlation -0.44.
Epoch 2 deposits open now, term 19 Feb 2027.
Markets do not repeat, but they often rhyme.
EDA intern retweeted
Debasement++ Epoch 1: settled ✅
Closed 9 days early. 40.684 @tethergold XAUT in, 41.32 out.
📊 +1.57% net in gold terms | ~7.8% net APR
📉 Gold 4,614 → 4,054 over the same window
Where yield came from:
◾ Gold: September and October adds lost into the slide. The election-week round trip, 183 oz bought at 3,947 avg and sold at 4,040 into the post-result bid, more than paid for them.
◾ MSTR short: flat. The 2 Oct squeeze to 166 cost what the November covers at 131 and 144 earned back.
◾ BTC: small long, closed mid-October, small positive.
Wrong on timing. Trading paid for it. Results still positive 🫡
Legs flat, thesis got its catalyst, so capital comes back now rather than sitting idle for nine days.
New app preview below: rebuilt on your feedback, hardened. Coming soon.
EDA intern retweeted
Best pod risk thread we've read in a while. "Factor beta neutral to the extent they can measure the exposures" is the line.
The part that hit home is who the model is good for. The GP scales the winners, cuts the losers fast and never has to work out whose process is good. Being a pod is not great vs being the GP. We're actually in defi partially to not do pod life, as we can manage risk much better. Self selection of users through the epoch model helps.
If every pair of teams is 0.05 correlated, a pod shop tops out at 20 independent bets. 300 equal teams get you 19. Park the same 0.05 average with the ten teams that carry half the risk and it's 3 (chart).
A blow-up can't tell you it was crowding either. Start at 1% odds. One 6 sigma day makes it 38% if crowding is the only suspect, 15% once a plain vol spike is a second one.
Walleye plans to return some capital after a -5.9% month. Pod Risk Manager, agreed the bottom tier goes first. We'd bet Walleye is not the last capital return before year end.
In honor of some “pods blowing up” and me being traveling I will outline some concepts about pod risk management about which I do know a thing or two, as my name might suggest.
It is a common perception that pods are factor beta neutral and thus largely hedged. That is not quite true. A truer statement is that they are factor beta neutral to the extent they can measure the exposures.
Most equity risk models are derivatives of the original axioma and barra factor models. There are now many things that go into this but at their core they are a 12 (IIRC) variable linear regression. And mathematically, the unexplained remainder, the error term, is assumed to be the alpha (Upon which the team gets paid). You well recognize most of these factors: size, momentum (short and long), quality, dividend, domicile, sector, etc.
Now even the dull among you may note that there are in fact many other things that go into a stock. That’s true and that’s one reason why many people at the pods are very rich. There is though a very active and live debate to the highest level of these firms as what you “want” in the other bucket. On the one extreme, scheduling a proprietary drone flyover on the Aurora AV truck up fitting facility to measure parking lot activity vs expected timeline….that feels like pretty good alpha. On the other extreme, going long the Canadian listing rather than the U.S. listing because the Canadian listing diversifies the domicile score so you get a higher portfolio level idio score…..that doesn’t feel like great alpha. But the range is wide: paying GS a billion dollars so your team is the first meeting at the conference? That’s kind of the pod scale advantage. Albeit less so if every other pod is in the room. Going balls long large cap domestic U.S. GLP-1 manufacturers vs non GLP-1? Well that kind of is thematic alpha (depending on the work put in by analyst), but even if you’re of the opinion fuck it, let the kids rip (a reasonable view) you also know at the levered portfolio level that we aren’t measuring that risk completely. This line can really be illustrated with the concept of a “custom factor”. Maybe going long a shit load of SPACs is alpha, maybe it isn’t, but how the FUCK are you gonna build a portfolio level SPAC factor exposure loading in late 2021 when spacs didn’t functionally exist until 2021????
Anyways, interesting & active philosophical debate but there are some downstream derivatives.
Firstly, as a well known matter, 6 sigma events happen in finance all the time. There’s one every year in some corner of the market. So ex ante we know our models aren’t “great”.
Second, everyone knows the agent is an unobserved blind spot. It’s impossible to actually “know” why the analyst and PM are doing anything. You like to think they’re doing it on the back of deep fundamental quality work, but the median analyst and PM isn’t good at their job. So that assumption is known to be unreliable. The capital allocation solution to this is momentum chasing at the portfolio level: you allocate more to winning pods and you cut the losers fast. This is a brilliant approach because it means the pod business model is capital light- they identify and scale the good teams without actually having to invest in knowing which pods have “good” process. It’s worth really appreciating that point because it’s one of the true genius aspects of the model, and at its core it’s why the GPs are so fucking rich. (Deep finance readers will note that some of the original papers on factors saw that one of the earliest possible explanations for the decade-long trend nature for factor performance is implicit fund flow pressure from the momentum chasing nature of capital at the LP level)
(Continued in reply)
EDA intern retweeted
VIX +11.57 to 28.18 and the curve inverted the most since April 2025. We think pods are still cutting.
Walleye letter in the quote: worst month for the firm since March 2020. Vol desk had its best month ever in October. So a big chunk of the in-house long/short guys go and vol stays (nearly 20 vol PMs hired in 2 yrs). They started as an options market maker in 2005 anyway.
Makes sense to us. Stock picker pods all own the same names, which is fine while single stocks move against each other and the index sits still. Thursday everything went down together, ndx over 6%. Vol desk gets paid on that day.
Their 13F attached, sorted by % of shares out. It's 30 June and longs only so take it for what it is. 1,848 lines, 11 of them over 1% of shares out. You don't sell that in a day.
We trade vol for a living, we'd keep that desk too.
EDA intern retweeted
TL;DR: Price Hyperliquid as the probability it becomes the house of all finance, not as an exchange.
That probability is two years of relentless shipping from a zero-outside-capital genesis. Keep the 500k stake. The flywheel is intact.
1) The stake.
500k HYPE was ~$1M when we first bought near $2. It’s ~$40M+ today. Keep it.
Base rate in this space is 95% scammers on day one or the moment the numbers stop working. A slashable bond is the cheapest, cleanest filter, and it sorts on merit: @tradexyz already earns an implied ~74% on its stake while every other deployer sits under 5%. The docs are explicit: the requirement falls as infrastructure matures. 500k is raisable if you’ve been building in the HL community since the early days.
2) Fees.
Fees compress only when a rival clears the same book at the same quality. Not yet.
~$200B+ perp volume in 30 days, ~$80-90M monthly fees, 97%+ routed to the Assistance Fund, ~$900M to $1B run-rate.
HIP-3 charges 2x base (9 bps taker / 3 bps maker), split 50/50 with the deployer, so protocol take per dollar matches the core book.
Growth Mode cuts fees 90% on electing HIP-3 markets; the core schedule is untouched. We don’t price the fee stream in isolation.
What we actually price.
P(house of all finance) × the value of every market that lands on the book.
In under 24 months from TGE: HyperEVM, HIP-3 perps on equities/commodities/pre-IPO, HIP-4 outcome markets, tokenized stocks, ICE partnering,...
Amazon ran low-single-digit margins for two decades while taking the shelf. The market paid for the shelf.
Here the market is paying ~20-25x run-rate fees on circulating and a much higher multiple on FDV: an exchange multiple for what is already gold + HOOD on one FAIR margin engine.
@choffstein, 99% of a multi-trillion-dollar space can be uninvestable and Jeff is still the best operator in the room. The 1% that actually executes earns the premium.
Given Hyperliquid's aim to be the neutral platform that becomes the "house of all finance", can I ask two questions without everybody getting upset?
1) For a platform that famously did not raise external capital, does the 500k $HYPE deployment hurdle limit future innovation to only those who can?
2) Given Hyperliquid's extreme profitability, at what point do fees start to come under pressure? Does "growth mode" eventually become the permanent rate?
EDA intern retweeted
Hard disagree. We have run stops on every book we have touched for ten years, prop desk, hedge fund, and since 2023 vaults, and the only people who tell us stops are retail comfort are people who have never had to call an investor and explain where the budget went.
TL;DR: a stop has nothing to do with whether the asset is good. It is what happens when the loss budget runs out, decided while you could still think straight. Your reason 1 already is a stop, you just do not call it one. hXXI hit its stop at 76K in March and a 23% BTC drawdown became 30 bps.
The Copernican objection treats the entry price as a random timestamp, but entry is where the loss started accruing against a finite loss budget, and that budget is the only thing a risk manager is paid to protect. Whether the asset is worth holding is a different question answered by a different person.
Take reason 1 seriously and the whole argument collapses into it. Every dollar of drawdown is a dollar off the loss budget, and realised vol rises when a position moves against you, so the vol-scaled size you are allowed to hold shrinks at the same time. The stop is where both constraints bind at once instead of piecemeal. Its level is sigma times a horizon times a multiplier, a precise number that means exactly what it says: the point at which the remaining budget no longer covers the next move.
Reason 2 is the same thing from the other side. A pre-committed stop is the answer, written down before the position exists, to "what does my thesis say about a move this size against me". If the thesis says nothing, the stop fires. If the thesis is mean reversion and the move is the setup, the stop was set wider at design time. Either way the decision was made before the loss was on the screen, which is the one state where the trader's judgment is least worth trusting.
Then there is the capital that is not ours. A vault epoch carries a loss budget investors subscribed to. hXXI stopped its long delta at 76K in the March selloff, a 23% BTC drawdown, and closed the epoch within 30 bps. Without the stop the book carried long delta to 66K, far past the loss budget. Holding through because the asset might be "worth holding" would have substituted the fiduciary's conviction for the investor's loss tolerance.
Returns compound geometrically. A 50% loss needs 100% to recover, and open-ended losses on a positive expectancy book still go to zero if the bet size is large enough relative to the edge. The stop puts a floor under the loss distribution. It is not a put: it pays for the floor in forgone rebounds instead of premium, and it can gap. For a short vol book with financed exposure the alternative is no floor at all.
Where we agree: a stop at a chart level with no vol input and no loss budget is theatre. A stop inside the bid-ask noise is a donation to the market maker. A stop wider than the position's maximum loss is not a stop. The fix is a better stop, computed off vol and the remaining budget.
All of the above is fair enough for one guy, his own money, no mandate and all the time in the world to be right. The rest of us are running other people's money with a number on it, and that number needs a trigger.
Rocky got the risk management right: it is about how hard you can get hit and keep moving. The stop is how a book keeps moving. So, @DeepDishEnjoyer, honest question: when your book is down the budget, what pulls the trigger, a rule you wrote last month or you, at 3am, staring at the screen?
EDA intern retweeted
Global Macro Epoch 1 conclusion + new epoch ✅
📊 +6% net, after paying more than 10% in funding. Gross on the book: north of +16%.
GM trades the directional signals from HYPE++ outright, one hard rule: 10% loss limit per epoch. Epoch 1 ran $100K as a test. Apart from the momentum signals, nothing was optimized.
Volatile by mandate:
◼ Gains came early on Korea flow, same as Kimchi. Peak around +17-18% in early September
◼ Then stopped out roughly 10 times in a row. Back to slightly negative, inside the 10% limit
◼ Rebuilt the P&L in October when the opportunity got interesting again
------
The dark side
Our other strategies run trades of 2 to 60 days, where execution and net funding wash out. HYPE++ usually receives funding on @HyperliquidX. GM plays the 30-minute to 72-hour frame at higher leverage, and funding ate more than half of the edge.
What changes: the next short epoch stays the same. Later iterations add Pendle Boros, the funding-rate market, which benefits from exactly what hurt GM here. Boros liquidity is still too small for scarce PM time on its own.
------
📅 Global Macro next epoch
• Deposits: open now
• Trading starts: Nov 5
• Epoch ends: Nov 20
• Cap: 100,000 USDG
Two weeks, plus up to 30 days of tactical.
After the short epoch we will most likely split the GM signal in two: GM 2.0, and Overnight Edge, whose goal is to beat $SPX on a risk-adjusted basis by taking advantage of 24/7 markets.
We stay liquid. Fade D2 at your own risk.
EDA intern retweeted
What the article leaves out: we were flat before we were fast.
The drain started 20:20 UTC. Order of operations on the desk:
1. Depositors first. HYPE vault delta flattened on Hyperliquid, considering the 2M HYPE still sitting on Binance hot wallets the thief had not emptied. Vault 2.85M USDC allocation pulled from @Aave on Arbitrum and Base before the freeze. Tx attached.
2. Short the names in his wallets before he sold them, on Hyperliquid: WLFI, MORPHO, FET, AAVE, ARB, LINK.
3. Long roughly the same names once he was done.
The arb was a bonus. The product is step 1, and it is why 34 months since Dec 2023 have all closed positive. We protect capital FIRST before trying to be clever.
Hyperliquid
Welcome aboard, @standuquesne. @Hyperliquidx held 100% uptime through the Binance drain while Binance was shut three days. The venue ICE is bringing to the US is the one we have traded daily since before the HYPE TGE. Thank you @chameleon_jeff, 100% uptime again.
Thank you @business for quoting us today in “Frantic Binance Hackers Created Windfall for Fast Crypto Traders”. After 10/10, that is a second Binance incident we closed positive. We may need to airdrop @cz_binance a slice of the gains, broccoli 😂 dinners do not pay for themselves.
33 epochs since Dec 2023, 32 positive, and now we wonder whether Druck follows our trades.
Go easy on our on-chain, audited edge, Stan. 🫡
EDA intern retweeted
Welcome aboard, @standuquesne. @Hyperliquidx held 100% uptime through the Binance drain while Binance was shut three days. The venue ICE is bringing to the US is the one we have traded daily since before the HYPE TGE. Thank you @chameleon_jeff, 100% uptime again.
Thank you @business for quoting us today in “Frantic Binance Hackers Created Windfall for Fast Crypto Traders”. After 10/10, that is a second Binance incident we closed positive. We may need to airdrop @cz_binance a slice of the gains, broccoli 😂 dinners do not pay for themselves.
33 epochs since Dec 2023, 32 positive, and now we wonder whether Druck follows our trades.
Go easy on our on-chain, audited edge, Stan. 🫡
EDA intern retweeted
Looking forward to seeing what @edward_yu_var and the team build with Variational Pro, and whether it gains real traction.
Not a big fan of anonymous RFQ setups in general.
However, if it meaningfully reduces the multi-broker onboarding and documentation friction (we are currently deep in that paperwork with several counterparties), it becomes interesting for institutional flow.
Side note: we previously suggested @HyperliquidX implement a native RFQ layer for similar reasons.
Solid discourse either way. We need more people competing for the longest standing on-chain hedge fund.
Thanks to @koolkrypto223 for his comments, I do not see his post as FUD at all but rather constructive discourse.
On single dealer
I think we've been quite transparent about being a broker-like model rather than an exchange. This actually necessitates the use of a single dealer: unlike spot assets, derivatives in crypto cannot be transferred between different exchanges. If we were to route your order split across 5 exchanges, you would not want to see 5 different positions displayed in your account. You want a sophisticated counterparty to do the liquidity aggregation. We've achieved the benefits you describe:
✅ more listings than any other DEX
✅ best in class liquidity on any asset class even as a new entrant
✅ liquidity aggregation of the best primary venues; no need to open 20 different exchange accounts and keep switching between them
On the moat
Bringing all of TradFi onchain will take years, if not decades. Swaps, for example, are a fundamentally bilateral contract that cannot be replicated by DEXes, and I don't even think any are trying. This is the first time we've seen direct TradFi liquidity ported onchain with stable funding rates (the routing actually doesn't touch a single crypto venue). Getting the partnerships in place for this was not easy; I think we'll see the same type of consolidation into a few winners as we see with CEXes, DEXes, and TradFi brokerages.
On price discovery
Our opinionated take:
a) You do not give a flying fuck as a user where price discovery is happening
b) In fact most users should not touch exchanges directly at all
Currently, no price discovery happens on any DEX, except in very niche scenarios. To say otherwise is massive cope. To build a venue for price discovery means catering to the very fastest HFTs: wake me up when DEXes have matching engine latency on the order of nanoseconds. Do a lead-lag analysis on prices between DEXes and CEXes, or DEXes vs CME, and it's obvious where price discovery originates. The only question is do you want a shallow clone of TradFi liquidity or direct access?
As a user, you primarily care about best execution, and that's what we optimize for. Additionally, the reason why brokerages exist in TradFi is to add another layer of protection between the user and the exchange.
▶️ When 10/10 occurred and billions of dollars of ADL were forced upon users at other venues, Variational came out squeaky clean.
▶️ When Binance was hacked for billions, we immediately put out a statement that said that user funds are safe in self-custodied smart contracts and not moved to offchain hedging venues. OLP puts up its own capital for that.
Variational Pro
Variational Pro will be multi-dealer: you will be able to request a quote and dealers will bid for your flow. This increases the complexity of the product but will have massive unlocks for institutions, including allowing for subnetworks of markets where OLP is not involved.
If two parties want to trade swaps or other derivatives peer-to-peer at infinite size we will facilitate the infrastructure for order matching, clearing, and margining for that.
Reminder that the tech for this has already been built; it's the same underlying protocol that clears billions every day for Omni! I hope you will see our vision to bring TradFi onchain is a multi-year one and cannot be cleanly segmented into "oh it's just a DEX" or "oh it's just a CFD broker". It's so much more than that and we encourage everyone to follow our roadmap which we publicize on our docs page.
EDA intern retweeted
Two years. Billions in notional. Zero ADL on our book through 10 Oct.
(@chameleon_jeff’s numbers attached 📊)
Ranking is profit × leverage.
2x sits behind every 20x.
ADL is a leverage decision, not a venue feature. 👇
Ok, following up on this in thread form this time...I really appreciate the thoughtful responses to my questions about Hyperliquid. For the record, I am long $HYPE and am a big fan of what the team has accomplished. Not doesn't mean it will translate smoothly onshore.
One thing I forgot to mention (which was brought up in the responses) - will the CFTC permit ADL to exist on a regulated exchange? I suspect the answer is no, but we will see. If not, what are the ramifications? I have briefly mentioned ADL in the past: teapawt.net/drwconvexity/status/19…
ADL inverts the clearing house liquidation waterfall in a default scenario and will be viewed as untenable by any institution.
EDA intern retweeted
@elonmusk skip the CEX drama. If you want to put real size to work in HYPE on-chain and see what actual risk management looks like, check our on-chain audited track record.
Capital-first gamma book: +18% HYPE / ~75% USD since launch. We de-risked before venues broke.
Downside locked, upside captured.
Deposits open for the next epoch. 🤝
@cz_binance fade @hyperliquidx and D2 at your own risk.
Hyperliquid
d2HYPE epoch settled: +0.4% in HYPE terms net of fees, about 20% annualized over the short epoch, through the week Binance lost its hot wallets and HYPE printed a new all-time high at 97.11.
Since launch the vault is up about 18% in HYPE terms, about 75% in USD terms for anyone comparing against covered-call programs that cap the upside.
Thursday 29 October the Binance hot wallets were drained. The same day ICE, owner of the NYSE, announced its partnership with @HyperliquidX's @tradexyz, and HYPE did about $2.6B of perp volume on Hyperliquid, its biggest day. We were long gamma into that squeeze and sold 36% of the vault notional on the way up.
By 23:00 UTC Thursday, with the attacker's wallets still live and more than 2M HYPE in a Binance hot wallet, our HYPE delta was zero. Friday morning the market gave the HYPE back and we bought it. The 90 calls on 20,000 HYPE settled in the money at 91.62, @flowdesk_co confirmation on the card.
Binance moved 2.41M HYPE from hot to cold on Friday. Bybit moved 250K. Users' capital was flat a day earlier.
Next epoch to 18 December, terms in the third post.
EDA intern retweeted
d2HYPE epoch settled: +0.4% in HYPE terms net of fees, about 20% annualized over the short epoch, through the week Binance lost its hot wallets and HYPE printed a new all-time high at 97.11.
Since launch the vault is up about 18% in HYPE terms, about 75% in USD terms for anyone comparing against covered-call programs that cap the upside.
Thursday 29 October the Binance hot wallets were drained. The same day ICE, owner of the NYSE, announced its partnership with @HyperliquidX's @tradexyz, and HYPE did about $2.6B of perp volume on Hyperliquid, its biggest day. We were long gamma into that squeeze and sold 36% of the vault notional on the way up.
By 23:00 UTC Thursday, with the attacker's wallets still live and more than 2M HYPE in a Binance hot wallet, our HYPE delta was zero. Friday morning the market gave the HYPE back and we bought it. The 90 calls on 20,000 HYPE settled in the money at 91.62, @flowdesk_co confirmation on the card.
Binance moved 2.41M HYPE from hot to cold on Friday. Bybit moved 250K. Users' capital was flat a day earlier.
Next epoch to 18 December, terms in the third post.
EDA intern retweeted
Two years ago we asked the same five questions @drwconvexity asks here.
Since then we have traded billions of notional on @HyperliquidX, every day since before the token, every position public.
Answers from the book:
1) The asset is the margin. Collateral, liquidations and the clearing ledger are public state every block. PnL settles to collateral 24/7 with no wire window. Onshore keeps that and adds a regulated access layer.
2) Our allocators verify the book in real time instead of a monthly PDF. Large trader reporting already goes to the CFTC daily; Hyperliquid sends it to everyone with no lag. Leakage is a sizing and sub-account problem. @standuquesne We would be happy to give you some tips 🫡
3) Aurora colocation sells the same thing by the rack. Hyperliquid prices queue priority from 8 bps of notional, about 45ms per bp, rule published, open to any account. Cancels still beat paid orders and the fees are burned. If Core Principle 9 tolerates the colo cage, it tolerates a posted price list, @ChairmanSelig.
4) Same engine, separate books at launch per the @ICE_Markets release. Merging them is a policy call, not an engineering one. One matching engine with KYC at the access layer is already how Globex works; the FCM is the gate.That test already ran.
5) Coinbase and CME list the centralized version. @tradexyz did $650B on Hyperliquid in a year. Matching costs tens of milliseconds against an hourly funding interval; only the latency arb feels it. The pit asked Globex the same question in 1992.
The part that matters for DRW: on Hyperliquid you enter at the same price we did, a wallet, USDC and the public API. No Aurora cage, no cross connect, no FCM tier. Same 8 bps price list for both of us.
If DRW can only compete with us on scale, Globex is still open. Otherwise see you on the order book, Don.
Further to my post about @NYSE working to bring @HyperliquidX onshore, major credit to @ChairmanSelig and the Trump administration for making all of this experimentation possible.
There’s only one way of finding out if something is useful to the marketplace and I’m excited for us to find out. I do have some questions:
1. What is the benefit of trading perps on-chain on a regulated exchange? Isn’t the main benefit of trading on-chain to operate in a trustless (aka non-kyc’d) environment in order to minimize friction, and/or to be able to enter into atomic transactions in order to receive what you are buying in realtime? Since a perp is not an asset, that obviously isn’t helpful.
2. @standuquesne - are you aware that if you trade on Hyperliquid, the world will be able to track your positions and trades in real time? Do you see that as a benefit?
3. Hyperliquid has priority fees - a mechanism that enables market participants to pay to see information first, or even prioritize orders in front of the queue. Is this consistent with CFTC core principles?
4. Will it be possible to combine the liquidity of the offshore order-book with the onshore order-book?
5. If not, wouldn’t it be better to list perps in a traditional (centralized) order-book on a regulated exchange and not have the inefficiencies that on-chain matching introduces?
EDA intern retweeted
Binance just printed $761M in liquidations in 24h, nearly half the entire market ($1.54B), on a venue where users couldn’t even deposit collateral safely to defend themselves.
The only algorithm at @binance that never gets compromised: the one that liquidates its own users while the hot wallets are still on fire.
@elonmusk since you’re laughing at the CEX circus: put @tradexyz on X.
Intel dumped 24% overnight. Over $4bn of stocks, oil and indices traded while the NYSE was shut. ICE and the NYSE signed up yesterday.
The everything app needs the one market that never closes. 🚀
EDA intern retweeted
Few corrections here:
Aave is not holding frozen collateral
They hold aUSDT
A separate contract from USDT
Tether cannot freeze aUSDT
Also if ETH moves just 4% or so the position will be liq’ed
This is also nothing like the rsETH incident in the spring because the position opened is fully overcollateralized.
The key here is the hackers used permissionless DeFi to dump censorable centralized stablecoins for uncensorable money (ETH)
EDA intern retweeted
More from the D2 desk, 00:30 UTC.
1. Reconciled by @DicksonWuML: 6.28bn out across nine chains including XRP Ledger, 2.80bn frozen, 3.27bn still loose, mostly BTC and ETH.
2. First move was XRPL at 20:04 UTC. The first transfer bounced because the attacker's account did not exist yet. Eight seconds later it did.
3. Attacker funding from Tornado began 07:39 UTC on 28 Oct, 99 minutes after Binance's ETH wallet maintenance window opened.
4. Binance 14 is still delegated. Another 48M swept out at 22:39 UTC. Binance now says it will cover all losses; deposits are suspended too.
5. DefiLlama: Binance 24h net outflow 6.38bn, OKX in 94M, Bybit out 32M. No CEX is catching the flow because users cannot leave.
6. Binance perp open interest 31.6bn sits inside a venue with withdrawals shut.
7. Most mid-tier CEX liquidity is market makers quoting against Binance's book. Tonight that book is closed and their inventory is trapped.
8. Core advice: withdraw from any CEX that cannot show you its books. Self-custody or on-chain until Binance reopens.
9. Attacker sold LINK, AAVE, ONDO and WBTC between 22:34 and 23:19 UTC. 386K ETH and 18,270 BTC unmoved; the first THORChain swap starts the laundering clock.
10. Bloomberg Top News at 11:12 Sydney: 26 stories, none on the largest theft in crypto's history. "Bitcoin is finally a grown-up asset" ran at 08:00.
Quick ones from our side.
1) D2 has no exposure to @Binance. We have never traded there.
2) We pulled our USDC from Aave live-tracking the attacker as he parked 60M USDT in the pool and borrowed 19,762 ETH against it.
3) We are long gamma and trading it.
Forensic tl;dr.
Eight chains, one signing layer. The attacker held the hot-wallet keys. Binance 14 fell to a 7702 delegation signed over 50 consecutive nonces, which is what you do when the key is yours and the wallet is still processing withdrawals. BTC and Tron went on plain signatures in the same 20 minutes. Gross 5.0 to 5.8bn, 2.4bn frozen, about 3bn clean.
Where it sits: 386K ETH across three wallets, 17,270 BTC untouched in 17 wallets, 685M TRX, 970K SOL. The ETH is the laundering leg. Bybit’s went to BTC through THORChain in ten days.
As we write, Binance 14 is still delegated to the attacker’s contract and Binance’s own refills were swept again at 21:04 and 21:44 UTC. Three hours in, the automation that feeds the thief is still running.
This is the largest theft in the history of the asset class and it ran through one company’s signing layer while that company’s scripts kept topping up the drain.
For eight years the industry’s single point of failure has had a logo. Tonight the alternative had its books on-chain, its withdrawals open, and 2.4bn of HYPE perp volume in 24 hours. We have traded there every day since before the TGE. Move.
EDA intern retweeted
Quick ones from our side.
1) D2 has no exposure to @Binance. We have never traded there.
2) We pulled our USDC from Aave live-tracking the attacker as he parked 60M USDT in the pool and borrowed 19,762 ETH against it.
3) We are long gamma and trading it.
Forensic tl;dr.
Eight chains, one signing layer. The attacker held the hot-wallet keys. Binance 14 fell to a 7702 delegation signed over 50 consecutive nonces, which is what you do when the key is yours and the wallet is still processing withdrawals. BTC and Tron went on plain signatures in the same 20 minutes. Gross 5.0 to 5.8bn, 2.4bn frozen, about 3bn clean.
Where it sits: 386K ETH across three wallets, 17,270 BTC untouched in 17 wallets, 685M TRX, 970K SOL. The ETH is the laundering leg. Bybit’s went to BTC through THORChain in ten days.
As we write, Binance 14 is still delegated to the attacker’s contract and Binance’s own refills were swept again at 21:04 and 21:44 UTC. Three hours in, the automation that feeds the thief is still running.
This is the largest theft in the history of the asset class and it ran through one company’s signing layer while that company’s scripts kept topping up the drain.
For eight years the industry’s single point of failure has had a logo. Tonight the alternative had its books on-chain, its withdrawals open, and 2.4bn of HYPE perp volume in 24 hours. We have traded there every day since before the TGE. Move.
quick ones
1) Binance has enough to withstand 3-4x of current hit and still be largely intact. Very likely they will shrug this off and user funds are very likely safu (but like obviously don’t deposit until they sort out what went wrong)
2) Wintermute obv has exposure to binance, but less than 20% of net equity and I don’t see any disruption to our operations on any time horizon in whatever scenario