First, the conclusion: The two Hyperliquid addresses only differed by about $360,000 in realized gains, yet their final situations were completely different. The difference comes from the friction costs caused by turnover rate—not from whether they were right or wrong about trades.
Address A: 0x1ee7a73cb5b0b6b056d8138085b2009e6a6bedf5. In 56 days, there were 782 closed positions, 507 of which were profitable. Win rate: 64.83%. Realized profit: $2.4784 million. The numbers look good, but the total trading volume stacked up to $2.74 billion; fees paid were $780,900—equal to giving 31.5% of the profits back to the market. The maximum drawdown was $2.1844 million, nearly 90% of the profit. The account had previously nearly returned to square one.
Address B 0xda744273f80b22412417f7cfe0503f3d721f987d，66 days only did 391 trades—won 390 trades, net profit 2.1164 million. Total trading volume 41.25 million, which is one-sixtieth of A. Trading fees were $8,870, accounting for 0.42% of profit; maximum drawdown was $12.6k, accounting for 0.6%. Both parties had zero liquidation settlement, yet their friction costs differed by 88x.
Right now both sides are still holding positions. A is doing two-sided shorting: ETH short 2018.67 coins, opened at 1885.96, 25x full margin; ZEC short 6001.15 coins, opened at 489.33, 5x full margin. Total position size 6.9367 million, account equity 1.0084 million, floating loss 193.1k. In this past hour, the whole network liquidated $19.62 million—shorts were 94.4%, perfectly aligned with his direction. ETH shorts were liquidated for 2.7857 million, and ZEC shorts for 147.5k. Fortunately, his liquidation prices are 4231 and 1271 respectively, still far from the current price (ETH 1910.86 / ZEC 512.91). Uncomfortable, but not in danger.
B’s positions are exactly the opposite: BTC long 70 coins, opened at 64968.1, current price 64129.9, floating loss 59.3k; also another CASHCAT short position floating profit 52.9k. Account equity 5.4224 million, holding up a 4.63 million position—using leverage very sparingly.
Look at it across the broader market and it’s clearer. Over this past hour, BTC liquidated 13.77 million, accounting for 70.2% of the whole network. Of that, shorts were 13.7035 million. Meanwhile, BTC position size rose 0.82% to 41.459 billion, and the price rose 1.618% to 64129.9—upward continuation backed by buyers, not just pure liquidation clearing. ETH position size rose 3.32% to 21.298 billion, and ZEC rose 6.77% to 924 million. Funding rates are still quite mild: BTC annualized 1.42%, ETH 3.79%, ZEC 6.73%. Longs are nowhere near crowded.
On the exchange side, Hyperliquid liquidated 3.4802 million in one hour; all 335 trades were shorts, with zero longs. Aster is even more extreme: 27 trades liquidated 2.175 million—average $80k per trade, and the ones getting cut were all big-position holders.
A’s approach can’t really be said to be wrong—his 64.83% win rate is real skill. The problem is that for every $100 he makes, he pays a $31.5 toll fee, and he still has to withstand drawdowns close to essentially all the profit. B uses one-sixtieth the turnover to get about 85% of the returns; the cost is that opportunities to sell are much fewer.
Which would you rather do: high-frequency grinding for chances, or low-frequency waiting for big swings?
$ETH $ZEC $BTC #Hyperliquid #聪明钱 #交易成本 #liquidation data
Live check: https://www.coinboss.com/zh/hyperliquid-whale/0x1ee7a73cb5b0b6b056d8138085b2009e6a6bedf5