Data: 75% of Traders on Hyperliquid Are Losing Money. What Are the Profitable Ones Using?

marsbitPublicado em 2026-05-20Última atualização em 2026-05-20

Resumo

On Hyperliquid, approximately 75% of addresses are losing money, indicating that manual traders are increasingly competing against automated systems. Profitable traders primarily employ one of three approaches: 1) Running systematic, high-frequency strategies (e.g., one address executed 261k trades with a 64.75% win rate), 2) Placing high-conviction, asymmetric bets with large positions (e.g., 50 trades yielding $4.48M at a 28% win rate), or 3) Using algorithms for execution while making manual macro judgments. The article argues that traditional methods like chart patterns or reacting to social media news are often already priced in by bots, making such traders the "exit liquidity" for systematic players. Success now depends on unique narrative timing, structural insights, or conviction during market capitulation.

Author: Stacy Muur

Compiled by: Deep Tide TechFlow

Deep Tide Guide: Three-quarters of addresses on Hyperliquid are losing money. It's not bad luck; the rules of the game have changed. While you're still looking at candlestick patterns for formations, arbitrage bots have already made their profit. Data shows that truly profitable traders either use algorithmic systematic execution or place large bets on asymmetric opportunities with high conviction. Manual retail traders watching screens are becoming the exit liquidity for others.

About 75% of addresses on Hyperliquid are in a loss-making position.

The reality is that people trading manually on Hyperliquid are competing against systems that never rest. The trading opportunity you just discovered has likely already been priced in by the system.

When you see a certain pattern, chances are it has already been arbitraged.

Extreme funding rates are balanced in an instant.

Technical patterns have already appeared across more than 50 order books.

News headlines are priced in as soon as they appear.

What the most profitable traders are doing:

→1. Running systematic strategies (the second most profitable address executed 261,000 trades this month with a 64.75% win rate)

→ 2. Holding high-conviction positions, betting on asymmetric returns (a wallet made $4.48 million with just 50 trades and a 28% win rate)

→ 3. Using algorithms as execution tools while making macro judgments manually

If you have timing in narratives, structural insight, or conviction when everyone else capitulates, you can still make profitable trades.

But if your trades are based on chart patterns or news you saw on X, you are likely just exit liquidity.

Perguntas relacionadas

QAccording to the article, what percentage of addresses on Hyperliquid are losing money, and what is presented as the primary reason?

AApproximately 75% of addresses on Hyperliquid are losing money. The primary reason is that manual traders are competing against automated, systemized strategies that execute trades faster and more efficiently, often pricing in opportunities before a human trader can act.

QWhat are the two main strategies used by the most profitable traders on Hyperliquid, as described in the article?

AThe two main strategies are: 1. Running systematic, automated strategies (one example executed 261,000 trades with a 64.75% win rate). 2. Holding high-conviction positions to bet on asymmetric opportunities (one wallet made $4.48M with only 50 trades, despite a 28% win rate).

QThe article suggests that several common trading signals are often ineffective. Name at least three of these signals.

AThree common but often ineffective signals mentioned are: 1. Technical chart patterns (which appear across many order books). 2. Extreme funding rates (which get arbitraged instantly). 3. News headlines (which are priced in immediately upon release).

QWhat role does the article suggest algorithms can play for a trader who still wants to make manual, high-level decisions?

AThe article suggests using algorithms as an execution tool. A trader can make macro or high-level directional judgments manually, and then use an algorithm to handle the rapid, systematic execution of trades based on that judgment.

QAccording to the article's conclusion, what kind of manual trader is most likely to succeed, and what kind is most likely to fail?

AA manual trader who succeeds is likely one acting on deep narrative timing, unique structural insights, or having strong conviction when others are capitulating. A manual trader who fails is likely one whose decisions are based on commonly seen chart patterns or news headlines found on social media (like X), as they become 'exit liquidity' for others.

Leituras Relacionadas

Breaking: Google Earth Urgently Pulls Back Nano Banana 2 Image Generation Feature!

Google Earth's newly launched "Create image" feature, powered by the Nano Banana 2 AI image generation model, was abruptly withdrawn shortly after its release due to being "played" by users. The feature allowed users to generate and overlay AI-created visuals directly onto real-world satellite and 3D maps in Google Earth. The tool enabled creative applications like historical recreations (e.g., visualizing ancient Pompeii), generating informational graphics for landmarks, and envisioning architectural projects or futuristic cityscapes on real terrain. It operated under "geospatial grounding," meaning the AI respected the underlying geography, topography, and perspective of the chosen map view. The model also integrated with Gemini to retrieve relevant factual information. However, upon release, users quickly tested its limits. A prominent example involved reimagining Philadelphia's historic Independence Hall as a post-apocalyptic ruin overrun by "happy" zombies, evil clowns, and giant alien mechs. This highlighted both the feature's playful potential and its risks regarding the generation of inappropriate or misleading content on realistic maps, leading to its swift temporary removal. Google stated it would re-release the feature after implementing "enhanced guardrails." Analysts note this move strategically leverages Google's vast proprietary geospatial data, positioning its AI not just for artistic generation but for spatially accurate world visualization—a unique advantage in the competitive AI image generation landscape.

marsbitHá 13m

Breaking: Google Earth Urgently Pulls Back Nano Banana 2 Image Generation Feature!

marsbitHá 13m

Altman Admits: Overestimated AI Snatching Jobs! Huang Renxun: The Unemployment Narrative Is Completely Backwards

Sam Altman has revised his earlier predictions about AI rapidly replacing jobs, admitting he overestimated the speed at which AI would eliminate entry-level white-collar roles. Speaking on the "Invest Like the Best" podcast, he stated that people do not truly want an AI CEO, as accountability and human connection remain critical. He found that individuals prefer interacting with people who can be held responsible for decisions. Similarly, NVIDIA's Jensen Huang argued that the narrative of AI destroying jobs is misguided. He distinguishes between tasks and jobs, noting that while AI can automate specific tasks, entire jobs—encompassing communication, judgment, coordination, and accountability—are not eliminated. He cited examples like radiologists and software engineers, where demand for these roles has increased as AI handles repetitive tasks, allowing for business expansion and the creation of more positions. Data from a University of Maryland and LinkUp study supports this, showing that U.S. job postings for new graduates have actually risen, countering the fear of vanishing entry-level roles. However, a significant shift is occurring: the traditional entry-level tasks that help newcomers gain experience are being automated, making initial career access more challenging. The key insight is that as AI takes over standardized tasks, the enduring value of human work shifts toward areas of responsibility, trust-building, and final decision-making—aspects that AI cannot replicate. The real "moat" for professionals lies in these irreplaceable human elements.

marsbitHá 18m

Altman Admits: Overestimated AI Snatching Jobs! Huang Renxun: The Unemployment Narrative Is Completely Backwards

marsbitHá 18m

A Major Change at the Fed? Report: Wash Considers Reducing Frequency of Policy Meetings, Breaking 40-Year Precedent

The Federal Reserve Chairman is considering reducing the number of regular Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meetings held each year, a potential major shift from the current practice of eight meetings annually that has been in place since 1981. According to a report, the proposal was discussed internally, with possible details finalized ahead of the September meeting. This change would mean fewer formal opportunities to vote on interest rates and could diminish the Fed's ability to respond to economic data while reducing market access to policy signals, marking a reversal of the central bank's long-term trend towards greater transparency. While the 1935 Banking Act sets a legal minimum of four meetings per year, historical meeting frequency has varied. The move aligns with the Chairman's broader agenda of institutional reform since taking office, which includes revising communication practices and data usage. An internal memo from 1988 had previously concluded that the eight-meeting schedule remained appropriate. If implemented, this reduction in meetings would significantly reshape the Fed's operational rhythm and its interaction with financial markets.

marsbitHá 34m

A Major Change at the Fed? Report: Wash Considers Reducing Frequency of Policy Meetings, Breaking 40-Year Precedent

marsbitHá 34m

Weekly Editor's Picks (0725-0731)

Weekly Editor's Picks (0725-0731) provides a curated selection of deep analysis, filtering out market noise. Key themes from this week include: **Macro & Policy:** The Federal Reserve's upcoming meeting is marked by high uncertainty, balancing cooling inflation data against persistent price pressures. Meanwhile, the U.S. crypto regulatory Clarity Act faces critical political hurdles, with its 2026 passage probability seen as low. **Investing & Crypto:** Analysis suggests long-term crypto success depends on conviction through volatile cycles, focusing on assets like Bitcoin and core smart contract platforms. A trend noted is the increasing similarity between global equity markets (especially tech) and crypto, driven by narrative and leverage. Several major crypto protocols show strong revenue growth, but this isn't always translating to token price appreciation due to sell pressure and structural factors. **AI & Semiconductors:** Nvidia's rising credit default swap rates signal market concern over AI infrastructure financing risks. The storage sector experienced volatility as markets began pricing in potential 2027 oversupply. Despite a record profitable quarter, SK Hynix's results were deemed "below expectations," reflecting heightened investor demands for future growth visibility. **Markets & DeFi:** TradeXYZ demonstrated remarkable accuracy in pre-market pricing for a major A股 listing. The token ONDO saw gains, linked to its growing role in the on-chain tokenized stock ecosystem. **Ethereum:** Post-Pectra upgrade, a major structural shift is underway as Lido begins migrating millions of ETH to new validator architectures designed for capital efficiency. **Also Highlighted:** Butian's bullish stock market move; OpenAI's Altman promising major advances; Samsung and SK Hynix securing large AI chip deals; Apple reaching a $5T market cap; and ongoing discussions around exchange security following Poolin's bankruptcy case.

marsbitHá 53m

Low Investment Isn't Apple's Immunity Pass

While Meta and Google face investor scrutiny over ballooning AI capital expenditures, Apple's minimal AI investment has paradoxically become a strength. Its market cap recently reclaimed the global top spot, surpassing $5 trillion. The irony is deep: Apple's own AI efforts have lagged, with "Apple Intelligence" delayed and core talent lost, forcing reliance on partners like Google Gemini and Alibaba's Qianwen. Its Q3 FY2026 (Q2 CY) earnings initially seemed stellar. Revenue hit $109.4B (up 16% YoY), with iPhone and Mac sales, growing 22% and 29% respectively, driving most of the growth. However, the stock fell over 8% post-earnings. The primary concern was a weaker Q4 revenue growth forecast of 9-11%, below expectations, due to looming supply chain constraints. Apple is feeling the indirect cost of the AI boom. Soaring memory and chip prices, fueled by massive data center investments from Microsoft, Amazon, and others, are forcing Apple to raise Mac and iPad prices significantly. The upcoming iPhone launch is also expected to see substantial price hikes. Despite avoiding heavy AI infrastructure spending—its capital expenditures are actually down 28%—Apple cannot escape the industry-wide supply and cost pressures. While Apple's operating cash flow remains robust, its substantial R&D spending (up 32% YoY) has yet to yield major AI breakthroughs. As Tim Cook prepares to step down as CEO, Apple faces a challenging transition: balancing its premium hardware success against the strategic and cost pressures of the AI era it has so far cautiously navigated.

marsbitHá 1h

Low Investment Isn't Apple's Immunity Pass