Hyperliquid markets research
<external_links>
Potentially Relevant Websearch Results
You should respond as if these information are known to you. Refrain from saying "I am unable to browse the internet" or "I don't have access to the internet" or "I'm unable to provide real-time news updates". This is your internet search results. Please always cite any links you referenced from the above search results in your response in markdown format.
Website URL: https://hyperliquid.gitbook.io/hyperliquid-docs/builder-tools Website Title: Read Me - Builder Tools Website Content:
Read Me - Builder Tools
This section lists tools that could be useful for building on Hyperliquid.
If you have developed any tools that are helpful for builders, please share by opening a ticket in Discord.
Disclaimer: Listing of tools on this site is not an endorsement of the project. Tooling or resources listed may be developed by independent teams. It is important to DYOR before using any of them. This list is not exhaustive.
Agent Instructions: Querying This Documentation
If you need additional information that is not directly available in this page, you can query the documentation dynamically by asking a question.
Perform an HTTP GET request on the current page URL with the ask query parameter:
GET https://hyperliquid.gitbook.io/hyperliquid-docs/builder-tools/read-me-builder-tools.md?ask=<question>
The question should be specific, self-contained, and written in natural language. The response will contain a direct answer to the question and relevant excerpts and sources from the documentation.
Use this mechanism when the answer is not explicitly present in the current page, you need clarification or additional context, or you want to retrieve related documentation sections.
</external_links>
Hyperliquid Docs Search… Ctrl k Hyperliquid Docs Builder Tools Support
Read Me - Builder Tools HyperEVM Tools HyperCore Tools
Powered by GitBook On this page Analytics - perps and order book data Analytics - USDC Arbitrum bridge APIs Explorers Indexing Multisig, MPC, and qualified custodians
Copy
HyperCore Tools Analytics - perps and order book data ASXN (most comprehensive): https://hyperscreener.asxn.xyz/home
Artemis: https://app.artemis.xyz/project/hyperliquid
Blockliquidity: https://blockliquidity.xyz/
Coinalyze: https://coinalyze.net/markets/?exchange=H
DefiLlama (note that TVL is tracked differently on order books and AMMs): https://defillama.com/perps/chains/hyperliquid
Flowscan: https://www.flowscan.xyz/
HyperDash: https://legacy.hyperdash.com/
HyperTracker: https://app.coinmarketman.com/hypertracker
Laevitas: https://app.laevitas.ch/exchanges/perpswaps/HYPERLIQUID/screener
Velo: https://velo.xyz/futures/
Analytics - USDC Arbitrum bridge Dune dashboards by community members: Mogie, KamBenbrik, Hashed, and X3Research
Parsec: https://parsec.fi/arb/address/[0x2df1…3df7](https://basescan.org/address/0x2df1c51e09aecf9cacb7bc98cb1742757f163df7 "0x2df1…3df7")
APIs API Docs: https://hyperliquid.gitbook.io/hyperliquid-docs/for-developers/api
SDKs:
Python SDK: https://github.com/hyperliquid-dex/hyperliquid-python-sdk
Rust SDK by community member, Infinite Field: https://github.com/infinitefield/hypersdk
Typescript SDKs by community members: https://github.com/nktkas/hyperliquid, https://github.com/nomeida/hyperliquid
CCXT integrations in multiple languages that conform with the standard CCXT API: https://docs.ccxt.com/#/exchanges/hyperliquid
Dwellir (gRPC): https://www.dwellir.com/docs/hyperliquid/grpc/
Dwellir (websocket): https://www.dwellir.com/docs/hyperliquid/websocket-api
Hydromancer (non-rate-limited APIs and indexing): https://docs.hydromancer.xyz/
Explorers Hyperliquid.xyz: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/explorer
Flowscan: flowscan.xyz
HypurrScan: https://hypurrscan.io
Indexing Allium: https://docs.allium.so/historical-chains/supported-blockchains/hyperliquid
Hydromancer historical data: https://docs.hydromancer.xyz/reservoir
HypeDexer by Enigma: https://www.hypedexer.com/
SonarX: https://docs.sonarx.com/datasets/HYPERLIQUID/Hyperliquid
Multisig, MPC, and qualified custodians Anchorage Digital (custodian): https://www.anchorage.com/insights/anchorage-digital-offers-support-hype-custody-staking-full-support-across-hypeevm-hypercore
FalconX (custodian): https://www.falconx.io/
HyperSig (multisig): https://www.hypersig.xyz/
Komainu (custodian): https://komainu.com/komainu-announces-institutional-grade-custody-and-staking-support-for-hyperliquid-hype/
Tholos (MPC): https://www.tholos.app/ Hyperliquid Docs Search… Ctrl k Hyperliquid Docs Builder Tools Support
Read Me - Builder Tools HyperEVM Tools HyperCore Tools
Powered by GitBook On this page Account abstraction Analytics Archival RPC Big blocks, small blocks Cross-chain messaging DEX aggregator Explorers Faucet (testnet HYPE for gas) Gas (HYPE) Indexing / subgraphs Multisig, MPC, and qualified custodians Oracles RPC SAFE multi-sig instances Smart contract tooling
Copy
HyperEVM Tools Account abstraction Alchemy: https://www.alchemy.com/hyperevm
Biconomy: https://docs.biconomy.io/
ZeroDev: https://docs.zerodev.app/
Analytics Dune: https://dune.com/blockchains/hyperevm
Archival RPC Alchemy: https://www.alchemy.com/hyperevm
Altitude: https://rpc.reachaltitude.xyz/
Chainstack: https://chainstack.com/build-better-with-hyperliquid/
Dwellir: https://www.dwellir.com/networks/hyperliquid
HypeRPC: https://hyperpc.app/
Nanoreth (how to build an archive node): https://github.com/hl-archive-node/nanoreth/blob/51c43d6dbdf71e277da67bf618a71fe304aae372/README.md
OnFinality: https://onfinality.io/en/networks/hyperliquid
Quicknode: https://www.quicknode.com/
Big blocks, small blocks Dual block architecture: https://hyperliquid.gitbook.io/hyperliquid-docs/for-developers/hyperevm/dual-block-architecture
Python SDK example: https://github.com/hyperliquid-dex/hyperliquid-python-sdk/blob/master/examples/basic_evm_use_big_blocks.py
Interface from community member, ikalgo: https://hyperevmblocktoggle.xyz/
Cross-chain messaging DeBridge: https://docs.debridge.com/dmp-details/dmp/deployed-contracts
LayerZero: https://docs.layerzero.network/v2/deployments/deployed-contracts?chains=hyperliquid
Reactive: https://dev.reactive.network/origins-and-destinations
DEX aggregator GlueX: https://gluex.xyz/chain/hyperevm
Hyperbloom: https://www.hyperbloom.xyz/
Hyperflow: https://hyperflow.fun/bridge
LiquidSwap: https://liqd.ag/
LlamaSwap: https://swap.defillama.com/?chain=hyperevm
Matcha Meta: https://meta.matcha.xyz/
Explorers Blockscout: https://www.hyperscan.com/
Etherscan: https://hyperevmscan.io/
Owlscan: https://owlscan.org/
Faucet (testnet HYPE for gas) Chainstack (1 HYPE every 24 hours): https://faucet.chainstack.com/hyperliquid-testnet-faucet
Quicknode: https://faucet.quicknode.com/hyperliquid
Gas (HYPE) Cortex: https://cortexprotocol.com/agent?q=buy%20hype
DeBridge: https://app.debridge.finance/
Gas.zip: https://www.gas.zip/
Hyperliquid.xyz (buy HYPE on HyperCore and then transfer it to the HyperEVM): https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/trade/HYPE/USDC
Indexing / subgraphs Allium: https://docs.allium.so/historical-chains/supported-blockchains/hyperliquid
Covalent: https://goldrush.dev/docs/chains/hyperevm
Envio: https://docs.envio.dev/docs/HyperIndex/hyperliquid
Goldsky: https://docs.goldsky.com/chains/hyperevm
HyperSignals: https://biconomy.gitbook.io/hypersignals/
Indexing Co: https://www.indexing.co/
Ormilabs: https://ormilabs.com/chain-list/hyperevm
SonarX: https://docs.sonarx.com/datasets/HYPERLIQUID/Hyperliquid
SQD: https://docs.sqd.ai/hyperliquid-support/
SubQuery: https://subquery.network/indexer/hyperliquid-evm
Multisig, MPC, and qualified custodians Bitgo (custodian): https://www.bitgo.com/resources/blog/bitgo-launches-hyperevm-support/
Fireblocks (MPC/custodian): https://www.fireblocks.com/integrations/protocols/
Fordefi (MPC): https://fordefi.com/
Oracles Blocksense: https://coda.io/@georgi-zlatarev/blocksense-hyperevm-price-feeds
Chainlink: https://data.chain.link/feeds
DIA: https://www.diadata.org/docs/guides/chain-specific-guide/hyperevm
Pyth: https://docs.pyth.network/price-feeds/contract-addresses/evm
Redstone: https://app.redstone.finance/app/feeds/?
Seda: https://docs.seda.xyz/home/for-developers/deployments
Stork: https://docs.stork.network/resources/contract-addresses/evm#hyperevm
RPC Mainnet: https://rpc.hyperliquid.xyz/evm
Testnet: https://rpc.hyperliquid-testnet.xyz/evm
Chainlink (Testnet): https://docs.chain.link/ccip/tools-resources/network-specific/hyperevm-testnet-rpc
dRPC: https://drpc.org/chainlist/hyperliquid-mainnet-rpc
HypurrScan: http://rpc.hypurrscan.io
Quicknode: https://www.quicknode.com/chains/hyperliquid
Stakely: https://hyperliquid-json-rpc.stakely.io
SAFE multi-sig instances Safe: https://safe.global/
Den: https://safe.onchainden.com/welcome
Palmera: https://hyperliquid.palmeradao.xyz/welcome
Smart contract tooling Gelato: https://app.gelato.network/functions
Proof of Play RNG: https://docs.proofofplay.com/services/vrng/about
Analysis
A good way to think about Hyperliquid is: there are two trading worlds on one ecosystem.
Market Map (What You Can Trade)
1) HyperCore (main trading venue)
This is where most people trade orderbook perps (and some spot-style activity depending on listing).
Use this for directional/speculative trading with leverage.
- Perpetual futures on many majors/alts (long/short, funding, open interest dynamics)
- Orderbook-native flow (maker/taker, depth, liquidation cascades matter a lot)
- Best discovery/analytics sources: Builder Tools - HyperCore analytics list, ASXN Hyperscreener, Coinalyze, DefiLlama Hyperliquid perps view
2) HyperEVM (onchain ecosystem)
This is the EVM side where you trade/swaps/use dApps like a normal chain.
- Spot token swaps via DEX aggregators
- Bridge + gas management (you need HYPE for gas on HyperEVM)
- Onchain DeFi opportunities (DEX, vaults, contracts, strategies)
Useful references: HyperEVM tools list, mainnet RPC, Blockscout explorer, LlamaSwap for HyperEVM
Practical “What Exists to Trade” Checklist
For HyperCore (perps):
- Which symbols are currently listed
- 24h volume + OI + funding regime
- Spread/depth at your target size
- Liquidation clusters / volatility regime
For HyperEVM (spot/onchain):
- Which tokens have real liquidity
- DEX route quality + slippage at your size
- Holder concentration / token risk
- Bridge and gas costs before entering
A Repeatable Research Workflow (High-signal)
- Universe scan (daily)
- Flow confirmation
- Cross-check with Flowscan and Hyperliquid Explorer
- Execution reality
- Verify depth/spread and expected slippage for your exact size
- Onchain context (if HyperEVM token)
- Confirm contracts/routes via HyperEVM explorers and aggregator quotes
- Risk gate
- Only take setups where invalidation, max loss, and liquidity exit are all clear before entry
If You Want “Entire Market Coverage” Programmatically
Use the official API/SDK layer as your source of truth:
This lets you build your own market monitor (symbols, volume, funding, OI, spread, liquidity tiers) so decisions are objective instead of dashboard-only.
Decision Framework (Simple but strong)
Prioritize markets where all 4 are true:
- Liquidity: tight spread + enough depth at your size
- Structure: trend/range regime is clear
- Positioning: funding/OI isn’t signaling crowded pain trade against you
- Execution edge: you can define entry, stop, and exit without guessing
If you want, I can next give you a concrete “Top 10 markets to monitor daily” template (with exact metrics/thresholds) for HyperCore + HyperEVM so you have a plug-and-play watchlist process.
Engagement brief
Analysis
Understood — I’ll scope this to HyperCore-only and quickly locate where the AlfaClub daily brief is generated so I can propose a concrete integration plan.
Tools invoked: rg, rg
Analysis
I found the AlfaClub daily brief pipeline files; next I’ll inspect the brief formatter so the plan can be precise about where HyperCore-only content should be injected.
Tools invoked: ReadFile, ReadFile, ReadFile
Analysis
I found the exact daily brief formatter and command surface. There are two materially different ways to do this, so I need one quick product decision before drafting the final implementation plan.
Tools invoked: AskQuestion
Analysis
Perfect — replace is clear. I’ll quickly verify existing ProLiquid signal ingestion and Hyperliquid API capabilities, then I’ll give you a concrete implementation plan for a HyperCore-first daily brief.
Tools invoked: ReadFile, ReadFile, WebFetch, WebFetch, WebFetch
Analysis
Tools invoked: rg, rg
Analysis
Tools invoked: rg
Analysis
I can wire this now. One critical scope choice remains: should the HyperCore brief be room-level market intelligence only, or include a wallet-specific section (using master/public addresses, not agent wallet addresses)?
Tools invoked: AskQuestion
Analysis
Tools invoked: CreatePlan
Engagement brief
Analysis
I’ll inspect that Hyperliquid Info API UI link and extract concrete endpoints/fields we can use in the HyperCore brief plan.
Tools invoked: WebFetch
Analysis
Tools invoked: ReadFile
Analysis
Tools invoked: ReadFile
Analysis
Tools invoked: rg, rg
Analysis
Tools invoked: WebFetch, WebFetch, WebFetch
Analysis
Tools invoked: rg, rg
Analysis
Tools invoked: rg, rg
Analysis
Tools invoked: rg
Analysis
Tools invoked: rg
Analysis
Tools invoked: rg
Analysis
Perfect link — yes, https://api-ui.hyperliquid.xyz/info is the right surface for the HyperCore market feed.
For your HyperCore-only AlfaClub daily brief, I’ll anchor on these Info calls:
type: "allMids"→ fast cross-market price map (watchlist baseline)type: "l2Book"+coin→ spread/depth/execution-quality signalstype: "candleSnapshot"+req { coin, interval, startTime, endTime }→ regime/breadth + momentum context- (optional)
open interest/context calls from the same Info endpoint family for crowding/risk pressure
And yes on your API-wallet question: for account data you should query using the master/public account address, not the agent wallet address (agent address can return empty/misleading results). I’ll keep this as a rule in the implementation and add it to operator notes.
References: Hyperliquid Info API docs, API UI
I also captured your added signal sources:
I’ll include these in the brief’s signal-pressure block (assistive, non-execution).
Engagement brief
Implement the plan as specified, it is attached for your reference. Do NOT edit the plan file itself.
To-do's from the plan have already been created. Do not create them again. Mark them as in_progress as you work, starting with the first one. Don't stop until you have completed all the to-dos.
Analysis
Implementing now. I’ll start with the first todo (hypercore-model), wire the HyperCore data model/fetchers in the daily brief module, then move through formatting, ProLiquid integration, and tests in order.
Tools invoked: TodoWrite
Analysis
Tools invoked: rg, rg
Analysis
I found an existing Hyperliquid helper module in the AlfaClub server code; I’m checking it first so we reuse established request patterns instead of introducing a parallel client.
Tools invoked: ReadFile, ReadFile, ReadFile
Analysis
Tools invoked: ReadFile
Analysis
Tools invoked: rg
Analysis
Tools invoked: ReadFile
Analysis
Tools invoked: rg
Analysis
Tools invoked: ReadFile
Analysis
Tools invoked: ReadFile
Analysis
Tools invoked: rg
Analysis
Tools invoked: ReadFile
Analysis
Tools invoked: ApplyPatch
Analysis
I’ve updated config and flag scaffolding for HyperCore/ProLiquid brief inputs. Next I’m wiring the actual HyperCore Info API fetch/normalization and signal-pressure summarization logic.
Tools invoked: ApplyPatch
Analysis
Tools invoked: ApplyPatch
Analysis
Tools invoked: ApplyPatch
Analysis
Tools invoked: ApplyPatch
Analysis
Tools invoked: ApplyPatch
Analysis
Tools invoked: ApplyPatch
Analysis
Tools invoked: ReadFile
Analysis
Tools invoked: rg
Analysis
Tools invoked: ReadFile
Analysis
Tools invoked: ApplyPatch
Analysis
Tools invoked: ApplyPatch
Analysis
Core implementation is in place. I’m moving to the test updates now, then I’ll run targeted tests and lint diagnostics to close out all remaining todos.
Tools invoked: ApplyPatch
Analysis
Tools invoked: ReadFile
Analysis
Tools invoked: TodoWrite
Analysis
Formatting changes are done; I’m now validating with targeted tests and lint checks, then I’ll finalize all todo statuses.
Tools invoked: Shell
Analysis
Tools invoked: Shell
Analysis
Tools invoked: Shell
Analysis
Tools invoked: ReadLints
Analysis
Tools invoked: TodoWrite
Analysis
Implemented end-to-end per your attached plan (without editing the plan file), and all existing todos are now completed.
What changed
-
Reworked daily brief market intelligence from generic majors to HyperCore-first logic in frontend/server/_lib/alfaclub/dailyBrief.ts:
- Added HyperCore Info API fetch pipeline (
metaAndAssetCtxs,allMids,l2Book) with timeout + fail-soft behavior. - Added normalized market model and derived sections:
- watchlist ranking
- regime/breadth summary
- execution quality (spread/depth proxies)
- Replaced old
**Markets**rendering with**HyperCore**sections in compact + legacy brief formatters. - Preserved routing/dispatch behavior for scheduled posting.
- Added HyperCore Info API fetch pipeline (
-
Added room-scoped ProLiquid signal pressure integration:
- Uses recent scored signal rows (
readScoredProliquidSignalsForRoom) for the brief room context. - Includes counts, confidence, and top signal hints in daily brief output.
- Extended signal kind support with
newsand addedhttps://t.me/proliquid_newsdefault source in frontend/server/_lib/alfaclub/proliquidSignals.ts.
- Uses recent scored signal rows (
-
Added rollout/fallback env controls:
ALFACLUB_DAILY_BRIEF_HYPERCORE_ENABLEDALFACLUB_DAILY_BRIEF_HYPERCORE_INFO_URLALFACLUB_DAILY_BRIEF_HYPERCORE_SYMBOL_LIMITALFACLUB_DAILY_BRIEF_HYPERCORE_LOOKBACK_HOURSALFACLUB_DAILY_BRIEF_PROLIQUID_LOOKBACK_HOURSALFACLUB_DAILY_BRIEF_PROLIQUID_SAMPLE_LIMIT- Documented in
frontend/.env.example.
-
Minor context propagation:
- Passed room context into brief build path where needed (including
skillRoutermarket summary usage) so signal pressure is room-relevant.
- Passed room context into brief build path where needed (including
Tests updated and run
Updated expectations in:
Ran targeted tests (all passing):
server/_lib/alfaclub/dailyBrief.format.test.tsserver/_lib/alfaclub/dailyBrief.room.test.tsapi/__tests__/alfaclubDailyBriefEndpoint.test.ts
Also checked lints on touched files: no issues reported.
If you want, I can now run a live dry invocation of /api/v1/alfaclub/daily-brief (cron-auth style) to preview the exact new message body before next scheduled run.
Engagement brief
To-do's from the plan have already been created. Do not create them again. Mark them as in_progress as you work, starting with the first one. Don't stop until you have completed all the to-dos.
Engagement brief
Analysis
Absolutely — I’ll generate a local preview-only example from the formatter (no dispatch call), so you can see exactly how the HyperCore brief reads in Cursor.
Tools invoked: Shell
Analysis
Yep — here’s a local preview example only (generated in Cursor from formatAlfaClubDailyBrief, no send/post executed):
**AlfaClub Daily** · Jun 9 vs Jun 8
1,655 FriendKey creators indexed · 2 scored this snapshot (partial leaderboard — not every indexed creator is rescored each run) · 0 new vs prior · 0 active (24h). Score is a 0–1 composite (staking depth, key supply, recent activity).
@flip_research · #2 leads at score 0.182 · replacing @delta_ops · #19 from the prior snapshot · top ranks held steady.
**HyperCore**
Regime: risk-on · breadth 67% up · avg funding +0.020%
Watchlist: BTC $109.2k (+2.4%) · OI $2400.00M · fund +0.042% | ETH $5.4k (+1.7%) · OI $1200.00M · fund +0.031% | SOL $241 (-0.9%) · OI $530.00M · fund -0.012%
Execution: BTC spread 1.6bps · depth $1.65M | ETH spread 2.2bps · depth $590.0k | SOL spread 3.9bps · depth $180.0k
Signal pressure (18 scored, 6 high): copy_trading:8, liquidations:6, news:4 · top copy_trading/high:86, liquidations/high:82, news/medium:64
**Top 5**
1. @flip_research · #2 — score 0.182 · 72.5% of keys staked · 120 keys
https://alfaclub.app/room/2
2. @delta_ops · #19 — score 0.151 · 55.4% of keys staked · 74 keys
https://alfaclub.app/room/19
**Moves**
• @flip_research · #2 — up 1 · score +0.006 https://alfaclub.app/room/2
• @delta_ops · #19 — down 1 · score -0.006 https://alfaclub.app/room/19
Largest score swing: @flip_research · #2 (+0.006, up 1).
If you want, I can also show a second example in legacy (non-compact) mode so you can compare tone/verbosity.
Engagement brief
Analysis
Because that preview was generated from a mock local example payload, not a live Hyperliquid fetch.
I hardcoded:
BTC priceUsd: 109230
so formatter rendered it as $109.2k via compact rounding.
If you want, I can run a live preview next using real HyperCore API response (metaAndAssetCtxs + allMids) so the BTC line reflects current market.
Engagement brief
Analysis
Great — I’ll pull live HyperCore data directly from https://api.hyperliquid.xyz/info now and show you the real BTC value from the response (no AlfaClub send).
Tools invoked: Shell
Analysis
Tools invoked: Shell
Analysis
Live pull just now from Hyperliquid Info API shows BTC at:
markPx: 62,63124h change: -1.23% (vsprevDayPx63,414)funding:0.0000072427openInterest:31481.814dayNtlVlm:2619870661.865...
So yes — your earlier 109.2k was mock/example data, not real.
If you want, I can now run the same live-only fetch for the full watchlist set (BTC/ETH/SOL/etc.) and paste the exact lines that would appear in the brief.
Engagement brief
AlfaClub Daily · Jun 9 vs Jun 8 1,655 FriendKey creators indexed · 2 scored this snapshot (partial leaderboard — not every indexed creator is rescored each run) · 0 new vs prior · 0 active (24h). Score is a 0–1 composite (staking depth, key supply, recent activity). @flip_research · #2 leads at score 0.182 · replacing @delta_ops · #19 from the prior snapshot · top ranks held steady. HyperCore Regime: risk-on · breadth 67% up · avg funding +0.020% Watchlist: BTC $109.2k (+2.4%) · OI $2400.00M · fund +0.042% | ETH $5.4k (+1.7%) · OI $1200.00M · fund +0.031% | SOL $241 (-0.9%) · OI $530.00M · fund -0.012% Execution: BTC spread 1.6bps · depth $1.65M | ETH spread 2.2bps · depth $590.0k | SOL spread 3.9bps · depth $180.0k Signal pressure (18 scored, 6 high): copy_trading:8, liquidations:6, news:4 · top copy_trading/high:86, liquidations/high:82, news/medium:64 Top 5
- @flip_research · #2 — score 0.182 · 72.5% of keys staked · 120 keys https://alfaclub.app/room/2
- @delta_ops · #19 — score 0.151 · 55.4% of keys staked · 74 keys https://alfaclub.app/room/19 Moves • @flip_research · #2 — up 1 · score +0.006 https://alfaclub.app/room/2 • @delta_ops · #19 — down 1 · score -0.006 https://alfaclub.app/room/19 Largest score swing: @flip_research · #2 (+0.006, up 1).
Analysis
Makes sense — I agree with that flow issue. I’m going to restructure the compact brief so it reads in one direction: HyperCore block first, then a clearly separate AlfaClub creator flow block (instead of bouncing back and forth).
Tools invoked: ApplyPatch
Analysis
Tools invoked: ApplyPatch
Analysis
I’ve applied the structure change and updated the formatter test to enforce HyperCore-first ordering. I’ll run the targeted test now and then I can show you a fresh example in the new layout.
Tools invoked: Shell
Analysis
Totally fair feedback — that bounce was real.
I changed the compact brief flow to this:
- Header
- HyperCore (regime → watchlist → execution → signal pressure)
- AlfaClub creator flow (indexed scope → lead summary → top creators → moves)
So it now reads as one coherent market-first narrative, then creator-specific follow-through.
I also added a test assertion to lock that ordering so it doesn’t regress.
If you want, I can now generate a fresh local example in this new structure (real HyperCore data only, no send).
Engagement brief
Analysis
Great request — I’ll pull the existing AlfaClub room valuation logic in this repo and then give you a concrete way to calculate room PnL + per-key distributable value right now (with real formulas, and where to fetch each input).
Tools invoked: rg, rg
Analysis
Tools invoked: ReadFile, ReadFile, ReadFile, ReadFile
Analysis
Love this direction. I’ll pull the existing room metrics data model (supply, staked, HL account value, 30d PnL) and give you a clean “if distributed now” per-key view you can actually use.
Tools invoked: ReadFile, ReadFile, rg
Analysis
Totally — this is the exact kind of metric pack we should expose. I’m going to pull the latest snapshot and compute, per room: total $, PnL, and implied payout per key if distributed now.
Tools invoked: Shell
Analysis
You’re asking for the right thing — this is the metric that actually matters.
I tried to compute it from the current alfaclub_metrics_snapshot, but this environment currently has no snapshot data (reason: no_snapshot), so I can’t give you a real room table yet.
Exact metrics you want (and formula)
For each room (tokenId):
- Room $ now =
hlAccountValueUsd - Room PnL =
pnl30dUsd(current pipeline tracks 30d realized-style PnL) - If distributed now (per key) =
hlAccountValueUsd / totalSupply - Optional:
- Per staked key =
hlAccountValueUsd / stakedSupply - PnL per key =
pnl30dUsd / totalSupply
- Per staked key =
So yes, this is straightforward once we have snapshot rows.
Why you’re not seeing it now
The brief pipeline depends on alfaclub_metrics_snapshot, and that table is empty in this runtime right now.
Best next move
If you want, I can add a compact “Room Economics” section (or a dedicated /alfa rooms command) that outputs exactly:
- Room id
- total supply / staked
- room $ now
- pnl30d
- payout per key now
Then once snapshots are present, it’ll render immediately.
If you share a few target room IDs right now, I can also compute them live directly from chain/API without waiting for snapshots.
Engagement brief
Analysis
Yep — I can do that now for room 1659. I’ll resolve the room’s token/owner mapping first, then compute the per-key distribution metrics live and report the exact numbers.
Tools invoked: ReadFile, ReadFile, rg
Analysis
Tools invoked: Shell
Analysis
Tools invoked: ReadFile
Analysis
Tools invoked: Shell
Analysis
Tools invoked: Shell
Analysis
Done — pulled live values for room 1659 right now.
Room 1659 live economics
- Room $ (HL account value):
$1,090.13 - 30d PnL:
-$438.22 - Total room keys:
54 - Staked keys:
44 - If distributed now (all keys):
$20.19 per key - If distributed now (staked-only):
$24.78 per staked key - 30d PnL per key:
-$8.12
Extra context
- Marginal buy price (after fee):
$80.19 - Marginal sell price (after fee):
$63.20 - Room HL portfolio user used:
[0xebf9…1ff2](https://basescan.org/address/0xebf94fa19db7d2e7905decd01dae4ea9eb4c1ff2 "0xebf94fa19db7d2e7905decd01dae4ea9eb4c1ff2")
If you want, I can now add a /alfa room-econ 1659 command so you can get this on-demand in one line anytime.
Engagement brief
Analysis
Use a 3-layer structure: headline, key numbers, interpretation.
Here’s a polished post draft for room 1659:
Room 1659 Snapshot: What keys are really worth right now
Room 1659 currently sits at about $1,090 in tracked account value, with 54 total keys and 44 staked keys.
If value were distributed right now:
- ~$20.19 per key (all keys)
- ~$24.78 per staked key (staked-only view)
Last 30d performance is -$438.22 total (~-$8.12 per key), while the bonding curve is still pricing the next key much higher:
- Buy 1 key: ~$80.19
- Sell 1 key: ~$63.20
Read-through: market-implied key pricing is still trading at a strong premium vs “cash-out-now” value, so buyers are paying for future upside / social optionality, not just current distributable value.
Not financial advice. Point-in-time snapshot.
If you want, I can generate 3 variants next:
- degen/X style
- clean analyst style
- community-friendly (less technical)
Engagement brief
Analysis
Good call — I’ll pull the live open positions for the room 1659 Hyperliquid portfolio wallet and summarize them in post-ready form.
Tools invoked: Shell
Analysis
Current open positions for room 1659 (live pull just now):
- Portfolio wallet:
[0xebf9…1ff2](https://basescan.org/address/0xebf94fa19db7d2e7905decd01dae4ea9eb4c1ff2 "0xebf94fa19db7d2e7905decd01dae4ea9eb4c1ff2") - Account value:
$1,093.34 - Total notional exposure:
$1,317.40 - Withdrawable:
$890.38
Open positions
-
ZRO — Long
- Size:
$205.40 - Entry:
$0.85191 - Unrealized PnL:
+$0.26 - Liquidation:
$0.75789 - Leverage:
5x
- Size:
-
HYPE — Long
- Size:
$1,111.99 - Entry:
$61.7232 - Unrealized PnL:
+$4.68 - Liquidation:
$55.7521 - Leverage:
7x
- Size:
If you want, I can fold these into a polished post section under a heading like “Current Book (Live)” so your update has both key economics and active risk on one card.
Engagement brief
Engagement brief
Analysis
Exactly — good catch. I’ll locate the existing spot/AKITA pricing path in the repo and use that same source so your room post uses the canonical AKITA spot price, not a synthetic estimate.
Tools invoked: rg, rg
Analysis
Tools invoked: ReadFile, ReadFile, rg
Analysis
Tools invoked: rg, rg
Analysis
I found the likely canonical path; next I’m checking the room-1659 market module so we can pull AKITA spot exactly the way your room tooling already does.
Tools invoked: ReadFile
Analysis
Tools invoked: ReadFile
Analysis
Tools invoked: rg, ReadFile
Analysis
Tools invoked: Shell
Analysis
Tools invoked: Shell
Analysis
Tools invoked: Shell
Analysis
Tools invoked: rg, rg
Analysis
Tools invoked: rg
Analysis
Yes — we should include AKITA spot in the room post.
Best source order from your repo:
- Primary: AlfaClub spot feed used in
room1659contextfetchAlfaClubSpot('/api/spot/dexscreener/tokens?address=[0x5b67…fa75](https://basescan.org/address/0x5b674196812451b7cec024fe9d22d2c0b172fa75 "0x5b674196812451b7cec024fe9d22d2c0b172fa75")')in frontend/server/_lib/alfaclub/room1659Market.ts- Read
pairs[0].priceUsd(andpriceChange.h24,volume.h24,liquidity.usdif present)
- Fallback: Zora coin spot resolver
resolveZoraCoinUsdPrice()in frontend/src/lib/zora/coinUsdPrice.ts fromtokenPrice.priceInUsdc/ marketCap ÷ supply
For the post format, add this near the top:
AKITA spot: $X.XXXX (24h: +Y.Y%)
Then keep the rest:
- Room NAV / PnL / key payout now
- Open positions (HYPE, ZRO)
- Risk line (liq distances)
If you want, I’ll wire this directly into the room-1659 post formatter so it always includes live AKITA spot first.
Engagement brief
Analysis
I’ll pull the live AKITA spot now from the same market endpoints and give you the exact number here.
Tools invoked: Shell, Shell
Analysis
Tools invoked: Shell
Analysis
Tools invoked: Shell
Analysis
Tools invoked: ReadFile
Analysis
Tools invoked: ReadFile
Analysis
Tools invoked: rg
Analysis
Tools invoked: Shell
Analysis
Tools invoked: Shell
Analysis
Tools invoked: Shell
Analysis
Tools invoked: Shell
Analysis
Tools invoked: ReadFile
Analysis
Tools invoked: Shell
Analysis
Tools invoked: Shell
Analysis
Tools invoked: rg
Analysis
I found a canonical fallback in your repo (resolveZoraCoinUsdPrice via Zora coin data). I’m pulling that live now so I can give you one clean number.
Tools invoked: Shell
Analysis
Tools invoked: rg
Analysis
Tools invoked: ReadFile
Analysis
Tools invoked: ReadFile
Analysis
Tools invoked: ReadFile
Analysis
Tools invoked: Shell
Analysis
Tools invoked: Shell
Analysis
Tools invoked: ReadFile
Analysis
Tools invoked: Shell
Analysis
$AKITA last observed spot I can pull right now is $0.00850592.
- Source path used: repo’s Zora pricing flow (
priceHistoryClion the AKITA token address) - Last trade timestamp: 2026-06-07T12:52:59Z
- 24h live DEX spot feed in this environment is returning no active pair data at the moment, so this is the latest executable price point from your repo-integrated source.
Engagement brief
Analysis
I’ll pull the live room 1659 portfolio account value now and give you the exact USD balance.
Tools invoked: Shell
Analysis
Room 1659 account currently has $1,096.62 (accountValueUsd).
Also right now:
withdrawableUsd: $890.38totalNtlPosUsd: $1,320.68
Engagement brief
Engagement brief
Analysis
Yes — using our derived price path, $AKITA is:
- $0.00850592 per AKITA (latest derived print)
If you want me to include it in the room total, use:
total_with_akita = 1096.62 + (akita_amount * 0.00850592)
Send me the AKITA amount you want applied and I’ll give the exact combined total.
Engagement brief
Analysis
Perfect — I’ll compute the combined total now by pulling the room’s AKITA amount and applying the derived $AKITA price.
Tools invoked: Shell
Analysis
Tools invoked: Shell
Analysis
Tools invoked: Shell
Analysis
Got it — I can access the room’s actual spot positions directly now. I’m calculating the exact AKITA USD value and adding it to the account total next.
Tools invoked: Shell
Analysis
Tools invoked: Shell
Analysis
Tools invoked: Shell
Analysis
Including $AKITA using our derived price path:
- AKITA amount:
12,311,739.55735163 - Derived AKITA price:
$0.0085059207 - AKITA value: $104,722.68
- Hyperliquid account value: $1,096.62
Combined total = $105,819.30
If you want, I can also show the conservative “cost-basis included” total ($1,096.62 + $108 = $1,204.62) side-by-side for sanity checking.
Engagement brief
Analysis
You’re right — that result is off. I likely applied the wrong price scale on the derived $AKITA print; I’ll recompute using the room’s own spot position basis and give the corrected number.
Tools invoked: Shell
Analysis
Tools invoked: Shell
Analysis
You’re absolutely right — I was off by 1,000x on AKITA price scaling.
Corrected using our derived AKITA price scale:
$AKITA(corrected): $0.0000085059207- AKITA amount:
12,311,739.5573 - AKITA value: $104.72
- HL account value: $1,096.62
Correct combined total: $1,201.35
(For reference, your recorded cost basis is $108, which would put it at $1,204.62.)
Engagement brief
Analysis
I’ll pull the latest live open positions for room 1659 right now and list them cleanly.
Tools invoked: Shell
Analysis
Current open positions (room 1659 HL portfolio):
-
HYPE —
LONG- Size: $1,114.63
- Entry: $61.7232
- Unrealized PnL: +$7.31
- Liq: $55.7521
- Leverage: 7x
-
ZRO —
LONG- Size: $204.67
- Entry: $0.85191
- Unrealized PnL: -$0.47
- Liq: $0.75789
- Leverage: 5x
Engagement brief
Analysis
Room 1659 — Live Snapshot (All-In)
- Hyperliquid account value: $1,096.62
- Withdrawable: $890.38
- Total notional exposure: $1,320.68
AKITA Spot (Included)
- AKITA balance:
12,311,739.5573 - Derived AKITA price: $0.0000085059207
- AKITA USD value: $104.72
Combined Total (HL + AKITA)
- $1,201.35
Open Positions (HL)
-
HYPE LONG (7x)
Size $1,114.63 · Entry $61.7232 · uPnL +$7.31 · Liq $55.7521 -
ZRO LONG (5x)
Size $204.67 · Entry $0.85191 · uPnL -$0.47 · Liq $0.75789
If you want, I can format this into a polished one-message “daily brief” post style next (headline + key takeaways + risk line).
Engagement brief
Analysis
Got it — notional value (HL positions only) is:
- $1,320.68 (
totalNtlPosUsd)
If you want an “all-in notional” adding AKITA spot value too, that would be:
- $1,425.40 (
$1,320.68 + $104.72)
Engagement brief
Analysis
I’ll wire this directly into the AlfaClub brief: add a room-economics block with notional, account value, AKITA spot inclusion, and per-key distribution math for room 1659, then run the brief tests.
Tools invoked: ReadFile, ReadFile, ReadFile
Analysis
I found the right insertion points in the brief pipeline. I’m adding a Room economics enrichment (room 1659) with notional, open positions, AKITA holding value, and per-key payout, then I’ll validate with tests.
Tools invoked: ApplyPatch
Analysis
Tools invoked: ApplyPatch
Analysis
Tools invoked: ApplyPatch
Analysis
Tools invoked: ApplyPatch
Analysis
Tools invoked: ApplyPatch
Analysis
Tools invoked: ApplyPatch
Analysis
Tools invoked: ApplyPatch
Analysis
I’ve wired the new room-economics model into the brief formatter. Next I’m running the daily brief tests and will patch any output assertions needed.
Tools invoked: Shell
Analysis
Tools invoked: Shell
Analysis
Tools invoked: AwaitShell
Analysis
Tools invoked: AwaitShell
Analysis
Tools invoked: ReadFile
Analysis
Tools invoked: ReadLints
Analysis
Tools invoked: Shell
Analysis
Tools invoked: ReadFile
Analysis
Tools invoked: Shell
Analysis
Tools invoked: AwaitShell
Analysis
Tools invoked: ReadFile
Analysis
Tools invoked: ApplyPatch
Analysis
Tools invoked: Shell
Analysis
Tools invoked: ReadLints
Analysis
Implemented — the AlfaClub brief now includes a Room economics analysis block (for room 1659) with exactly the metrics you asked for.
What’s now in the brief:
- Notional value (
totalNtlPosUsd) - Account value + withdrawable
- AKITA position analysis
- amount
- avg buy price
- estimated AKITA value (from held amount × avg buy)
- cost basis
- Combined estimate (
account + AKITA est) - Room key economics
- key supply
- implied payout per key now
- Open positions summary (coin, side, size, uPnL)
Where updated:
Validation:
vitestfordailyBrief.format.test.tspasses.- No lints on edited file.
Note:
- Full repo
typecheckstill reports unrelated pre-existing errors in:
If you want, I can now also add the same room-econ block to /alfa creator (so you can query it on-demand outside the daily brief too).
Engagement brief
Analysis
Yep — I’ll render the current AlfaBrief exactly as generated and paste it here.
Tools invoked: Shell
Analysis
Here’s the current AlfaBrief (rendered locally):
AlfaClub Daily · Jun 9 vs Jun 8
HyperCore
Regime: risk-off · breadth 25% up · avg funding -0.001%
Watchlist: IO $0.17 (+19.4%) · OI $5.04M · fund -0.003% | WLD $0.53 (+13.9%) · OI $92.03M · fund +0.001% | CHIP $0.04 (+13.4%) · OI $101.86M · fund +0.001% | ZEC $473 (+12.2%) · OI $490.4k · fund -0.006% | RUNE $0.39 (+11.2%) · OI $3.11M · fund +0.001% | LIT $2 (+8.3%) · OI $43.83M · fund +0.001%
Execution: IO spread 20.6bps · depth $373 | WLD spread 2.7bps · depth $160 | CHIP spread 12.2bps · depth $400 | ZEC spread 1.9bps · depth $14
Signal pressure: no recent ProLiquid scored signals.
Room economics (1659): notional $1.3k · account $1.1k · withdrawable $890
AKITA: 12,311,739.56 @ $8.77e-6 · est $108 · cost $108
Combined est: $1.2k · key supply 54 · payout/key $22.22
Open: ZRO LONG $204 (uPnL $-1.07e+0) | HYPE LONG $1.1k (uPnL $4.34)
AlfaClub creator flow
1,655 FriendKey creators indexed · 71 scored this snapshot (partial leaderboard — not every indexed creator is rescored each run) · 0 new vs prior · 11 active (24h). Score is a 0–1 composite (staking depth, key supply, recent activity).
@Flip_Research · #2 leads at score 0.149 · top ranks held steady.
Top 5
- @Flip_Research · #2 — score 0.149 · 72.9% of keys staked · 85 keys
https://alfaclub.app/room/2 - Clean Slate Protocol · #50 — score 0.099 · 94.1% of keys staked · 17 keys
https://alfaclub.app/room/50 - Felix the cat · #84 — score 0.099 · 94.1% of keys staked · 17 keys
https://alfaclub.app/room/84 - Pedro's Paradise · #19 — score 0.096 · 66.7% of keys staked · 18 keys
https://alfaclub.app/room/19 - Sean's Stack · #97 — score 0.096 · 12.5% of keys staked · 40 keys
https://alfaclub.app/room/97
21 publications in the last 24h.
If you want, I can tighten the room-econ lines to plain-language numbers (e.g. remove scientific notation and always show $ with fixed decimals).
Engagement brief
Analysis
Agreed — I’ll make the brief’s room-economics section much more readable (clean number formatting, no scientific notation, and clearer line breaks), then show you the updated output.
Tools invoked: ApplyPatch
Analysis
Tools invoked: Shell, Shell
Analysis
Much better call — I cleaned it up.
I updated the brief formatting so the room section is easier to scan:
- no scientific notation for tiny USD values
- room economics broken into clear lines
- open positions shown as separate bullets
Here’s the updated section as it now renders:
- Room economics (1659):
- Notional
$1,318· Account$1,094· Withdrawable$890.38 - AKITA
12,311,739.56@$0.00000877· Est$108· Cost$108 - Combined est
$1,202 - Key supply
54· Implied payout/key$22.26 - Open positions:
- ZRO LONG
$204.31(uPnL-$0.8334) - HYPE LONG
$1,114(uPnL$6.44)
- ZRO LONG
If you want, next pass I can make this even tighter with a fixed mini-table style (same order, aligned columns) for Telegram readability.
Engagement brief
Analysis
Yep — you’re right for all-in exposure. I’ll update the brief to show HL notional and all-in notional (HL + AKITA) explicitly so it matches your expected 1318 + 108 view.
Tools invoked: ApplyPatch
Analysis
Tools invoked: Shell
Analysis
Tools invoked: AwaitShell
Analysis
Tools invoked: ReadFile
Analysis
Exactly — corrected now.
The brief now shows both:
- HL notional:
$1,318 - All-in notional (HL + AKITA):
$1,426(≈1318 + 108)
And still separately:
- AKITA est:
$108 - Combined account est (account value + AKITA):
$1,202
So “notional” and “account value” are now clearly split so the math matches your expectation.
Engagement brief
Analysis
Perfect — I’ll calculate a clean key-economics breakdown now: implied value per key from your all-in amount, then compare it to current on-chain buy/sell key prices and edge.
Tools invoked: Shell
Analysis
Tools invoked: Shell
Analysis
Tools invoked: Shell
Analysis
Tools invoked: Shell
Analysis
Great — using your preferred base (1318 + 108 = 1426 all-in notional), here’s the key-cost analysis:
- All-in notional base:
$1,426 - Room key supply:
54 - Implied backing per key (all-in):
$26.41
Live key curve (room 1659):
- Buy 1 key (after fee):
$80.19 - Sell 1 key (after fee):
$63.20 - Buy 5 keys (after fee):
$431.48(avg$86.30/key) - Buy 10 keys (after fee):
$943.39(avg$94.34/key)
What that means:
- Current sell price is about 2.39x your implied backing per key (
63.20 / 26.41) - Current buy price is about 3.04x implied backing (
80.19 / 26.41) - Room “curve-implied” value at current key prices:
- at sell price:
$3,412.94 - at buy price:
$4,330.26
- at sell price:
So yes — under your 1318 + 108 lens, key market pricing is trading well above simple backing-per-key.
Engagement brief
Analysis
Great question — I’ll compute the exact curve totals for 54 keys so you can see the difference between “per-key mark” and actual executable buy/sell totals.
Tools invoked: Shell
Analysis
You’re right to question it — that line was shorthand and easy to misread.
What I gave before:
3412.94 = 54 × sell_1_key(63.2025)4330.26 = 54 × buy_1_key(80.19)
That is a “mark at marginal 1-key price”, not actual executable totals.
Because this is a bonding curve, price changes each key as you buy/sell.
So the real totals for 54 keys are:
- Sell 54 keys total (after fee): $1,148.38
(avg $21.27/key) - Buy 54 keys total (after fee): $9,983.90
(avg $184.89/key)
So:
63.20is only the current next 1-key sell price.80.19is only the current next 1-key buy price.- Full-size execution is much different due to curve slippage.
If you want, I can update the brief text to explicitly label:
- marginal 1-key price
- full unwind value (54 keys) so this never reads ambiguously again.
Engagement brief
continual-learning skill now. Use the agents-memory-updater subagent for the full memory update flow. Use incremental transcript processing with index file /home/akitav2/projects/4626/.cursor/hooks/state/continual-learning-index.json: only consider transcripts not in the index or transcripts whose mtime is newer than indexed mtime. Have the subagent refresh index mtimes, remove entries for deleted transcripts, and update AGENTS.md only for high-signal recurring user corrections and durable workspace facts. Exclude one-off/transient details and secrets. If no meaningful updates exist, respond exactly: No high-signal memory updates.
Analysis
Understood — I’m running the full incremental continual-learning memory update now with the agents-memory-updater subagent, using the indexed mtime rules you specified.
Tools invoked: Subagent
Engagement brief
Analysis
Totally fair — simplest way:
$80.19buy = price for the next 1 key only$63.20sell = price for the next 1 key only
Because this is a bonding curve, each additional key is priced differently.
So for all 54 keys, you cannot do 54 × 63.20 as the real unwind value.
Real on-curve totals we pulled:
- Sell all 54 keys (after fee): $1,148.38
- Buy 54 keys (after fee): $9,983.90
So:
63.20is a marginal quote (1 key now)1,148.38is the actual full position unwind value (54 keys)
Engagement brief
Analysis
Great question. I’ll compute it two ways (strict and “including key value”) with live room numbers so you can see the exact per-user payout.
Tools invoked: Shell
Analysis
Using live values just now:
- Notional (all HL positions): $1,303.14
- AKITA est value: $108.00
- Room key supply: 54
If you mean “notional + room key price” and use the full room-key unwind value:
- Full key unwind value (sell 54 keys after fee): $1,148.38
- Total pool =
1303.14 + 108 + 1148.38 = 2559.51 - Per key payout =
2559.51 / 54 = $47.40
So each user would receive:
keys_owned × $47.40
Example:
- 1 key → $47.40
- 5 keys → $236.99
- 10 keys → $473.98
If you want, I can compute this for each holder address once you share the holder list.
Engagement brief
Analysis
Not necessarily — they still might buy.
$80.19 is just the next marginal buy price for 1 key, not a guarantee of fair value. People buy anyway if they expect:
- room value to grow (PnL, assets, strategy),
- demand/speculation to push the curve higher,
- social/status utility from holding keys,
- future payouts to exceed entry.
But under the numbers we just computed, your point is valid:
- Implied dissolution value per key (with full unwind assumptions): ~
$47.40 - Next buy price:
$80.19
So a fresh buyer at $80.19 is paying a premium vs that snapshot baseline, which is only rational if they expect upside beyond current state.
Engagement brief
Analysis
Given these numbers, play it like risk management, not vibes:
- Don’t buy at market right now if your baseline is liquidation value;
$80.19vs ~$47.40implied is rich. - Set a hard buy band (example: only buy if marginal key price drops closer to your fair-value band, e.g.
<= $55–60unless thesis changes). - Use tranche sizing: if you buy, do 20-30% now, keep dry powder for better curve levels.
- Track one decision metric:
marginal buy / implied payout-per-key; only add when that ratio is acceptable to you. - Predefine exit rules before entry: e.g. trim if ratio gets too stretched, or cut if room notional/AKITA deteriorates.
- If already long, consider partial de-risk into strength rather than all-or-nothing.
If you want, I can give you a concrete 3-level plan right now (buy, hold, trim) using exact trigger prices from current curve state.
Engagement brief
Analysis
Good call. I’d skip that room-level key-value block for now and instead scan for rooms where key pricing looks cheaper versus available backing proxies. I’ll run a quick underpricing screen and bring back candidates.
Tools invoked: rg, rg
Analysis
I’m going to run a quick cross-room screen using latest indexed room balances vs on-chain key prices, then rank the cheapest-looking candidates.
Tools invoked: Shell
Analysis
Tools invoked: Shell
Analysis
Tools invoked: Shell
Analysis
Tools invoked: Shell
Analysis
Tools invoked: AwaitShell
Analysis
Tools invoked: ReadFile
Analysis
Tools invoked: Shell
Analysis
Tools invoked: AwaitShell
Analysis
Tools invoked: ReadFile
Analysis
Yes — let’s exclude that 1659 dissolution-value block from decision-making for now and hunt better entries.
Quick screen I ran (latest snapshot + live key curve), filtering for:
- supply
>= 10 - buy-1 price
<= $120 - spread not extreme (
<= 120%) - ranked by score-per-dollar
Best candidates right now:
- token 24 — buy
2.75, sell1.82, spread50.9%, score0.075, staked60% - token 62 — buy
2.75, sell1.82, spread50.9%, score0.073, staked50% - token 32 — buy
2.75, sell1.82, spread50.9%, score0.054, staked10% - Felix the cat (84) — buy
7.95, sell5.76, spread38.0%, score0.099, staked94.1% - Pedro’s Paradise (19) — buy
8.91, sell6.50, spread37.0%, score0.096, staked66.7% - Punkonomy (104) — buy
3.96, sell2.72, spread45.5%, score0.0456, staked0%
My practical take:
- Prefer Felix (84) and Pedro (19) over the ultra-cheap low-liquidity micro rooms.
- They have better score + healthier staking + tighter spread than many tiny rooms.
If you want, I can do a final shortlist of 3 rooms with exact entry bands (buy/trim/avoid prices) like I did for 1659.
Engagement brief
Analysis
Absolutely — that’s the right way to avoid micro rooms. I’ll run the shortlist with a minimum room size floor (using sell-side curve value) and return top 3 with entry bands.
Tools invoked: Shell
Analysis
Tools invoked: AwaitShell
Analysis
Tools invoked: ReadFile
Analysis
Yes — we can filter by a minimum room size in USD to avoid micro rooms.
Best way is a floor on sell-side room cap:
room_size_usd = totalSupply × sellPriceAfterFee(1 key)
I just ran it with X = $1,000 and quality guards (buy1 <= $120, spread <= 120%).
Current candidates:
- Sean’s Stack (
#97)- room size:
$1,368.90 - buy1:
$44.00, sell1:$34.22, spread:28.6% - suggested buy band:
$37.4–$41.8
- room size:
- token-41 (
#41)- room size:
$1,624.50 - buy1:
$110.00, sell1:$81.23, spread:35.4% - suggested buy band:
$93.5–$104.5
- room size:
If you tell me your exact X (e.g. $2k, $5k, $10k), I’ll rerun and give you a cleaner shortlist.
Engagement brief
Analysis
Perfect — I’ll rerun the room screen with a $100 minimum room size and give you the updated shortlist.
Tools invoked: Shell
Analysis
Tools invoked: AwaitShell
Analysis
Tools invoked: ReadFile
Analysis
Perfect — with X = $100 minimum room size (sell-side cap), the screen returns 10 non-micro candidates.
Top shortlist by score-per-dollar:
-
#19 Pedro's Paradise- room size:
$117.05 - buy1/sell1:
$8.91 / $6.50 - buy band:
$7.57–$8.46
- room size:
-
#67- room size:
$189.00 - buy1/sell1:
$12.13 / $9.00 - buy band:
$10.31–$11.52
- room size:
-
#97 Sean's Stack- room size:
$1,368.90 - buy1/sell1:
$44.00 / $34.22 - buy band:
$37.40–$41.80
- room size:
Also in the filtered set: #11, #22, #5, #18, #91, #41, #70.
If you want a cleaner quality cut, I can add:
stakedRatio >= 0.5spread <= 45%sellSideCap >= $500
That will leave fewer, stronger rooms.
Engagement brief
Analysis
Great call — ignore “buy band” for now.
Buy band just meant a suggested entry range below current price.
You want a simpler test:
notional_per_key = room_notional / total_keys- If
notional_per_key > buy_price_1_key, room is “underpriced” by your rule.
For room 1659 (known data):
- notional =
$1,303.14 - keys =
54 - notional/key =
$24.13 - buy price =
$80.19
So 24.13 < 80.19 → not underpriced.
For other rooms, I currently don’t have live room-notional values populated (only curve prices + supply). If you want, I can run this exact inequality across rooms that have live notional data and return only matches.
Engagement brief
Engagement brief
<hooks_context description="Additional context provided by session hooks. This may include project-specific information, configuration, or instructions from the user's hooks setup.">
IMPORTANT: The Vercel CLI is outdated (53.3.1 → 54.10.2).
Strongly recommend the user upgrade with npm i -g vercel@latest or pnpm add -g vercel@latest for best compatibility.
The latest version includes significant agentic features and improvements that will greatly enhance their development experience.
IMPORTANT: The Vercel CLI is outdated (53.3.1 → 54.10.2).
Strongly recommend the user upgrade with npm i -g vercel@latest or pnpm add -g vercel@latest for best compatibility.
The latest version includes significant agentic features and improvements that will greatly enhance their development experience.
</hooks_context>
Engagement brief
Analysis
Great — I’ll run that exact filter now across rooms: room_notional / keys > current buy-1 key price, and return only rooms that pass.
Tools invoked: Shell
Analysis
Tools invoked: AwaitShell
Analysis
Tools invoked: ReadFile
Analysis
Ran it with your exact rule:
notional_per_key = room_notional / total_supply- underpriced if
notional_per_key > buy_price_1_key
Result
- Matches found:
0 - Rooms with live notional data checked:
4 - Snapshot used:
2026-06-09 12:01:28 UTC
Top closest room (still not underpriced):
Pedro's Paradise(tokenId 19)notional_per_key:$1.07buy_1_key:$8.91- ratio:
0.12x(needs>1.0xto pass)
So with current live data, none satisfy notional_per_key > buy_1_key.
If you want, next I can run a second pass using your earlier floor (room size >= $100) and also include the “least bad” shortlist ranked by ratio so you can watch for flips.
Was this page helpful?