RESEARCH · DATA TO 6 OCTOBER 2026
What the data says about Guard’s rules
Four studies on real Hyperliquid data, each pre-registered before its numbers were seen, each with its method, limits and the trials it took. Aggregates only: no account is named or shown.
- 6 October 2026
Guard defaults study
5,940 pre-registered rule sets tried on 262 accounts (train 136, validation 63, held-out test 63); none beat the defaults out of sample, so they stay. On the held-out test the defaults cut the median max drawdown by 42 points and let 10% of entries through at full size.
Method - 6 October 2026
How traders compare with Guard’s defaults
The median long-term winner’s entries fit Guard’s limits 83% of the time (15 accounts); the median liquidated account’s, 0% (57).
Method - 4 Sep – 3 October 2026
Liquidation autopsy
91% of 95,095 liquidated positions broke Guard’s leverage or liquidation-buffer default at that morning’s snapshot, against 38% of positions not liquidated; about 16 times as likely to be liquidated that day.
Method - 6 October 2026
Bots and humans in the studies (exploratory)
Of the 323 accounts the studies measured, 22 look like bots, 151 like people using a web interface, 150 are unclear. For likely bots nothing robust can be said yet; for likely humans the protection results hold.
Method
RESEARCH · DATA TO 6 OCTOBER 2026
We tested 5,940 alternative rule sets on the real trades of 262 Hyperliquid accounts. None beat our defaults on accounts they weren’t tuned on.
A replay of each account’s last 180 days to 6 October 2026 through Guard’s engine. “Beat” means our pre-registered score, with its constraints, on accounts the rule set was not chosen on; the best challenger scored +0.023 (95% interval −0.12 to +0.23). So we kept them.
Behind the defaults, on accounts held out
- −42 ptsmax drawdown, median accountcut by 42 points (95% interval 22–63)63 accounts held out
- −60% → −18%worst day, median accountas traded, then behind the defaults; no interval computed for this difference63 accounts held out
- 60%return per unit of drawdown improvedshare of accounts (95% interval 49–71%)63 accounts held out
- 68%liquidation events with the guarded account flatin 136 of 201 liquidation events, the guarded account held no position in that coin (95% interval 26–90%). Not “prevented”: it is mostly the drawdown halt, and part of the sample was picked for having been liquidated.63 accounts held out
Held-out test: 63 accounts looked at once, after the rules were fixed. Medians; 95% bootstrap intervals. A mixed sample: ordinary active traders, long-term winners and recently liquidated accounts.
Long-term winners mostly sized their trades within Guard’s limits; liquidated accounts mostly did not.
- 83%long-term winnersmedian share of entries within Guard’s limits (95% interval 19–100%)15 accounts
- 0%liquidated accountsthe same share (95% interval 0–4%)57 accounts
“Within” counts Guard’s own 2% stop: most winners used no resting stop. Winners are survivors of today’s leaderboard, with much larger accounts. Last 180 days to 6 October 2026; descriptive, not a promise.
91% of liquidated positions broke Guard’s leverage or liquidation-buffer default that morning, against 38% of the others.
- 91%liquidated positions over the limitsleverage above 5× or liquidation within 10% of entry (95% interval 90–91%)95,095 positions
- 38%positions not liquidated that daythe same rules, the base rate (95% interval 37–38%)7,942,674 position-days
Over the 30 days 4 Sep – 3 October 2026, all of Hyperliquid. Read from that morning’s snapshot of open positions, not at entry; covers the 62% of liquidations whose position was open at the snapshot. An association, not a claim that Guard prevents liquidations.
Guard is a trade-off.
It costs the best traders part of their gains: in the replay the median long-term winner’s return fell from 43% to 8%, mostly through the drawdown halt (with the halt opened alone, 13%). 9 winners, training and validation accounts.
Only about 10% of entries go through at full size (95% interval 3–18%). Of all judged entries, 43% were held by a halt (39% by the drawdown halt, once an account was already 25% down), 21% refused and 13% resized.
An “active” preset lets more trades through (paper and testnet only for now)
What these numbers can and cannot carry
- What-if replays: each account’s own trades over the 180 days to 6 October 2026, judged by Guard’s engine; later decisions are kept as traded.
- The replay sees Guard’s attached stops only at the account’s own fills. One-second prices show that 16% of the default stops the replay never fired were touched in between: real Guard would have closed those positions at a loss and missed any recovery. This flatters Guard somewhat.
- Main-dex perps only: HIP-3, spot and outcome markets are left out, as Guard does not cover them yet.
- The samples are mostly manual traders: by a public-data heuristic (exploratory), 22 of the 323 accounts measured (7%) look like bots. A dedicated bot study is running.
- The liquidation autopsy covers 4 Sep – 3 October 2026, read at a daily snapshot.
- Past behaviour, not a forecast, and no promise of returns.
The “active” preset (paper and testnet only for now)
For traders who find the defaults too restrictive: more of your trades go through unchanged (about twice as many in our replay), at the cost of somewhat deeper drawdowns. Liquidation protection stays about the same.
- On the held-out test: 24% of entries at full size (95% interval 11–41%) against 10% for the defaults; liquidation events with the guarded account flat 138 against 136 of 201; the worst decile’s drawdown 49% against 45%.
- Measured with a 1.5% attached stop, a result the study could not confirm (the replay misses more stop-outs at 1.5%); offered here with the defaults’ 2% stop.
- Not the default: it breaks the study’s pre-registered worst-case constraint. Its limits are looser than Guard’s mainnet ceiling, so it is for paper and testnet until we decide otherwise.
| Rule | Defaults | Active |
|---|---|---|
| Loss at the stop | 2% | 3% |
| Position size | 200% | 500% |
| Open risk | 6% | 15% |
| Daily loss stop | 6% | 4% |
| Drawdown halt | 25% | 35% |
| Leverage, attached stop, liquidation buffer | as the defaults | as the defaults |